Their work on copyright—what I mainly know RTH from—has been great. Opposes don't convince me enough to move my vote from support. I'm confident they will use the tools for good. Chlod(sayhi!) 13:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey man im supp-dang it, someone beat me to the joke! In all seriousness, I've seen Josh around in counter-vandalism spaces for a long while now, but I know him most from his great work at NPP. Great editor. Best of luck! Chlod(sayhi!) 00:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Support. I agree with the use of more edit summaries but that's just a personal preference, being a user who gets watchlist updates with no easy "diff" view. But as someone who does both content writing and technical work, I find no convincing reason not to support. A truckload of created articles (and even more so GA+'d ones) isn't a be-all and end-all in adminship, and it won't hold Pppery back from being helpful in technical spaces. Chlod(sayhi!) 22:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
supports++; A great editor and tool developer. My interactions with Novem Linguae have been nothing but positive. Good at wielding a wrench; certainly will be great at wielding the mop! Chlod(sayhi!) 00:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Support. I wholeheartedly agree with Suffusion of Yellow's starting comment in their support. Even though it was rather recent, there's no need to get hung up on it. People make mistakes. Echoing the statements of others: physical age is not a fair reason to oppose. I've seen many young editors do great work onwiki (TLC included) and I believe TLC will do great things with the admin bit. In fact, I'd definitely support young (and mature) editors to run for RfA if the need arises. The ability to reflect and learn from their past actions and improve themselves is a big motivation in my decision to transfer my !vote to support.Aside from that, with all due respect, let's avoid directly calling the candidate "immature". Although they may have done some immature things, it should not be used as an attack against their character.Chlod(sayhi!) 04:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Q1 was unsatisfying for me; Q6 exacerbates this. It comes off to me as if the candidate is running for admin for the sake of being an admin or continuing the admin inflow. Q4 doesn't give me confidence that there will be actual lasting work in adminstrative areas besides testing the waters, and Q6 gives a reason for adminship that would be well possible even without the mop. I didn't see the same conviction in the areas where the candidate would work in in Q4 as they did in their last nom. I do appreciate the enthusiasm but, frankly, another admin who doesn't use the extra tools provided to them wouldn't help address the main reason why we need more admins. As someone with technical background, I'm more predisposed to apply the principle of least privilege and, considering the answer to Q9 and our lack of a proper recall process (which the candidate did also mention), I am less inclined to trust the user in continued use of the tools outside of trying out tooling. But as for the edit count, this doesn't concern me at all. Nonetheless, I'm regretfully opposing (a rarity for me), with no prejudice to a future run when the candidate has a stronger conviction on what area they intend to use their tools in. Chlod(sayhi!) 19:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Neutral
Unknown
These are RfAs/RfBs that the user has edited, but the tool was unable to parse a vote for.