Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rosguill

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

Rosguill

Final (161/1/0); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 18:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Rosguill (talk · contribs) – Folks, it gives me great pleasure to present Rosguill as a candidate for adminship. Rosguill has been around for two years, over which they have amassed more than 45,000 edits, an impressive two-thirds of which are to articles. They've done impressive work with article creation (Jaguar, Freedom of religion in Morocco, Coral Gardens incident) and translation (Claudia Sheinbaum, Plombières), as well as overhauling existing articles that needed to be rewritten (various other articles on Freedom of religion). They've also found the time to participate at articles for deletion and new page patrol. At AfD, their position has matched consensus more than 80% of the time; but more importantly, they've offered well-reasoned opinions based in policy, and have been courteous in arguing their position. At NPP, Rosguill has been a huge asset, having reviewed tens of thousands of pages. I have been impressed by Rosguill's communication skills, especially given their work in potentially contentious areas (freedom of religion) and areas requiring dealing with newbies (NPP). Overall, Rosguill demonstrates plenty of clue, and I am confident they will be a positive addition to the admin corps. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I've been thinking about Rosguill as a suitable administrator candidate for some time. They are one of the best contributors to New Page Patrol and regularly take part in reviewing new articles there. I see a good track record at Articles for deletion, often talking a good argument, and elsewhere making thoughtful and insightful comments. I think Rosguill would be welcome addition to our administrator team. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I have never edited for pay, and have never edited using any account other than this one. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 15 December 2019 (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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: My primary activity on Wikipedia is doing New Pages Patrol, and my main reason for pursuing adminship is to be able to view previously deleted revisions of articles in order to help with new page reviewing. NPP also puts me on the front lines of a fair amount of vandalism and otherwise tendentious editing, so I would occasionally be using admin tools there for the more egregious cases that don't require further review.

In addition to NPP related work, I've participated in discussion closures; if granted adminship, I would continue to help out there and would close discussions listed as admin-only. I also intend to take an active role helping to close discussions at RfD. Finally, I would be active in approving and denying permissions requests related to NPP.

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

A: I'm actually proudest of my work patrolling articles at New Page Patrol. Since receiving that permission a little over a year ago, I have reviewed tens of thousands articles and redirects in addition to starting the New page patrol source guide to help improve the quality of page reviews, and was named the 2019 New Page Reviewer of the Year for my efforts.

Other work that I'm proud of includes overhauling Freedom of religion by country; I added sections for every missing country and rewrote some of the existing-but-inadequate sections, split it up into separate articles by continent, and wrote 11 country-specific articles, with Freedom of religion in Norway being one of the best of the bunch. Other articles that I'm proud of include Hard-shell taco and Something Different (1963 film), and you can find more articles that I wrote or translated on my user page. I've participated in closing discussions and in mediating disputes in the Dispute resolution noticeboard; I think that my track record in these venues speaks strongly to my ability to mediate and adjudicate between disagreeing parties

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've also been involved in editing politically contentious topics, which naturally have also been a source of conflict and sometimes also stress. Sometimes the "conflict" is just a drive-by contentious edit; in these cases, it's pretty easy to just revert, extend an olive branch in case the editor feels inclined to engage further, and move on (see Religion in Egypt and History of the Jews in Morocco for some examples of this). If the dispute is actually more involved, my response is similar to when patrolling: I'll take a step back, cool off, and if there's something important left for me to say (that I feel like I can communicate effectively) I'll continue my involvement with a healthy dose of AGF. In some cases I've stepped back essentially indefinitely, such as at Canary Mission: I wrote a basic article, did my best to be neutral, and decided that I didn't want the stress of the article becoming a battleground, so I walked away from it. Examples where I've continued engagement include Freedom of religion by country, whose talk page includes a few different disagreements (including one where I still have an extremely ugly older signature), and this 2-part AfD. Finally, as mentioned above, I've done some work at DRN, and I generally find that I can keep cool and evaluate the fundamental issues at hand when assessing other people's arguments, keeping people focused on the content.

---

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.

Additional question from Majavah

4. 4. If you are elected to be an admin, would you place yourself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall and Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles?

A: I am open to being listed in both categories, although I believe that Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall is a poor substitute for a more comprehensive system of accountability for administrators

Additional question from Pudeo

5. One of the first duties you did in Wikipedia was assessing importance scales of articles for WikiProject Socialism. How do you view your own editing in political articles and how would you assess this April 2018 edit of yours in communist terrorism?

A: I view my editing of political articles similar to how I view my editing of other topics: I'm here to improve the encyclopedia by contributing content that reflects the consensus of reliable sources, or in the case of a lack of consensus, presents opposing positions with due weight. When I first started editing Wikipedia, I was struck by the enormity of the project, and figured that the best way to better understand its scope was to go through a WikiProject's article backlog and get a better sense of how content is presented across ORES levels. The 2018 edit was made when I was rather new and had a poor understanding of the roles of primary sources on the website. If I were improving the same article today, I would go to Google scholar, search for "communist terrorism" (and perhaps some related terms), and contribute content that reflects a balanced assessment of reliable sources that show up.

Additional question from John M Wolfson

6. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?

A: G12 is the most likely CSD criterion to apply, unless the elementary school's website is released with a Wikipedia-friendly use license (in my experience, this is rather rare). G11 may also apply if the copied text is unambiguously promotional in nature. It is possible that G5 could apply (if the article was created by an editor who was found to be a sock of an editor blocked before the creation of this article), G2 could potentially apply if the edit summary makes it clear that this was a test edit, and G7 could apply if the initial editor has indicated elsewhere that they want the article deleted and no one else has edited it. G4 could apply if the article was previously deleted via AfD. If we already have an article about this school, A10 could apply. G1 and G10 could technically apply if the copied text is patent nonsense orWP:ATTACK content respectively. G9 could apply if the WMF decides that this elementary school article must go. U5 could apply if the article is in user space and the editor clearly isn't planning on publishing an article about this subject in mainspace, and G13 could apply if it's been abandoned in draft space, but both of these are unlikely as they more or less require the page to have existed for quite some time, which is highly unlikely given the likelihood that G12 and/or G11 apply (G13 requires the draft to have been abandoned for six months, U5 does not have a strict time requirement but it is generally difficult to assess U5 criteria on a brand new page).

No other CSD criteria apply. Critically, this includes A7, which does not apply to educational institutions. A1 cannot apply because even if the article text lacks context, clearly we could identify the subject as a result of our copyvio check.

Additional question from Andrew Davidson

7. You say that your best contributions are your thousands of reviews of new articles. I also note that your user page indicates that your native languages are both English and Spanish. So, when I started reviewing your contributions for the month of April, I chose to drill down on the article English clause element which you reviewed. My take on the article is that the author takes three published grammars and compares their approach to this topic. He makes claims about the traditional approach and then makes some claims about how those grammars do it; for example, "Modern English reference grammars are in broad agreement as to a full inventory..." None of these claims are backed up by secondary sources and this seems to be a blatant failure of WP:SYN, which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Why did you not check or comment on this breach of our core policies, WP:V and WP:OR? Andrew🐉(talk) 00:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A: Rereading the article, I agree with you that the claims in the lead are SYNTH, particularly the claims of "traditional" modes of identification and the assertion that modern English language grammars are largely in agreement, and it was a mistake to not note that in the review. Any explanation of why I made this mistake would be pure speculation on my part, as I have no specific recollection of reviewing this article and was certainly aware of OR policy at the time.

Thanks for responding. You tagged the article as being too technical so I wondered whether you therefore didn't take the time to understand it because it was too difficult. My own reviewing is usually for DYK where one is expected to look for at least one citation per paragraph and check that the citations verify key claims such as the "hook". Perhaps you could comment on how deep you tend to go in your NPP reviews. If you're doing thousands across a range of subjects it is naturally difficult to be thorough but is a superficial review adequate? Andrew🐉(talk) 01:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the article, but I would say that NPP reviews can afford to be less thorough than DYK, GA, etc. My usual process is: 1) check the page history and see if there's anything odd (for instance, an edit war over whether it should be an article or a redirect), 2) verify that it's not a copyright violation 3a) review the citations to see if the article meets notability guidelines 3b) if not, search online for sources 4) read through the article, looking for extraordinary claims, significant blocks of text without footnotes, or unsourced BLP claims 5) either tag, approve, or nominate for deletion/convert to redirect as appropriate. By contrast, when I've done GA reviews (e.g Talk:Hotelito Desconocido/GA1, Talk:Mad Season (band)/GA1) I meticulously review every claim and citation.

Additional question from Lepricavark

8. In your acceptance statement, you state that you have never used any other accounts. Have you ever edited as an IP editor?

A: I made a few scattered IP edits when I was in grade school, over a decade ago.

Additional question from Andrew Base

9. Even though you are a very experienced new page reviewer, it seems like you are not an AFC reviewer. Why didn't you ever apply to be one?

A: I don't think I was aware of AfC's existence until after I got the NPP perm. I don't really have a reason for not having volunteered there, I guess it's just something I never got around to doing.

Additional question from Alanscottwalker

10. Regarding your statement, above, "[o]ther work that I'm proud of includes overhauling Freedom of religion by country" (permalink), why is that article almost entirely unsourced? What do policies and guidelines say about unsourced statements in articles, and what policies and guidelines would you look to on the sourcing in that article? Does that article comply with policies and guidelines? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A:Currently the content at Freedom of religion by country is actually transcluded from the leads of relevant sub-articles by continent. Per MOS:LEAD, The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. If you check the top page's history, you'll see that I wrote thousands of bytes of sourced content, which have now been split to the relevant sub-articles, and it is this content which is the basis for the leads which are transcluded to the top article. I guess there is an ambiguity as to whether content transcluded from a lead is still considered "lead content" if it's in a body section of another article, and this ambiguity could have been avoided by propagating references up to the leads of these respective articles. I would concede that it would be an improvement to the top-level article to include inline citations, and I've thus gone ahead and made that improvement. However, I do want to stress that when I said that this article is a contribution that I'm proud of, the part that I'm proud of is my addition of sections pertaining to every country missing from the list (and overhauling a few of the ones that were included but outdated or poorly written).

Thanks for trying to address the unsourced article but the transclution of sources does not appear to work, do you see the multiple error messages that you have now introduced in Freedom of religion by country when you scroll down to the references section? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I tried doing my first fix during a break at work and didn't double check it. I believe that now everything should be in order.

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

11. What is your opinion on these mass deletions of over 1000's articles in here .These Articles were created years ago some created as early as as 2009 when they were listed in WP:FPL and passed the SNG WP:NFOOTY.Now on on Nov 23rd 2019 .It was decided that the Russian Professional Football League was not fully pro hence would these articles now fail the SNG.Do you believe that articles articles can be mass deleted retrospectively for anything (other than BLP violations).(Please note Football is the most popular sport in Russia and receives high media coverage)

A: The deletion nominations linked to above seem to have largely been made by one editor, and clearly without conducting much of a search for sources based on the short amount of time between the edits nominating them for deletion. Reading through the linked discussion, it seems like there is a consensus that the RPFL should not be considered a pro league, but editors still expect WP:BEFORE to be conducted before deletion. I think that this is an appropriate expectation, and would oppose the mass nomination on those grounds. However, if a proper source search is conducted before nominating the articles, I don't have a problem with articles found to not meet GNG being deleted, and if it is the consensus of editors who are working on these articles that the biographies of this league's roster should be reviewed and pruned from Wikipedia, I'm not going to oppose them (although it's not clear to me whether you would consider it to still be mass deletion if a BEFORE search is conducted for each article).

Additional question from New3400

12. How long do you edit per day? New3400 (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

A: Depends on the day. At a minimum, I try to clear out the last day of redirects from the back of the new page queue, which usually takes twenty minutes to an hour depending on the day (the redirect cutoff is shorter than the regular article one for technical reasons, so unless people take it upon themselves to purposefully review redirects, most will slide off the queue without review).

Additional question from Espresso Addict

13. You're the most prolific new page reviewer of 2019 with over 47k reviews in 365 days. How have you achieved this total without compromising quality, and do you intend to perform admin tasks at the same rate? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

A: A significant amount of those reviews are of redirects, which on average take very little time to review. In fact, if you set aside redirects, I'm not sure that I'd still have the top spot on the new pages feed, making my claim to "most prolific reviewer" a bit dubious. While I'm not infallible, I take to heart the instructions at the top of the New pages feed: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling [are what's important]. I don't try to rush through reviews, and I'm not trying to set speed records; if I've reviewed more articles than others, it's because I've dedicated more time to it. I would bring the same level of care to admin tasks.

;Additional question from Jasphetamine

14. Given your strong desire to prevent sock puppets from causing problems, would you approach a user reported as a sock looking to prove the accusation correct, or would you first ascertain if a good faith action by an editor was misconstrued?

A:

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support as co-nom Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Support It's great to see a potential admin have this much work with New Page Patrol. Matched with their editing history, I feel this is a no-brainer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support -- No concerns. Been waiting for this. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
4. I am prepared to come back and extol Rosguill at length should that become necessary at this RfA but I hope instead that others have seen what I have: an excellent editor who is ready to assume the responsibilities of becoming an administrator and will be of great benefit to the community as a sysop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per no big deal, my minimum criteria, and the strength of the nominators. I've also seen nothing but pleasantries encountering them. Ifnord (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Rosguill appears frequently on my watchlist: reviewing new articles, reverting bad edits, communicating with editors. I've long been impressed by Rosguill's judgement and communication style, and I think they'd be an excellent administrator. Schazjmd (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
7. Support, as nominator. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
8. Support. Not only are they an MVP at NPP with over 45,000 new page reviews in the last year alone, but they also take the time to give comprehensive tutorials to other NPP reviewers – take a look at the detail and care Rosguill have taken with this NPP candidate: User:Puddleglum2.0/NPP School. Above and beyond in my view. Britishfinance (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
9. Support The tenure does not bother me. His NPP work is very impressive. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
10. Strong support. As I am one of the main closers at RfD, I am thrilled to hear that Rosguill plans to close discussions at RfD. Several of us have been busy recently and a backlog has started to develop over the past couple months. Rosguill has been a huge asset there and I trust their judgement wholeheartedly. Rosguill has also shown a lot of patience and understanding when dealing with troublesome editors, such as at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 20#QWE (that reply also has a good summary of the candidate's redirect-related work). Good luck! -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
11. Support They have patrolled a number of my redirects, and I have also seen them around other places. No concerns that I can see. Will be a great addition to the mop corps. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
12. Support - Had some concerns about excessive deletionism, but there is at least some reasoning behind all those I looked at, so while I think they should consider 50-50 cases in a more balanced fashion, they aren't "gung ho". Their NPP work is excellent and I have no concerns as to tenure and such. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
13. Support. Please and thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

    Basically, Rosguill constantly cleans up backlogs at NPP on the redirect side of things, and is a regular over at WP:RFD. We honestly could seriously use more admins closing discussions there because the same handful of admins (BDD, Tavix, Thryduulf, etc.) who have to close practically every discussion. They're pretty good about getting it done, but sometimes there is a backlog. Other times, all the regular admin closers participate in the discussion, so the specific RFD kinda stalls for a while.
    Rosguill is one of the few users who really cares about cleaning up redirects, and they'll be an asset to the admin team as a result for sure! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

14. Support Should make a solid addition to the Admin corps, particularly at WP:AFC and WP:NPP, now with the ability to clear out the attendant muck. scope_creep^Talk 18:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
15. Stong support This user does exceptional work over at NPP, and I think having the mop would be very helpful for them to increase the quality of work, if it isn't already the top quality! Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
16. Support excellent work at NPP ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
17. Support Glad to see this. If they feel that they can put even more into the project than the already massive amount they currently do, more power to them and all the better for us! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
18. Support, have seen good work from the candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 19:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
19. Support per MJL (thanks for the ping) and Kusma. I've seen them around in a few places and I've only seen good things. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
20. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
21. A welcome addition. El_C 19:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
22. support fellow NPP --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
23. Rosguill's contributions to NPP, both in terms of improvements to the process and in the sheer volume of their reviewing, has been monumental. Collaborative approach: tick. Demonstrable desire to work tirelessly for the project: tick. Clue: Big green shiny tick, splangled round with twinkling Christmas lights. Strong support. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
24. Support. Noms sell this very convincingly. Haukur (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
25. Strong Support Has been very patient and very helpful to me with NPP School, would make a fantastic admin! Puddleglum ^2.0 00:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
26. Support I'm surprised to see Rosguill has only been around for two years, because their conduct is that of a seasoned veteran. Clear benefit to the encyclopedia, and I'll indeed be happy for the extra help at RfD. --BDD (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
27. Support - will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
28. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
29. Support I have little doubt that Rosguill will be a fantastic admin. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
30. Support - clearly deserving of the mop. Will make a fine admin. Jumps in to help where they see a need.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
31. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
32. Support I have seen enough of their work to trust them with the toolset. Thank you for the work at NPP. Good luck. Vexations (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
33. Support No hesitation. Rock on. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
34. Support thought they were already an admin. Great work at NPP. buidhe 23:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
35. Support Learns quickly, updates behavior accordingly, contributes consistently and positively, has a demonstrated use for the tools, and keeps watch at the gates. Time for the mop. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
36. Support I have seen them indefatigably patrolling redirects and making thoughtful comments at Rfd and Afd, they have my full confidence with the addition of the tools. StonyBrook (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
37. Support Normally I don't participate in this side of Wikipedia, but Rosguill already edits with the calibre of an administrator as far as I'm concerned so it's only right to grant the tools to do so. Trillfendi (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
38. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
39. Support - ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
40. Support Yet another person I thought already held the mop...Rosguill is mature and I believe they will use the tools for much good. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
41. Support, can be trusted with a mop. BD2412 T 02:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
42. Support One of those "I thought they were already an admin" nominations. SportingFlyer T·C 02:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
43. Support. I only had positive experiences with them at NPP and RfD, and am impressed with their dedication there. ComplexRational (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
44. Based on my interactions at RfD and seeing their redirect patrols, I trust Rosguill will use the tools well. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
45. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
46. Support. Impressive work at NPP and elsewhere. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

    Support. Paradise Chronicle Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

47. Support. I think Rosguill has good ability to listen comments by others, understand their arguments and act accordingly. This is important for an admin. My very best wishes (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
48. support per nom(inator statement). Per support rationales offered above. Meets my standards-- Deepfriedokra 05:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
49. support — per this diff ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 06:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
50. Support Great work at NPP, among others. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
51. I've seen nothing but good work from this editor; no concerns about them having the mop; will make a good addition to the admin corps. – Levivich 06:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
52. Support I thought they were already an admin. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
53. Support all the best. Tolly4bolly 06:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
54. Support Why not? -FASTILY 07:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
55. Support – No concern that the user would be anything other than a positive as an an admin. Kosack (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
56. Enthusiastic support - I've seen Rosguill around at AFD and his input is always thoughtful and well-considered. Clueful and reasonable, a good addition to the Admin corps. FOARP (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
57. Per Barkeep49. I've only seen good, thoughtful contributions from them, and their misses at AfD are few and far between; most show Rosguill to be thoughtful and cognizant of what makes a meaningful argument. Happy to support their RfA. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
58. Support - nothing of concern has been raised. GiantSnowman 09:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
59. Support Sysop will really fit you. Your hard work at NPP and other places will never be forgotten. Keep on the good work going forward. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
60. Support I wish my memory was better, as have come across the name many times, possibly mostly seeing pages being created. A slight heaviness on delete !votes at AfD could be a consequence of what seems to be great NPP work. Involvement in one AfD I was involved in was well-reasoned. I note support from others whose judgement I respect and for all these reasons I am most pleased to support.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
61. Support: I've seen Rosguill around at NPP and AFD, impressed with work at these venues, fine addition to the admin team. SITH (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
62. Support I've seen this user before and was shocked to see that Rosguill wasn't an admin (as of writing this). A definite support. Quahog (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
63. Support - No red flags.--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
64. Support. Rosguill has done an incredible amount of work to keep new articles in good shape. They've reviewed a colossal volume of pages and introduced creative methods (including the patroller source guide and regional source surveys) that expand our ability to give articles from all regions of the world the reviews they deserve. Rosguill's collegial attitude makes them a pleasure to work with, and adminship would only further the amount of progress they achieve toward making Wikipedia a more comprehensive and trustworthy source for our readers. — Newslinger talk 15:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
65. Weak Support - Has only been here since January 2018, and may not have a good grip at certain areas. Otherwise... Foxnpichu (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
66. Support - no concerns except a bit of a deletionist, but has lots to offer. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
67. Support - I thought they were already an admin. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
68. Support Trustworthy user who will provide excellent help with the tools in a needed area. Spencer^T•C 18:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
69. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
70. Support No concerns. It's clear from examining User:Rosguill#Articles_created that, contrary to what the single oppose thus far is implying, that they know what content creation is about.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
71. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
72. Support - No concerns, and I think Rosguill will be a great admin! Their NPP work is awesome, and I know that they do a lot of work patrolling redirects (including mine). Rosguill has clue, and I'm happy to support. Clovermoss (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
73. Support An asset to the 'pedia and this will increase with the addition of the mop and pail. MarnetteD|Talk 20:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
74. Support Seems alright to my findings ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
75. Support. I've observed good judgement over time, an understanding of policy, reasonable temperament, and a clear "here to build an encyclopedia" mindset.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
76. Support - I've only had positive interactions with Rosguill. No doubt they'll be of much help as an admin too :) Daß Wölf 22:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
77. Support - Competent editor, I see no red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 22:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
78. Support. I've seen a lot of his good work and he's an active volunteer and Thank you for the work at WP:NPP. Good luck.-Nahal^(T) 22:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
79. Support, no issues with this candidate, will be a big plus to the admin ranks. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
80. Support I've seen them around, and they meet my criteria. Miniapolis 23:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
81. Support They're a great editor HAL333 23:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
82. Support, he looks nice. New3400 (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
83. Support - Very good teacher to NPP students. Interstellarity (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
84. Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
85. Support No problems here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
86. Support created many articles and added to the encyclopedia. 66% of edits are in the main space. My kind of administrator candidate. My only hesitation is the very high AfD delete record. I give the candidate a pass because they have experience building articles. Lightburst (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
87. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
88. Support. I am very familiar with Rosguill's contributions, especially New Page Reviewing, where they are not only a prolific patroller but actively take part in discussions and developments. This is alone sufficient for me to recommend them for the bit, but I hope that becoming an admin will not detract from their work there - the one thing NPP needs is active admins among its ranks of the 90% inactive 750 reviewers. Patrollers with the admin flag can delete (or decline) CSDs on the fly while they also understand the criteria for granting reviewer rights at PERM. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
89. Strong support. Rosguill is incredibly sensational with their contributions especially at NPP and I would like to nickname them as New Page Reviewer machine. They might have made their debut in 2018 but we should not undermine their eligibility to adminship based upon on their time they joined Wikipedia. I am sure they know the policies and guidelines very well. They have reviewed more than 45,000 articles in their debut year and a vital asset to Wikipedia. They always top the Top new article reviewers and is voted as the New Page Reviewer of the Year for 2019. Their track record at Afd is also crucial to highlight. So based on these I think Rosguill is a perfect choice for adminship. This will boost their career and I hope Rosguill will continue to impress us through their work in the future. Abishe (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
90. Support - Looks like a excellent candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

    Support Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

    Your enthusiasm is noted, but you've already supported this candidate. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

91. Support - Great. Strong contribs and will be very useful to cleat up the backlog. Good work building up articles and with NPP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEANS X2 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
92. Support Falls into 'thought they were already an admin' category. Number 57 14:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
93. Support - Seems an excellent candidate. Impressive work on the encyclopedia which can only be enhanced with the admin toolset. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
94. Support per rationale put forth by the nominators. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
95. Support as per nominators --Iztwoz (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
96. Support. Competent candidate. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
97. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
98. Support. Can't see any problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
99. Support, abundant evidence of sound judgement. Pleased to see this – and about time too! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
100. Support: excellent work by the editor, no evidence of untrustworthiness and clear use for the tools. — Bilorv (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
101. Support I've seen Rosguill's work first hand. They understand policy and know how to deal equitably with a wide range of users. We need more admins, Rosguill will make a strong addition to the team. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
102. Support given no reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
103. Support - Looks good to me. - MrX 🖋 01:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
104. Support: a trusted contributor; thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
105. Support, good chance of being net positive with tools Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
106. Support while I would prefer more content contribution, they are good enough to wield a mop. --Find bruce (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
107. Support': Looking great for an editor that's been around for 2 years. Minima© (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
108. Support: No concerns. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
109. Support. Welcome aboard! -- œ^™ 12:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
110. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
111. Support – will be happy to see this editor expand on his existing experience with the admin tools. Jalen Folf (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
112. Support - Trustworthy choice for an admin. A lot of deletion activity on AfD but their judgement is fair and unbiased. Netherzone (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
113. Support - will be a great admin in my opinion Mujinga (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
114. Support can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
115. Support - I am impressed with their contributions at NPP and believe they can be trusted with the mop. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
116. Support - a sensible editor who I've seen around in favourable ways (for some reason that bold-italic signature stands out), with a wide variety of experience in obvious admin areas. Good question answers, generally very impressed. ~ mazca ^talk 20:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
117. Support Definitely 'has a clue'. Initially I was surprised by their AFD stats showing quite a few nominations for deletions that ended up as keeps. But quite a number of these nominations were subsequently self-reverted, showing a willingness to reconsider evidence. But then I saw just how many good nominations they'd made. An impressive editor. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
118. Support – An excellent candidate. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
119. Support. No issues here. Thanks for accepting the nomination to run for RfA. Loopy30 (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
120. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
121. Support Candidate seems qualified and trustworthy, and actually needs the admin tools. Nice! Demetrius Tremens (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
122. Support. Looks like a strong candidate for the mop. Goods luck!:) — sparklism ^hey! 09:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
123. Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 13:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
124. Support - Made a positive impact at NPP. Sun Creator^(talk) 13:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
125. Support Per Ritchie333 and Vanamonde clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
126. Support - good work at NPP. Cabayi (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
127. Support - A good all-around editor. I have no concerns. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
128. Support This is a no-brainer, from their amazing page review work, to their participation at RfD. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 16:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
129. Support – No concerns, and a clear need for the tools. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
130. Support Qualified, and the project need more admins. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
131. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
132. Support – surprised this hasn't happened already. Their contributions to Wikipedia from reviewing new articles to cleaning up existing articles is outstanding. – DarkGlow (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
133. Support. I'm familiar with Rosguill's work at NPP. They seem to have the experience and temperament necessary to be a good administrator. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
134. Support Support -- this nom is so well suited to having the tools I'm almost suspicious he is some kind of pod-admin grown in a lab.Jasphetamine (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
135. Weak support generally I like to see at least a GA to prove they know what is required to create content and have it reviewed by others, but in all other respects a good candidate and appears to know their limitations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
136. SupportGood editor, seems able to get along with others, have a go with the mop. Edison (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
137. Support. I have nothing but positive things to say about this candidate. I have ran into him many times through the NPP and RfD, and have not had a negative or unproductive interaction. (Most of the redirects I have ever created have been patrolled by this user), but this is also one of the hardest working users I know, and am certain that Rosguill will do a fantastic job with the tools. Utopes (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
138. Support. Adequate content creation, strong work at new page patrol, excellent interactions with inexperienced editors evident on their talk page. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
139. Support. No obvious problems, has a clue. Majavah ^(t/c) 09:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
140. Support - In particular favorably impressed by Rosguill's work at DRN, and elsewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
141. Support. Excellent experience and demonstrably trustworthy. Anyone who can make that many new page reviews (all I can say is better you than me!) without creating any problems can clearly make good use of the mop. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
142. Support I love seeing admins who are great content creators. I think they really 'get' some aspects of wikipedia in a way that someone who solely does antivandalism might not. Michepman (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
143. Support — meets my criteria —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
144. Support - great job a NPP this year, wow! L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
145. Support - looks like an excellent candidate for adminship. the wub "?!" 10:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
146. Support: Ditto (See my comments on the talk page)- Ret.Prof (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
147. Support: Net positive. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
148. Support: Definite support from me. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
149. Support A solid, qualified candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
150. Support: No objections. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
151. Support – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
152. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
153. Support, will be of benefit to the project. Cavalryman (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC).
154. Support Good content creator and reviewer. Considerate, takes our work seriously, and obviously enjoys building this encyclopedia. Rosguill, I am glad you have nominated Freedom of religion in Norway for GA. That would have been my only suggestion for improving your contribution to the project. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
155. Support, obviously a benefit for the project. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
156. Support. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 08:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
157. Support per nominators and to quote Fish and karate, "will be fine". Congratulations! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
158. Support, I'm impressed by their hard work on NPP and experience with AfD discussions. Blythwood (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
159. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
160. Support – bradv🍁 13:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
161. Sure, why not support. DS (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, per criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 02:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

   Extended discussion moved to talk. –xeno^talk 03:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

General comments

• Thanks, Rosguill (talk · contribs), for addressing the lack of citation at Freedom of religion by country. I don't think WP:V policy is served, particularly the ability of readers to readily see where information comes from without the cites (For example, it is very problematic anywhere in an article including a lead to write something like, "According to the State Department . . ." without inline citation.)
  On another matter, I am unsure about the efficacy of all-transclusion articles because of the spilt of article history and attribution (ie. all the changes you made to that article this week do not appear in that article's history) but I do note Find bruce (talk · contribs) yesterday somewhat addressed another issue at that article -- editors finding the text to edit -- by using a transclution tag & the somewhat counter-intuitive __NOEDITSECTION__, instead of 'main article', even if it still seems likely to cause some confusion, like opening up an editing page that is different from the text because of partial transclution, and a history that is not specific.
  At any rate, good luck to you. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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.