Hosta

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an account on Wikipedia. However, editing the RfA page is limited to extended confirmed users, so editors without an extended confirmed account may have their RfA subpage transcluded by someone who is. This is due to the community deeming that editors without the requisite experience (500 edits and 30 days of experience) are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship.^[1] The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll. If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA, but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters". There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence. To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting, or responding to comments, in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like "baiting") consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.^[2] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".^[3] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Current nominations for adminship

DanCherek

(talk page) (206/0/0); Scheduled to end 19:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

DanCherek (talk · contribs) – DanCherek is a consistently excellent editor and one I am very happy to nominate for adminship. Friendly and knowledgeable, Dan is a strong force in the anti– copyright violations field with over 16,500 reviews at Copypatrol and is one of the most frequent requesters of RD1 revision deletions and G12s. Dan is also a regular at contributor copyright investigations, and consistently offers help to those asking questions about copyright at noticeboards and his talk page. Aside from his work in the copyright arena, Dan is a prolific content creator with a featured article, a featured list, 15 good articles, and over 70 did you know hooks. Dan is also a frequent face at the Resource Request, processing several requests there, and is always willing to collaborate with others. DanCherek is a skilled editor with a good attitude and temperament– I have no doubt he will be a great administrator, and hope the community feels the same. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I am happy to co-nominate DanCherek for administrator. He's been active on Wikipedia as a content contributor, working on promoting articles to GA status and participating at DYK, and has a Featured Article as well. At CopyPatrol, he's at the number three spot on our all-time leaderboard, and has been tirelessly clearing the bulk of the reports for many months now; and he has some experience with other back-of-house tasks as well. He's a good and patient communicator, has a steady temperament, and has a clean block log. I think he's a great candidate. — Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, with thanks to Moneytrees and Diannaa. I have never edited for pay. A decade ago, as a minor, I made several trivial copyedits from a previous account. For privacy reasons, that account (to which I have since lost access) has been disclosed to ArbCom and my nominators. DanCherek (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: I have immensely enjoyed editing Wikipedia and I'd like the chance to continue contributing to the community in this additional capacity. More specifically, I've worked on copyright cleanup on Wikipedia for over a year – primarily assessing reports at CopyPatrol and occasionally clearing out CCI cases – and that often results in requests for revision deletion (RD1) or speedy deletion (CSD G12). Having the ability to carry these out myself and to fulfill others' requests would be extremely useful. Based on my past experience with additional areas of the project such as counter-vandalism, I'm also interested in helping out with evaluating requests at WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and other speedy deletion categories.

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

A: I love writing on Wikipedia about topics that are interesting to me (and hopefully others), and I am particularly proud of a couple of the articles that I've created or expanded. I really enjoyed working on A Beautiful Crime, a featured article for which I received the Four Award; it appeared on the Main Page as the TFA on January 29, 2022. I've also helped promote a featured list (List of awards and nominations received by Jake Gyllenhaal) and various good articles such as Chaconne in G minor, The Old French Tristan Poems, and W. Sterling Cary. (A big shout-out to the reviewers whose feedback helped get those articles to their current states!) Additionally, I am glad to have been able to use my institution's library collection to fulfill hundreds of source requests at the Resource Exchange, since I know that sometimes a single source can make all the difference for a given article.

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: Working in copyright cleanup on Wikipedia can be tricky. It requires nuance because you are primarily interacting with good-faith contributors – editors who are trying to make articles better but who may not be familiar with certain aspects of Wikipedia's copyright policy. It's perfectly natural for one to feel frustrated when their edit is partially or wholly reversed, and I think that being able to recognize and empathize with that kind of reaction is a good starting point for de-escalating conflicts that may arise. In such situations, I will also double-check my work, recognizing that I am far from perfect and, like everyone else, will make mistakes from time to time. If that happens, it's important to apologize and self-revert if needed. In general, I don't find myself getting stressed over Wikipedia, but I've learned that taking a break and spending a few hours doing real-life things, away from the computer, is often helpful for regaining perspective on editing disputes or other tense situations.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Idoghor Melody

4. I have already supported this RFA, but let me ask. Would you ever block an Administrator when necessary? And would your process for doing so be the same process as blocking an editor who isn't an admin? If not, what would you do differently?

A: Thanks for the question. With an expanded toolset, administrators are in a position of community trust and are held to the same expectations that apply to non-admins, plus a few additional important ones. So while I think there is a reasonable expectation that an admin should not be engaging in block-worthy activity, they don't get some kind of special immunity if they are. All that being said, I want to emphasize that I plan to start slow if this RfA is successful, and any blocks I place in the near term would likely be of the AIV/UAA variety.

Optional question from Toadspike

5. What are your thoughts on voluntary recall processes, and will you hold yourself to any? This question seems almost obligatory at RfAs now and I'm surprised no one has asked.

A: I appreciate the question. Yes, I would be open to recall. I think the sample process makes sense and would be willing to have that, or something similar, outlined on my user page if this RfA is successful. But, you can't really talk about recall without acknowledging the fact that there hasn't been a successful recall petition in a decade (if I "recall" correctly). Some are opposed to such a non-binding commitment, which isn't an unreasonable perspective. In almost all cases where an admin has really messed up, they'll either acknowledge it and offer to resign the tools upon a simple request, or they'll dispute it and it probably gets taken to WP:ARC. The recall process attempts to be a middle ground, but it's easy to see why some skeptical editors feel that it is redundant to either of those outcomes. More important than this debate over recall or not: as an administrator, I would do my best to use the toolset carefully, and to listen and respond in good faith to any concerns that are raised on my talk page or elsewhere.

Optional question from CollectiveSolidarity

6. You have already met 8/10 points out of my criteria, but I would like to ask you : What was your biggest mistake made while editing? And what did you learn from it?

A: Thanks for asking! Recently, I felt pretty bad when I made specific commitments to improve certain articles for The Core Contest and a featured article review (these were happening at the same time), and then made far less progress on each than I had hoped for, due to a combination of real-life things and poor time management on my part. Though I know we're all just volunteers, giving up on those felt like a letdown to myself and others who had offered kind encouragement or advice for those projects. Going forward I am being more careful about what I take on, and more generally about balancing various things that are going on, because it's important for me to try my best at following through on things when I say I'll do them and because these commitments can affect others as well.

Optional question from Banks Irk

7. Another editor asked this question in a much more politic way, but the question was deleted because they asked it as an IP rather than logged in under their username. Did you edit under a different account or accounts prior to your current account? Was that account blocked for any reason?Banks Irk (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

A. Thanks for the question. As I mentioned above in the acceptance statement, I made a dozen grammar-correcting edits in high school from another account. None of the edits were reverted, and the account was never warned or blocked. I haven't directly linked it here because the account contains personal information (like my real name), and so I chose to instead submit the information to ArbCom last year, as well as my nominators prior to the start of this RfA. I will also extend the offer to share the details with any functionary upon request. After that brief stint, I moved on to other hobbies, and did not make any more edits to Wikipedia until December 2020 when I registered this account. So, how did I find my way back to Wikipedia? As someone who was interested in various statewide and federal politics in the U.S., I found myself reading Wikipedia more and more in 2020 (a big electoral year) because articles like 2020 United States Senate elections made it so easy to keep track of them. When I signed up, I thought that would be where I would spend the most time editing – and I did for a while, though I eventually got tired of it. A quick comment on edit count, while I'm here, since it was brought up previously: I've never really concerned myself with my edit count, or that of other editors – it's all quite meaningless to me because I can make a single edit like this one which is obviously very substantive (not pictured: the week I spent writing that in the preview window without hitting "Publish changes"), while in the same amount of time I could fire up any number of semi-automated tools and make thousands of easier edits. So having X number of edits simply means I carried out a lot of round-robin page moves recently, or disambiguated a bunch of wikilinks a year ago. I consider those contributions pretty immaterial in terms of the actual ones that I'm proud of, such as the ones listed in the answer to Q2.

Optional question from Your Power

8. One primary role of administrators is to mediate disputes between two or more editors. That said, do you have any plans to spend much of your time in the extraordinarily spicy disputes of enwiki, such as those in discretionary sanctions areas or ANI?

A: I don't really expect to get too involved with discretionary sanctions for a couple of reasons, though I know that there has been a perpetual need for more admins at WP:AE and I appreciate those who volunteer there. Personally, I'm not very familiar with the venue and I sometimes find the discussion structure a little hard to navigate. I don't particularly want to add it to my watchlist, either, and per my answer to Q6, I want to be careful about not stretching myself too thin across too many areas of the project. So while I won't say "never", I will say "not in the near future". I've found ANI useful a couple times as a non-administrator, such as in cases of persistent copyright issues or requests for revoking talk page access. I would continue to try to keep an eye on it, and if I think I can be helpful by weighing in on a discussion or taking some action, I will, though I don't see myself prioritizing it over either content creation or copyright cleanup.

Optional question from Dr.Pinsky

9. Which Wikipedia policy do you believe is most important and why?

A: Consensus – the thing that enables millions of editors of different backgrounds to come together and produce a resource as staggeringly wide-ranging as this one. Without it, Wikipedia would be an incoherent mess, or more likely it would never have been able to take off in the first place. Our treatment of consensus come quite a long way since this 816-word character creation, and it can be easy to get lost in the minutiae, but it's the common thread that runs through every discussion – including this RfA – and helps us get anything done.

Optional question from Wugapodes

10. An editor adds text from a 1957 journal article originally published in the United States, claiming the text is in the public domain. How would you evaluate this claim, and in what circumstances (if any) would you use revision deletion? (I realize this is rather vague, so if you'd like me to be more specific just ask; I'm more interested in your thought process so feel free to give broad strokes.)

A: Thanks for the interesting question. There are a few things I would check for here, given the claim. The publication date of 1957 means that it's not old enough to automatically be public domain based on the date alone, so this needs a more detailed examination. If it was an article authored by a U.S. federal government employee and published by a federal government agency like the National Park Service or the United States Forest Service (for example, any of the articles listed at Treesearch), then they are likely correct. Same goes for government agencies of specific states such as California or Florida. If it's not a government work, then we should check for the presence of a copyright notice; for an article first published in the U.S. before 1978, if it doesn't have one, then it's in the public domain. But I would generally expect there to be a copyright notice for a journal publication. We also need to consider copyright renewal, because anything published in the U.S. before 1964 whose copyright was not renewed is in the public domain. This is often annoying to check but resources like the Copyright Renewal Database can be helpful. (TL;DR: Hirtle chart.) If there is an original copyright notice with renewal, then some kind of copyright is likely still in effect, but it's also worth checking to see if the journal has since released the content under a compatibly-free license such as CC BY 4.0, because that affects how we would proceed.

Hopefully at this point we have an idea of whether it is in the public domain, copyright but compatibly licensed, or copyright and not compatibly licensed. If it's in the public domain, then it doesn't need to be removed from the article, but I would recommend using {{PD-notice}} or a similar template to let readers know that content was copied from the source, and to meet our guidelines on plagiarism. We'd proceed similarly if it was compatibly licensed, adding appropriate attribution in the edit summary and/or with a template like {{CC-notice}}. If the text is copyright and not compatibly licensed, then it needs to be removed from the article and possibly revision deleted. When to use revision deletion essentially boils down to how recently the text was added, how significant of an edit it was, and how many intervening edits by other editors would be hidden as "collateral damage". Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Large-scale use is the relevant guidance for that. (I am happy to further expound on my thoughts about this if anyone wants to ask a follow-up question.)

If it's a fairly unambiguous violation or non-violation, then it should be relatively straightforward to deal with. For more complicated cases, Wikipedia:Copyright problems is a great venue for flagging potential violations; allowing a reasonable amount of time to get them sorted out, rewritten, or to demonstrate that it's not a copyright violation; and to get the input of additional experienced copyright editors.

Optional question from Weeklyd3

11. (This is optional, feel free to ignore this. You already have my "support" !vote.) Let's say you are an administrator and see an account with a username "Example Company Marketing" adding extremely promotional text to the article "Example Company" that would have been deleted under CSD G11 if it was an article alone. The addition of promotional text is the first and only edit the account has made. Do you warn the user about the username and spamming policies, or do you block the user?

A: That's a pretty clear violation of the part of the username policy that disallows shared use: Usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia if they [...] only describe a particular role, title, position, department, or a group or team of people within a parent organization or group that can be represented or held by multiple people or by different people. Based on that and your description of their singular edit, a {{Uw-spamublock}} seems appropriate in this case – I would want to see not only the username issue resolved, but also an understanding of our conflict of interest and NPOV policies/guidelines.

Optional question from 2nd Ias

12. Is there any advice you would give to users becoming administrators in the future?

A: I don't want to get ahead of myself and start commenting on the process before it's over, but Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates sums it up pretty well. I think it's important for any candidate to have a solid reason for requesting the tools (wanting to be an admin in and of itself is not a reason) and a good understanding of current community norms and expectations.

Question from Ruwaym

13.How much you consider yourself a global-minded? Do you have any personal ethics to deal with users from around the world who come to English Wikipedia?

A: That Wikipedia is made up of contributors from all around the world is one of our greatest strengths. One of my favorite things to see is the spirit of collaboration at a venue like WP:RX, where people will sometimes ask for sources that can be accessed only from a particular region, and those requests will be fulfilled thanks to other editors who live there! That kind of cross-collaboration benefits our articles and, consequently, our readers. So it's important to support and retain editors of different backgrounds, and that means not only keeping in mind that people might be used to different cultural norms, but also not making negative (or really any) assumptions based on where someone is from.

Discussion

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

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

Support

1. Seen him around quite often and always been highly impressed. I keep forgetting he isn't already an admin! --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 19:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Per noms. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 19:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
3. Aw, heck yeah! DanCherek is a pleasure to work with—knowledgeable, thorough, unfailingly collegial. What a great addition to the admin corps. Thanks for standing! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
4. Strong Support Very, very happy to see this. It would be great to have another copyright admin around. Thanks Dan for running! Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 19:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
5. A strong overall contributor with the right temperament to be an admin. Thanks for putting your name forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
6. Support No apparent reason to oppose. PhantomTech[talk] 19:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
7. Support 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 19:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
8. Support with pleasure. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
9. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
10. Support - No reason to oppose. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
11. Support, appears to be a quality contributor who does a lot of good. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
12. Support thought he was one already.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
13. Support - Copyright clean-up is an important area and it's good to have an experienced person taking on being an admin in that field. FOARP (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
14. There are a few people whose judgment I trust enough that I think they should just be able to make anyone they want an admin immediately. Diannaa is one of them. No offense to Moneytrees, who I'm sure is a fine judge of character, nor Dan, who I'm sure would impress me if I researched his contribs. Anyway, looks like it's going to be one of those 200-3-7 RFA's. For added excitement, would you like me to jinx it the way I jinxed User:Tamzin's? Oh, wait, I just did. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

    Ah, the Floquenbeam curse. A widely-feared hiccup in adminship nominations.^[Humour] casualdejekyll 20:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

    Kinehore. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

15. Support - excellent CCI experience, happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
16. Support; superb candidate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
17. Support: Great editor to see and deserves to have the admin mop. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 20:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
18. Support, seen them around--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
19. Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
20. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
21. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
22. Support NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 20:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
23. Support casualdejekyll 20:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
24. Support a FA, many GAs and DYKs, great work in the copyright area, no concerns. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 20:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
25. Support Why not? --Victor Trevor (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
26. Support as per my co-nomination statement. — Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
27. Support Seen Dan around, they've got a use for the mop, and have some impressive content to boot. In other news, I think this may be my first RfA vote! I keep missing them... Toadspike (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
28. Support: Excellent user. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC) (Edit conflict x2 by Dylan620 per Special:Diff/1101988538)
29. Support the users contribution have influenced me to do so.--Noman☆ (Talk) 20:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
30. Support - hako9 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
31. Support — My interactions with DanCherek have been limited to good article reviews, where he has produced some of the finest articles I have reviewed. I am also aware of his excellent copyrights-related work and he should make for a diligent administrator. — The Most Comfortable Chair 20:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
32. Support – more hands are always needed at CCI, and DanCherek is certainly qualified to wield the mop. –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
33. Support - Seems generally helpful, and no reason to think they'd abuse the tools. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
34. Support. I thought you were an admin already! — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
35. Support. Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
36. Support per nominators I like the strength of the work with COPYVIO's. Knowledgeable, capable, clear thinking and easy to get along with.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
37. Support - Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 21:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
38. Support of course. Copyright is an area that is important and understaffed. I'm sure they'll appreciate the help! –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
39. Support per nom, I can honestly say, when it comes to this user's DYK contributions, I did not know. Andrevan@ 21:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
40. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
41. Support scope_creep^Talk 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
42. Support Looks like a great candidate. --Canley (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
43. Support: an excellent content creator and a very valuable member of our project for getting his hands dirty with CCI stuff. He seemingly has endless patience to answer questions and speak politely to people who are (unintentionally) adding many hours to our labour time. A recommendation from Diannaa and Moneytrees is a huge reassurance. When seeing his name around before, I've been surprised at how new he is, though it's now 18 months, which is not so little. If this passes, will it be our first sysop who joined in the 2020s? — Bilorv (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

    @Bilorv, technically yes, although Blablubbs, while having created their account in 2014, realistically only really joined in June 2020. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 23:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)>

44. Support, one of those people I always vaguely think is an admin anyway based on their work and comportment, so it'll be nice to no longer have to correct myself on that. Plus, anyone who wants to come work at CCI/CP as an admin has my support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
45. Support: Absolutely. He's clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and is handling difficulties with patience and class. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
46. I've looked through a sample of about a hundred pages the candidate tagged for non-G12 csd, and haven't found any I disagree with. Not even one that I have so much as a quibble with. That's a better error rate than just about any admin gets. —Cryptic 22:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
47. Support: no issues; NOBIGDEAL. HouseBlaster^talk 22:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
48. Support. Copyright experience is a huge plus. ––FormalDude talk 22:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
49. Support If I had misgivings, it would be on the order of too soon with just two years of editing, and 100+ edits per day, the vast majority of which are non-substantive, but in the spirit of "first, do no harm", this nomination does not arouse misgivings. When handed the mop, I expect the nominee will use it principally, if not exclusively, in the Wikignomish areas they focus on. So, no worries. Banks Irk (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
50. Strong support Wait, Dan's not an admin? — GhostRiver 22:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
51. No concerns. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
52. Support per nominators. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
53. Support for that recall pun. On a more serious note, the more competent folks to help Diannaa at copyright cleanup, the better. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
54. Support per positive experience with the candidate at Talk:Real Estate Bank of Arkansas/GA1. Hog Farm _Talk 23:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
55. Support Seems to be a prolific article creator and has several GA's and other awards under their belt. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
56. Support I could have sworn they already were one. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
57. Support PacificDepths^(talk) 00:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
58. Strong support LGTM! Chlod (say hi!) 00:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
59. Support will be fine. Good communicator Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
60. Support: Always a welcome sight around DYK – logical, reasonable, and flexible. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
61. Support I considered asking further questions, but don't see the necessity and I would like to err on side of making adminship less of a big deal than it is. Clearly DanCherek is a net positive in both content creation and notably moderation (copyright/revdeletions). Wholeheartedly support! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
62. Stephen 00:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
63. Support 16,500 copyright patrols, that is a very good reason! We need more cleanup on that area! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
64. Support Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
65. Support per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
66. Support - Can't see any red flags, does excellent work. Will do well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
67. Support. 9/10 on my criteria. I actually already thought he was a sysop. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
68. Support Epicgenius (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
69. 69! Erm, Dan is not only capable and sharp, but also, just a chill guy. Which is a great combination. Will be a great fit. El_C 02:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
70. Support BOZ (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
71. Support Ruy (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
72. Support DanCherek and I have crossed paths quite a bit. From experience, I know that he is kind and helpful to new editors (for starters), as well as one hell of a copyright patroller. His CSD log shows that he understands the different criteria and how they are applied. Overall, he is an ideal candidate for the mop— I wish him the best! Helen(💬📖) 02:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
73. Support Great candidate, excellent experience in CCI, AfDs, and GA/FA/DYKs. VickKiang (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
74. Support Experienced and valued content creator and has a good reason for needing the tools. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
75. Support Not a big deal but he is a valued creator who has a long history at patrolling copyrights. Thingofme (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
76. Support Dan is an experienced and outstanding good editor which I think is suitable of being an admin. XYF37 (talk | contribs) 02:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
77. Support Needs the tools, has shown himself trustworthy many times over, an excellent content-creator in addition to mop-wielder. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
78. Support Seems like he does good work and is well-suited. LemonOrangeLime (Talk) 02:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
79. Support with pleasure. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
80. Support, Experienced editor. Thought already was an admin! --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
81. Support —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
82. Support - can't see any reason not to. Been around awhile, made a lot of edits, many of very high quality. Went through talkpage history and came away impressed by their candor, humility, and downright helpfulness, though can't say I read everything. Trusted noms, good answer to questions. Although this isn't a requirement, it's clear that the candidate has purpose in requesting the tools. Wrote Chaconne in G minor. What's not to like? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
83. Support. Seen his good work. Best of luck! Chanaka L (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
84. Support Excellent candidate, no problems that I can see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
85. Support eminently qualified. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
86. Support per nom. Liliana ^(UwU) 04:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
87. Support. Have a huge amount of trust in and esteem for Diannaa, which makes following her lead the right thing for me to do. Only wish we had many more like this candidate! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 04:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
88. Support Why not? -FASTILY 05:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
89. Support. --Ratekreel (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
90. Support – has all the attributes that I would like to see in a sysop. Schwede66 05:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
91. Absolutely Seen them around loads, always in a positive light. Girth Summit _(blether) 05:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
92. Support – Clovermoss (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
93. Support hope you can get 100% support votes because you seen to have an incredible record. Bill Williams 06:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
94. Support ditto The Most Comfortable Chair - thoughtful, articulate, and respects the people he comes across. Urve (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
95. Finally. Vaticidalprophet 06:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
96. Without a doubt. Dan is one of the most knowledgeable and skillful copyright editors there is, and his content record is superb. – Berrely • ^T∕_C 07:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
97. Strong support Dan has always been helpful and shown the utmost respect and professionalism when working with others. He will make a wonderful sysop. Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
98. Support Worthy of a mop. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
99. Support Leijurv (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
100. Yep. Mz7 (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
101. Support LGTM —MdsShakil (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
102. Support Seems like someone who will do good work with the mop. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
103. Support Very active and visible, and knowledgeable of Wikipedia rules. His good character and/or respect/professionalism for others stands out. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
104. Support Endwise (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
105. Support Nythar^T.C 09:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
106. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
107. Support precious, "it's fun to go where the wind blows!", and I love musical inventiveness and empathy also, compare 16 entries on my talk this year --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
108. Support Good choice. Grimes2 (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
109. Support. Excellent candidate who will put the tools to good use in critical project areas. /wiae /tlk 10:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
110. Support. Have positive experience with candidate at GAN and seems well-suited otherwise. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
111. Support –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
112. Support Is extremely helpful, and great at his contribution to the project. Would be a wonderful leader! BevoLJ (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
113. Support Modussiccandi (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
114. Support a strong admin, with lots of contributions devoted to writing quality content and copyright investigations. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
115. Support; no negative experiences with this user during the few times I've seen them. Their help with WP:RX and CCI is extremely valuable, and their content creating looks pretty solid. They have my trust ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
     _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 11:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
116. Support; All looks good, thanks for volunteering to wield the mop. Loopy30 (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
117. Support- Absolutely. Won't break the project IMO.   Aloha27  talk  12:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
118. Support – sure thing. Graham87 12:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
119. Support --Vacant0 (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
120. Support – Maestro Ivanković 12:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
121. Support – Always good to see a candidate who has need of the mop for specific tasks. No red flags as far as I'm concerned. Neiltonks (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
122. Support – Yet another thought they were already one candidate! — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 13:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
123. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
124. Support - Always appreciate the good work at CCI and with copyright problems. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
125. Support - Absolutely.PDGPA (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
126. Support. Content creation + work in an understaffed area like CCI is a winning formula for me. I've seen DC around in a few articles and it's all good work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
127. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 14:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
128. Support Very thoughtful responses. I especially loved that you brought up the issues with time management as I am sure many of us are in the same position. Also the point about empathizing with good faith editors that simply get caught up in the nuances of copyright policy really resonated with me for obvious reasons. The policies are needed and we have to follow them but most of those that run afoul of it do so in good faith are all, I think, are human beings. They deserve that common respect and dignity. Being kind yet firm is an excellent response to such cases. Great answer. Also, we love you Tamzin and Floquenbeam. --ARoseWolf 14:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
129. Support. Good to go, ticks all the boxes.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
130. Support — who doesn’t love Dan? R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 15:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
131. Support obviously will make a good Admin, very glad to see the interest in copyvio. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
132. I encouraged Cherek to run ten months ago, considering him a far better candidate than me. I still believe that. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
133. Support: Trustworthy candidate. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
134. Support Tweedle (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
135. Support - Adequate tenure, clear necessity for the tools, clean block log, no concerns. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
136. Support - Excellent user. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 17:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
137. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
138. Support - per Reading Beans. Femke (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
139. Support. We can always use more people with the tools prepared to tackle WP:CCI. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
140. Support (as an involved editor) per their collegial attitude below, and their prompt usage of page-mover rights, answering a request after one minute. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
141. Support Impressed with his work at ANEW. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
142. Support Seems to be a great editor, especially when it come to copyvios. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
143. Support—No concerns. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
144. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
145. Support per nom. Great candidate; will be a good admin. – AiGenly (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
146. Support, there's a lot of work to be done in copyright cleanup, the tools will help with that, and I see no reason to believe they won't be used properly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
147. Support: Trustworthy user who will likely make effective contributions with the admin toolset. ToThAc (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
148. Support - I've seen Dan around for a while now, and am glad to see he volunteered. He has the right temperment, is trustworthy, and has skills in important areas. Netherzone (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
149. Support He's patient and helpful, good attitude. I trust him with the toolkit. Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
150. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
151. Support with pleasure. We've had a number of interactions, many but not all relating to copyright. Adjectives that come to mind are helpful, capable, knowledgeable, painstaking, efficient ... and quick, too. He has a demonstrable need for the extra tools. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
152. Support. No concerns; seems a strong candidate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
153. Support Impressed with Q10. Demonstrates a solid understanding of our processes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
154. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
155. Support. Great answers with the questions that were given to him by the community.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 21:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
156. Support. Haven't yet come across DanCherek, but glancing through their edit history I feel he is an unquestionable net positive for the project. I also like his answers very much, esp. to Q5 and Q9. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
157. Support. Seems like a good administrator. Drummingman (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
158. Support - Well-reasoned need for the tools, strong trust in the editor's conduct and abilities from previous interactions. No concerns raised so far. Good luck! — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
159. Support - I'm comfortable with the idea of them as an admin. Guettarda (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
160. Support - Looks good to me. DB1729 (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
161. Support - Good candidate, WP could always use more good admins. StartOkayStop (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
162. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 03:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
163. Support, seems cromulent. -- Visviva (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
164. Support - amazing edit summary usage and very nice contributions. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 03:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
165. Support When an outstanding copyright editor like Diannaa says that the candidate has copyright competence, that takes me about 90% of the way there. And then I took a look at W. Sterling Cary, which is an excellent encyclopedia article and I see that Dan is responsible for the vast majority of the content. Copyright expertise, great content creation, knowledge of policy, a level headed demeanor. That adds up to a very qualified candidate. Cullen328 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
166. Support Long and clear history of cleaning up messes on wiki. Very qualified and will make a great admin. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
167. Support -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 05:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
168. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
169. Support Wait, I thought Dan Cherek was one already. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
170. Sure why not? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
171. Support seen him a lot Dhoru 21 (talk・contribs) 09:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
172. Support After a little background check...honestly seems like a solid candidate to me Volten001 ^☎ 09:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
173. Nick (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
174. Support Has long been a sensible contributor. Would make a great administrator. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
175. Support I have no recollection of encountring the candidate. Reviewed hundreds of contributions, all good. No issues. Vexations (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
176. Support, no concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
177. Support, easily and wholeheartedly. I could write a lengthy rationale about how amazing an editor Dan is, and what a pleasure he has been to interact with-- and will, if that becomes necessary-- but it seems unneeded. Suffice it to say that Dan has never been anything short of a pleasure to interact with and has never done anything besides top-notch work, and I have absolute confidence that they have the knowledge, competence and ability to be a great administrator. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
178. Support well rounded good editor. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 14:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
179. Support DanCherek has been an excellent editor, he went out of his way to help me achieve my very first GA and has consistently been a positive contributor to Wikipedia. We will all be better off with him having access to the administrator toolkit. Not a jerk, has clue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
180. Strong oppose Asked Dan about filing an RfA in February and got told "not now, thanks". Jeez, make your mind up. ;-) Serious point Without wishing to jink the RfA (cf. Floquenbeam), the only thing I would add to Q11 is if somebody is adding blatant spam to an article via a blatantly spammy username, the chances are reasonable that the inserted text may well be a copyvio and might require revision deletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
181. Support Great editor whom I'm sure will make a great admin. No issues here, Good luck. –Davey2010^Talk 14:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
182. Support Looks knowledgable and well-rounded, no red flags. ^Complex/_Rational 15:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
183. Support Excellent candidate. No concerns.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
184. Support An important note is that they indicated that they plan to start with areas they are already well versed in. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
185. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
186. Support without reservation. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
187. Support very well qualified and one of our best (and most prolific) text copyright people. If nothing else making him an admin would massively reduce the workload at CAT:RD1 - it's not unusual for it to largely consist of stuff he tagged. Hut 8.5 18:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
188. Support - FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin/CheckUser on Commons)} 18:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
189.  MainPeanut  (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
190. Support Probably the best candidate I've ever seen. Aza24 (talk)' 19:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
191. Support – robertsky (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
192. Support - I'm delighted to support. DanCherek has helped me several times with speedy responses to resource exchange requests, and I've also had the pleasure of reviewing and passing a recent GA nomination by them. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
193. Support - Yes, absolutely. Osarius 20:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
194. Huh, count me among those who thought you already were an admin... stwalkerster (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
195. Support Easy call, clearly a great nominee. Hopefully, I will not be expected to reaffirm my support later. Equineducklings (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
196. Strong support Very good Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
197. Support – Communicative, sensible, experienced. Thanks for the work in the copyright area. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
198. Support -- lomrjyo ^talk 02:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
199. Support Trustworthy candidate, will benefit the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 04:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
200. Support Legoktm (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
201. Support No brainer, and God knows we need more admins well-versed in copyright cleanup. Ovinus (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
202. Support. A clear case. This should just be closed early. With masses of support and no rejections - just end it. --Bduke (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
203. Support Cabayi (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
204. I think my timely intervention to ward off the evil eye counts for well more than one support, but have a regular support as well. Impeccable judgment in every interaction we've had, marred only slightly by his decision to request adminship. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
205. Support —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
206. Support Pinguinn 🐧 10:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

General comments

"Is it pronounced like this?"

• Hello Dan. How is "Cherek" pronounced? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  I say it like "Eric" with a "ch" in front! But honestly, however you want and I'll never know the difference. DanCherek (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  "ch" of "chemistry" or "change"? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  "ch" of "chair", I am hoping. — The Most Comfortable Chair 20:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Good point. I meant it as in "change" or "chair". DanCherek (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  So “chair” with an “ick” on it. Having kids, I’ve seen many of those round my dinner table.Jacona (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  actually chuckled IRL at that one HouseBlaster^talk 01:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Odd... ne'er heard Cher followed by "ick" before. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 04:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Using Template:IPAc-en: (/ˈtʃɛrɪk/) PacificDepths^(talk) 06:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm going to give it a Celtic twist and pronounce it with the 'ch' from 'loch' from now on. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Out of interest DanCherek, does Google's TTS pronounce it correctly (using /ˈtʃɛrɪk/ as kindly provided above by PacificDepths)? — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 13:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes it does! What a neat tool in progress that I didn't know about. Looking forward to what you all do with it! DanCherek (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Good to know, was curious given a "real-world" test 😌 That page was just some initial testing in preparation for the Generate Audio for IPA wish from the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 14:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've been pronouncing it Che-wreck, guess I was wrong :P — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  This thread nicely illustrates the entire reason for my sig. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Qflib: "Fli" as in "flicker", or "flight"? :-p —usernamekiran (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hoist on my own petard! Flicker, yes. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Cheeeerek, Cheeerek baby (Cherek baby)
Cheeerek, won't you come out tonight (come come, come out toniiiight)....

• Yes, academitards, in the globally lingua franca English language a "long i" is usually stimulated by a silent "e", as in Qflibe, aka KeeYou Flibe; however, I'm sure that username's already spoken for. ← ended the sentence with a preposition – that's some wiseass guy P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 02:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

About RfB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

Related pages

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Debriefs – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience
• Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies
• Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Requests to remove the administrator access of another editor due to abuse may be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but you should read Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") and attempt other methods of dispute resolution first.
  • Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Failed proposals to create a community-based process for de-adminship processes.
• Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
• Nominator's guide
• Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
• Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.

Footnotes