Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ternera 2

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it.

Result: Successful. While there are valid points raised in the oppose section, they were made after the end date. Taking that into account, and considering the overall discussion, I see a fair consensus to promote the candidate.--BRP ever 10:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ternera

[change source]
Ternera (talk · contribs · count)
RfA of Ternera
Previous RfAs: 1 2
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
Last comment by: BRPever.

End date: 20:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)


Hello everyone! I'm here to nominate Ternera for adminship. Ternera has helped a lot of this wiki and is active in a few different areas, primarily focusing on anti-vandalism but also helping out at RfD and with article cleanup. They applied for adminship back in 2024 and withdrew as it was too soon. I was the first to oppose that request, but since then I have seen them get more experience and show an improved understanding of admin policy and norms around here. Better still, they are also a metawiki and global sysop so they can clearly be trusted and have experience using the tools. I think Ternera would make a fantastic administrator. I hope the community agrees and wish them the best of luck in this RfA! --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept this nomination and look forward to hearing input from the community. Feel free to ask me any questions! Ternera (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Support fr33kman 21:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support upon reviewing their work, I can't see any reason to oppose. There is a huge backlog, the community could do with another. --IWI (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I mean the RfD backlog. --IWI (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Trusted and experienced user. -Barras talk 10:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. alr have the support of three (former) admins. I don't see why not --Cactus🌵 hi ツ 10:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Trusted elsewhere, with good results. --M7 (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I don't see why not. I have been too busy, else I would have nominated them myself. Also, noting that the previous concern of limited experience has clearly been addressed at this point.-BRP ever 13:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support While I understand the issues set forth by those abstaining and opposing, I personally see a larger use for the tool in anti-vandalism (for the record I also didn't have a lot of articles created when I was sysoped).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support LGTM. Hiàn 01:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. He has some experience, i don't see why not. --Sir Banking (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support obviously. Jianhui67 T★C 06:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Oppose per BZPN, C&W and Bob - Truth be told I'm just not seeing a need for the tools. other than reverting vandals and !voting in RFDs they've not done anything that makes me say "Yes, they definitely need the bit". I appreciate RFD participation is still considered "adminny areas" but for me it's not enough. Anyway article work appears to be tagbombing and vandal work is via SWViewer (my point is I revert vandals on-site not externally and 9 times out of 10 improve/update that article after reverting vandals which ofcourse neither are requirements here just my preference). Anyway I'm not seeing a need for the tools and would agree this is a WP:NOTQUITEYET but don't want to outright Oppose as don't think we're at that stage either, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 18:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Moved from Comments/Abstain to Oppose per Ferien below). –Davey2010Talk 12:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I agree with the above, I see good work however I want to see more article work also. I lean towards WP:NOTQUITEYET. I abstain for now, good luck and keep up the good work. Bobherry Talk My Changes 12:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved from Comments/Abstain per ferien. Bobherry Talk My Changes 20:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I agree with Davey's opinion. While I am happy to see excellent work in anti-vandalism and RFD, I rarely see any participation in any RFD discussions, or any discussions outside of RFD, either. MrMeAndMrMeTalk 10:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]
  • Abstain: overall, I see a lot of positive work from you in various spaces. What I don't necessarily like, however, is the fact that you contribute very little to the articles – 25 articles created in total, only a few of which this year, and some of them, I'd say, are not of the best quality. So, good luck, I'll abstain for now. BZPN (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree about being concerned about lack of content contributions; however, I will say that simply counting the number of articles created isn't the best method. A good content worker can expand upon existing articles as well. I'm on the fence because I see good work in areas that admin tools are used. I know that content work isn't a prerequisite to adminship. But, of the last 500 live mainspace edits, 177 were Twinkle based edits, 145 were rollbacks, and 98 were adding categories with HotCat. That means that only 20 of the last 500 mainspace edits dating back to April 19 were not tagging articles, rolling back vandalism, or adding categories. Do I see reason to think that they will abuse the tools? No, I don't. So I lean support, but would like to see more efforts to article work. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not going to go badger the abstentions as I understand people prefer to see more content, but ftr we do have quite a few admins who had no content experience when they actually became an admin. So this isn't massively unusual as admin work and content work doesn't really intersect – and many content-heavy candidates often fail RfAs for this reason. Also I'm a bit confused why people are "abstaining" nowadays instead of being neutral, as it's quite confusing (abstaining can also mean avoiding participation entirely) but that's a discussion for another day. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even more confused why people are opposing "per me", as I actually nominated Ternera for adminship here!.. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 10:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrator note: There have been two oppose which were added fairly long time after the request should've been closed. See Special:Diff/10424728 and Special:Diff/10425686. Please take that into consideration when closing the request and decide whether it's fair or not for the candidate to receive !votes after the regular time, just because the request has not been closed in time by bureaucrats. -Barras talk 10:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ternera_2&oldid=10425770"