Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aoidh: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Revision as of 23:52, 6 March 2023 edit Alalch E. (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers 35,363 edits →Support: s ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:17, 10 March 2023 edit undo Xaosflux (talk \| contribs) Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Election clerks, Importers, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators 84,922 edits trim
(118 intermediate revisions by 90 users not shown)
Line 1: <div class="boilerplate rfa" style="background-color: #f5fff5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> :''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a '''successful''' [[wikipedia:requests for adminship\|request for adminship]]. <strong style="color:red">Please do not modify it</strong>.''[[Category:Successful requests for adminship\|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] ===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aoidh\|Aoidh]]=== '''Final <span id="rfatally">(228/2/1)</span>; closed as successful by — [[User:Xaosflux\|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux\|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> at 23:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)''' <!-- Template:finaltally --> ~~{{hide until\|20:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)\|text={{rfah\|autohold=yes}}}}~~ <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aoidh\|action=edit&section=4}} <b style="color: #002BB8;">Voice your opinion on this candidate</b>]</span> ([[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aoidh\|talk page]]) '''{{RfA tally\|Aoidh}}<!-- WHEN CLOSING THIS RFA, REPLACE THIS PART WITH {{subst:finaltally\|[OPTIONALMESSAGE] OR [result=successful] OR [reason=SNOW] OR [reason=NOTNOW] OR (blank)}} SEE TEMPLATE FOR MORE DETAILS -->; Scheduled to end 20:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)''' ====Nomination==== Line 49: ::'''A:''' The concept of recall in all its current forms are an imperfect solution to a real problem, but in RfAs and elsewhere it seems to be the most-frequently used example of an attempt at ongoing accountability for administrators outside of ArbCom. There are issues with each method of recall that I've seen, but I do believe that if an administrator does something egregious enough to warrant a recall process that having some editors that they are on friendly terms with will not offset the very real concerns from other editors. I also think it can be skewed by off-wiki canvassing towards one way or the other so I agree there are concerns there, but this looks to be the best system in place for a recall and if initiated would ideally properly reflect whether the concerns raised warranted a desysop. That's my hope, at least. As for playing the crowd, I've seen RfAs where nominators suggest they are ''not'' open to recall and a few editors oppose on those grounds, but I haven't seen an RfA where those opposes were enough to tip the scales in a serious way, so saying I'd be open to recall dishonestly wouldn't be worth it, not at the cost of my integrity. Further, if a recall process was initiated and succeeded, and I were to suddenly go "Well its non-binding so I'm ignoring those results" that would completely erode any trust the community had in me as an administrator, and the entire point of being an administrator is because there is an element of trust there. I could go on all day about my honesty but those are just words that any one can say so instead I'll point you to the best assurance I can: when I mess up, I make a point to (1) figure out what I did wrong, (2) fix the mistake, and (3) make sure it doesn't happen again. If you look at my contribs or ask other editors they will tell you that is my MO when I have erred. If a recall succeeded, it means I have made a serious mistake that other editors are seeking accountability for, and I have to fix the issue. Dodging accountability isn't who I am and isn't part of how I edit Wikipedia. If you don't mind, I'll answer the indef banned/oppose comment below since it ties in to that. - [[User:Aoidh\|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh\|talk]]) 20:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC) ;Optional question from [[User:Rosguill\|~~Rosgill~~Rosguill]] :11. Since as of this writing you've received one oppose directly taking issue with your lack of comment regarding Synotia's oppose and subsequent drama in absentia, would you like to give an opinion regarding expected decorum regarding opposes at RfA, either in general or with specific respect to examples from this RfA? ::'''A:''' Thank you so much for asking this question. Before I started this RfA I was given advice (not from the admins that nominated me) to not respond to any comment, oppose, support, or even off-topic, unless there was a question directly asked of me. This was in the interest of ~~avoid~~avoiding unnecessary drama and to keep it as professional as possible. Maybe that's not the best way of doing that in hindsight but I have looked at past RfAs where the noms were responding to individual opposes for example, and it did not go well. I have been watching the Synotia situation unfold with a great deal of discomfort. For one thing, I'm just happy to (currently) be out of the discretionary range (or worse), so the difference between 100% and 99% means nothing to me. It's at best an ego boost that I don't need. Synotia obviously shouldn't have been blocked, and their comments should not be stricken. Their comments will be weighed accordingly when it gets to that point, and in my mind that's as far as that needs to go in this particular RfA. If their non-candidate-based opposes are a pattern across multiple RfAs (I don't know if that's the case) then that can be discussed as a potential issue, but not here. Concerning decorum regarding opposes at RfA, I do have concerns about how supports make their comment and move on, but the opposes receive significant pushback in a very disproportionate way. Clarifying questions or a short comment to their oppose comments is one thing, but oppose comments turning into these large threads of that nature would make some hesitate to even make an oppose comment, and I don't think someone should become an admin simply because editors didn't want the hassle of how their oppose comments would be addressed. Oppose comments also often have insightful feedback and critiques that are perfectly valid that should be considered by the nominator whether their nom is successful or not. - [[User:Aoidh\|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh\|talk]]) 21:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC) ;Optional question from [[User:Genome42\|Genome42]] :12. We desperately need new administrators with expertise in the sciences in order to help resolve disputes over scientific facts and scientific consensus. I'm not convinced that we need more administrators who are not knowledgeable about science and technology. Do you have any experience in any area of science? ::'''A''': Unfortunately my answer is that I am not an expert in that area. My knowledge of science is mostly limited to what you would learn in high school and college (without pursuing a science degree). - [[User:Aoidh\|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh\|talk]]) 19:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC) ;Optional question from [[User:The void century\|The void century]] :13. Can you expand on your views about [[wp:civil]] and what behavior you'd consider worthy of ANI? [[User:The void century\|The void century]] ([[User talk:The void century\|talk]]) 16:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC) ::'''A:''' Civility is critical on this project, so much so that it is [[WP:5P4]], the fourth of Wikipedia's five fundamental principals. Without civility this project wouldn't work. What I said in Q3 about "thin skin" I meant that in the past I would allow a single uncivil comment to derail a consensus-building discussion; basically what [[WP:FOC]] hopes to avoid. I used the AN/I diff in Q3 in part because I couldn't find a diff of the scenario I just described. As far as being "worthy of ANI", I think there's two ways to read that so I'll answer both. Worthy of ''bringing it'' to AN/I? Evidence of the problem the form of a diff or diffs and preferably an attempt to discuss the issue with the editor beforehand is all I would reasonably expect to make it worth bringing it to AN/I. It may not be actionable in the way the editor wants if it's a single diff depending on the circumstances; maybe it's an unfortunate one-off situation where things got too heated and they said something they shouldn't have. A word or warning to that editor might be warranted but it depends on the circumstances and what was said as to exactly what would be done, but it's certainly "worthy of ANI" in that scenario even if it doesn't result in more serious action being taken to resolve it. Likely to be ''actionable'' at AN/I in the form of block, ban, topic ban, or other? That would probably either need a series of diffs showing an ongoing pattern of incivility, or a diff showing an egregious comment that crosses the line past incivility and straight into the deep end of [[WP:NPA]] such that it is clearly unconscionable and unacceptable in a way that requires immediate action. It's happened plenty of times, and isn't tolerated. To be clear, my thin-skin comment was directed at myself and myself alone, the advice I would give to a new editor would be that if they feel that incivility is occurring on a talk page, to continue to [[WP:FOC\|focus on the content]] on that talk page while also bringing up the incivility at a more appropriate venue such as [[WP:ANI]] or with an administrator. - [[User:Aoidh\|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh\|talk]]) 20:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC) ;Optional question from [[User:DarklitShadow\|DarklitShadow]] :'''14.''' The use of OpenAI is becoming common enough to warrant discussion on Wikipedia. I have added [[User:DarklitShadow/openai\|my thoughts]] on this topic. What is your opinion on the usage of OpenAI assisted editing? (I'm [[Scope_creep\|specifically]] asking about your opinion(s) on OpenAI as an editing aid.) ::'''A:''' I have seen things about OpenAI that concern me (and I'm referring to things in general that use the OpenAI API, not just ChatGPT). This technology is [https://www.zdnet.com/article/chatgpt-lies-about-scientific-results-needs-open-source-alternatives-say-researchers/ not without its flaws], often in ways that strike me [https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ad39b/microsoft-bing-ai-unhinged-lying-berating-users as bizarre]. It comes across to me as a novel thing that has potential, but not immediate applicability for all things because its potential has not yet been fully realized and is unreliable in many ways. I could see a use where someone has trouble figuring out how to best write a section of prose in an article, having OpenAI write an example, and using that as inspiration to help guide their own writing, but I would think it highly unwise to rely on or trust that the output is reliable and needs no spot-checking or to copy-paste its output into articles. While OpenAI itself says [https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5008634-will-openai-claim-copyright-over-what-outputs-i-generate-with-the-api it does not copyright the output] of its API, there are still [https://www.vox.com/recode/23580554/generative-ai-chatgpt-openai-stable-diffusion-legal-battles-napster-copyright-peter-kafka-column potential legal/copyright concerns] surrounding it. Between the fabrications it outputs and the ongoing legal concerns, I think it best to let the dust settle a bit so that we would have a more informed discussion about its use on Wikipedia, but I don't think reliance on it is ideal at this time. - [[User:Aoidh\|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh\|talk]]) 00:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC) ====Discussion==== Line 67 ⟶ 77: #I meant to ask you about this but forgot to… [[User:Moneytrees\|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees\|(Talk)]] 20:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC) #Good content work, good demeanor, it’s a yes from me. [[User:CaptainEek\|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek\|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek\|⚓]] 20:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) #:I totally agree with you on that [[User:Iszik Newton\|Iszik Newton]] ([[User talk:Iszik Newton\|talk]]) 02:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC) # Support; After reviewing the users edits, history, and answers to above questions, I see no reason not to support. [[User:Illusion Flame\|Illusion Flame]] ([[User talk:Illusion Flame\|talk]]) 20:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' - I have collaborated on many articles over many years with this editor and, without any reservations, I think he would make an excellent admin. - [[User:Ahunt\|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt\|talk]]) 21:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Line 167 ⟶ 178: #'''Support''' Why not? -[[User talk:Fastily\|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';color:Indigo;font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-size:120%;">F</span><span style="font-size:90%;">ASTILY</span></span>]] 09:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC) #:Not the best sentence to say before voting. [[User:Synotia\|Synotia]] ([[User talk:Synotia\|moan]]) 18:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC) #::@[[User:Synotia\|Synotia]]: see [[WP:Why not?]] -- [[User:In actu\|<span style="color: #0b0080">In actu (Guerillero)</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero\|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 12:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. ––[[User:FormalDude\|<span style="color:#004ac0">Formal</span><span style="color:black">Dude</span>]] [[User talk:FormalDude\|<span style="color:#004ac0;font-size:90%;">(talk)</span>]] 09:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' [[User:Cabayi\|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi\|talk]]) 09:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Line 225 ⟶ 237: #'''Support''' per the excellent answer to Q3. [[User:Lepricavark\|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top\|<small>talk</small>]]) 23:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' Per noms. I remember this user mainly from AfD, and the impression is quite positive. —[[User talk:Alalch E.\|Alalch E.]] 23:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #I don't see anything to make me believe that this editor will abuse the tools, if granted. [[User:SQL\|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL\|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!</sup>]] 00:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' generally, and particularly because of the answer to Q11. [[User:Schazjmd\|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd\|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 01:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. Temperment and judgement are fine. Thanks for volunteering to wield the mop. [[User:Loopy30\|Loopy30]] ([[User talk:Loopy30\|talk]]) 01:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. A quite level head, in my experience. –[[User:Vami_IV\|<span style="background:crimson; color:white; padding:2px;">♠Vamí</span>]][[User talk:Vami_IV\|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px;">_IV†♠</span>]] 02:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' We haven't interacted much, but I was impressed by his thoughtful responses, especially to Q3 and Q11. ◇<span style="font-family: Blackadder ITC;">'''[[User:HelenDegenerate\|<span style="color: black">Helen</span>]]'''</span><span style="font-family: Blackadder ITC;">'''[[User talk:HelenDegenerate\|<span style="color: grey">Degenerate</span>]]'''</span>◆ 02:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''', making this change is sensible. [[User:Dekimasu\|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu\|よ!]]</small> 03:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' No concerns. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion\|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion\|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 03:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''', per the answer to Q11. [[User:Vadder\|Vadder]] ([[User talk:Vadder\|talk]]) 04:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' looks fine <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Deepfriedokra\|Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deepfriedokra\|contribs]]) 06:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)</small> #'''Support''' - no concerns. Thanks for offering to help. [[User:Girth Summit\|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span> <span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit\|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 11:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC) # '''Support''' — Looks legit. [[User:Musashi1600\|Musashi1600]] ([[User talk:Musashi1600\|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #—[[User:Kusma\|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma\|talk]]) 12:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC) # Nihil obstat. [[User:Courcelles\|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles\|talk]]) 14:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC) # Haven't seen any good reason to oppose. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites\|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites\|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' - based on review. [[User:Kierzek\|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek\|talk]]) 14:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' based on discernible sensibility. - '''[[User:Julietdeltalima\|<span style="color:#006600;font-family:Century Gothic">Julietdeltalima</span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Julietdeltalima\|<span style="color:#806000">(talk)</span>]]'' 15:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' Good editor who is willing to take up the mop; great response to questoin 11. – [[User:Dudhhr\|dudhhr]]<small><sup> [[User talk:Dudhhr\|talk]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contribs/Dudhhr\|contribs]]</sub></small> (he/they) 16:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. Looking at this editor's contributions (particularly in project namespace) assures me that they're a good fit for the tools, but I mainly want to add that I also approve of the answer to Q11. [[User:Thebiguglyalien\|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien\|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 16:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' No concerns. [[User:Denisarona\|Denisarona]] ([[User talk:Denisarona\|talk]]) 16:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' - per Chess. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy\|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 17:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)</small> #'''Support''' -- per SQL, no concerns. --[[User:TheSandDoctor\|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">The</span><span style="color:#009933; font-weight:bold;">SandDoctor</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:TheSandDoctor\|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 17:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' as my default option, as I do not remember having interacted with the candidate, and have no reason not to support. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood\|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood\|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 17:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' has clue, not a jerk, no big deal. Opposes have zero sway — [[User:TheresNoTime\|TheresNoTime]] ([[User talk:TheresNoTime\|talk]] • they/them) 21:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' Clearly qualified. From my interactions with Aiodh (mostly on Discord) I've found them to have good judgement and in general the sort of temperament I would expect from an administrator. [[User:Trainsandotherthings\|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings\|talk]]) 00:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''', this editor has always impressed me with their thoughtfulness. I find the oppose statements entirely unconvincing; like it or not, admins ''do'' need a pretty thick skin. [[User:Seraphimblade\|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade\|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 00:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' Lack of scientific knowledge concerned me a bit. The answer to my question eliminated those concerns. [[User:DarklitShadow\|DarklitShadow]] ([[User talk:DarklitShadow\|talk]]) 01:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #Not a jerk. Has a clue. [[User:TonyBallioni\|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni\|talk]]) 01:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' -- No concerns. The candidate is reasonable and I believe they will be a helpful administrator. [[User:Nythar\|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar\|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar\|❄️]]) 01:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' Clearly qualified. [[User:The void century\|The void century]] ([[User talk:The void century\|talk]]) 02:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' - Proven capability over a long period of time [[User:MaxnaCarta\|MaxnaCarta]] ([[User talk:MaxnaCarta\|talk]]) 03:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' Heck yeah! Seems like a good contributor. We need more admins now than ever. You have my support. [[User:Wikiexplorationandhelping\|Wikiexplorationandhelping]] ([[User talk:Wikiexplorationandhelping\|talk]]) 04:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' Clearly a good candidate. As an ex-administrator, who retired because he was getting too old, may I say that we are making becoming an admin too difficult. We might finish up with not enough admins. --[[User:Bduke\|Bduke]] ([[User talk:Bduke\|talk]]) 06:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #:Agreed. I wonder how stressful it is to be an administrator these days. 900 admins dealing with 45,000,000 users. Must be a lot. [[User:Wikiexplorationandhelping\|Wikiexplorationandhelping]] ([[User talk:Wikiexplorationandhelping\|talk]]) 15:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. I only know Aoidh's participation at AfD. Hisresponses demonstrate equanimity, and thoughtful, reasoned arguments — qualities not only of a good contributor, but also of a well-qualified admin. [[User:Grand'mere Eugene\|— Grand'mere Eugene]] ([[User talk:Grand'mere Eugene\|talk]]) 07:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. Ample evidence of competence. [[User:Maproom\|Maproom]] ([[User talk:Maproom\|talk]]) 07:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. Looks okay to me. [[User:Deb\|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb\|talk]]) 07:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. good luck! :)[[User:Sparklism\| — sparklism]] <sup><small>''[[User_talk:Sparklism\| hey!]]''</small></sup> 09:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #[[User:Modussiccandi\|Modussiccandi]] ([[User talk:Modussiccandi\|talk]]) 09:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' - Sufficiently qualified. On a not directly related note, while I can sort of understand some people's urge to argue with the few oppose voters, it is probably one of the least productive ways one can spend their time, and nothing would happen if those opposes were ignored. It really doesn't matter whether the candidate passes with 100% or "merely" 98% support.--[[User:Staberinde\|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde\|talk]]) 09:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. Seems like a good egg, I much appreciate the answer to question 11. [[User:Yngvadottir\|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir\|talk]]) 10:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' per above noms and commentaries, answers look good and constructive.--[[User:A09\|A09]] ([[User talk:A09\|talk]]) 11:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' --[[User:jni\|jni]]<sup>([[User talk:jni\|talk]])([[Special:Log/delete/jni\|delete]])</sup> 11:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' I wanted to stay out of this debate because I've done a bit of clerking and thought it best I avoid giving an opinion, however I can't avoid endorsing the answer to Q13 : "{{xt\|Clarifying questions or a short comment to their oppose comments is one thing, but oppose comments turning into these large threads of that nature would make some hesitate to even make an oppose comment, and I don't think someone should become an admin simply because editors didn't want the hassle of how their oppose comments would be addressed.}}" It's one of those bizarre things in life that a controversial candidate will get opposition that mostly passes without comment, but a good candidate will generate pages and pages of hot responses over a single oppose. As for how trustworthy and qualified this user is to use the admin toolset, pretty much everyone above has already said everything I need to. [[User:Ritchie333\|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333\|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333\|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 13:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Weakest of weak Oppose''' due to the potential for inadvertently causing serious harm or death to random wiki users (see off–topic question in general comments below regarding name pronunciation), fully '''Support''' for any other reasons.--[[User:Loriendrew\|<span style="color: #005000;">☾Loriendrew☽</span>]] [[User talk:Loriendrew\|<span style="color: #000080;">☏''(ring-ring)''</span>]] 14:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. [[User:BeanieFan11\|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11\|talk]]) 16:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. Good track record of dealing with vandalism and reverting edits where necessary. [[User:SpookiePuppy\|SpookiePuppy]] ([[User talk:SpookiePuppy\|talk]]) 16:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' Qualified, even-tempered, and good article work. <span style="font-family: Optima;">'''[[User:Ceranthor\|<span style="color: #4682B4;">ceran</span>]]'''[[User_talk:Ceranthor\|<span style="color: #4682B4;">''thor''</span>]]</span> 17:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' I've seen this user's edits here and there and have no concerns. [[User:Aoi\|Aoi (青い)]] ([[User talk:Aoi\|talk]]) 22:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC) #I fully '''support'''! I looked at the user's contributions and saw the Q&A and I am impressed. You have my 100% support! [[User:JackReynoldsADogOwner\|<b style="color:red">Jack Reynolds</b>]] ([[User talk:JackReynoldsADogOwner\|<b style="color:blue">talk to me</b>]] \| [[Special:Emailuser/JackReynoldsADogOwner\|<b style="color:grey">email me</b>]]) 00:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' - sound history, sound practices, good judgement; worthy of the Mop-and-Bucket. --[[User:Orangemike\|<span style="color:#F80">Orange Mike</span>]] \| [[User talk:Orangemike\|<span style="color:#FA0">Talk</span>]] 02:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. Kind of reluctant, because I greatly prefer candidates who offer recallability and a reasonable method for triggering and doing it. But, I mean the guy is great. I'll eat my hat if candidate ever justifies recall. So, as practical matter, and no point is beating a dead horse, support Looks like he would be a good AfD closer which occassionaly we do get bad results IMO. I trust the candidate; I trust the candidate to be a fine admin. I trust ''everybody''. But I still cut the cards, you know? It's just good practice. OL I'll pipe down now, support, and godspeed. [[User:Herostratus\|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus\|talk]]) 02:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. Looks good. [[User:Kiwiz1338\|Kiwiz1338]] ([[User talk:Kiwiz1338\|talk]]) 03:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' His contributions speak for themselves. [[User:Nocturnal781\|Nocturnal781]] ([[User talk:Nocturnal781\|talk]]) 04:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. I've had some editorial disagreement with this editor in the past, but I find myself impressed with the honest sounding answers they have given here. The experience they have is worthy of holding the tools. [[User:Huggums537\|Huggums537]] ([[User talk:Huggums537\|talk]]) 05:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. Reading the nominee's answers gives me a high degree of confidence that they will be an excellent administrator. The opposes are unconvincing and unfortunate. [[User:Cullen328\|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328\|talk]]) 05:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' Civil, has clue. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn\|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn\|talk]]) 12:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' Very helpful and i have seen many edits that have helped the wiki [[User:Nagol0929\|Nagol0929]] ([[User talk:Nagol0929\|talk]]) 13:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''', a strong candidate. [[User:Nsk92\|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92\|talk]]) 14:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' I don't see why not - we need more admins. If anyone is bold and confident enough to step up on the RFA and have no major problems they should be voted in. [[User:SunDawn\|<span style="background-color:black; color:orange;">&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;</span>]] [[User talk:SunDawn\|<span style="color:blue;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(contact)</span></span>]] 16:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' for sure. Stable, responsible, reasonable. [[User:Binksternet\|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet\|talk]]) 18:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support'''. I've run across the candidate in the scope of editing, and I have no reservations about their ability to wield the mop. --<span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">[[User:Kinu\|<strong style="color:blue">Kinu</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Kinu\|<i style="color: red">t</i>]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Kinu\|<i style="color:red">c</i>]]</sub></span> 18:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' Seen around a fair bit, contributions and temperament look good. <sup>[[User:ComplexRational\|'''<span style="color:#0039a6">Complex</span>''']]</sup>/<sub>[[User talk:ComplexRational\|'''<span style="color:#000000">Rational</span>''']]</sub> 20:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' I'll share the burden of eating User:Herostratus's hat if this editor ever becomes a net negative to Wikipedia. The nominee has had plenty of opportunity, and so far, so good. No fear they'll delete the mainpage. I agree with many others this candidate demonstrates reliability and good sense. Their answers help me understand their wiki view. Ready for the mop. [[User:BusterD\|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD\|talk]]) 23:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' – No concerns. [[User:Paul Erik\|<span style="font-family: Comic sans MS;">Paul Erik</span>]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Paul Erik\|<span style="color: Blue">(talk)</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Paul Erik\|<span style="color: Green;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup></small> 01:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' – Good editor.definite net positive.[[User:CAPTAIN RAJU\|<span style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;">'''CAPTAIN RAJU'''</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU\|(T)]]</sup> 04:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' I have no negative feelings about this RFA. —[[User:K6ka\|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka\|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka\|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 04:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' LGTM --[[User:DannyS712\|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712\|talk]]) 15:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' per noms <sup>Thanks,</sup>[[User:L3X1\|L3X1]] [[User talk:L3X1\|<small>◊distænt write◊</small>]] 15:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' - I'm late to the party, apparently. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll\|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 16:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' no negative impressions and only positive ones so looks good. [[User:Skynxnex\|Skynxnex]] ([[User talk:Skynxnex\|talk]]) 18:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' per above, this candidate seems like they deserve the mop. [[User:Rollidan\|Rollidan]] ([[User talk:Rollidan\|talk]]) 19:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC) # '''support'''. my previous interactions with Aoidh have been favourable, and nothing in this rfa raises any serious concerns for me. [[User:Dying\|dying]] ([[User talk:Dying\|talk]]) 19:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC) #'''Support''' Excellent candidate. [[User:Curbon7\|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7\|talk]]) 19:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC) =====Oppose===== Line 230 ⟶ 315: #::'''Discussion moved to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aoidh#Synotia's oppose\|the talk page]].''' [[User:Beccaynr\|Beccaynr]] ([[User talk:Beccaynr\|talk]]) 23:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC) - #'''Oppose''' based on A3 (per [[User:Tamzin]]). The ANI thread against [[User:Tarc]] the candidate started in 2012 was justified imho. I would say calling someone a "Grammar Nazi" is a personal attack. "Wiki-Retardation" was certainly a questionable term he also used, and the same for referring to others as "yahoos". Sure, you (the candidate) were wrong in the dispute over the category, but you took away the wrong lesson here about behaviour. Your belief appears to be that you should've just grown a thicker skin and just ignore these mild conduct issues (not even a warning or trout for Tarc?) {{pb}}But if you look at Tarc's history on wiki, they're the perfect example of why you can't just ignore these mild civility issues hoping they won't spiral. Tarc only got worse over time, being mentioned by name by ArbCom in 2013 as engaging in "inflammatory and disruptive speech" over the Manning name dispute, being banned from transgender subjects. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Disruptive_participation_by_Tarc] Tarc continued being toxic on wiki (see their user talk page archive) until 2015 when they were indeffed by ArbCom for off wiki harassment. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Indefinite_ban_of_Tarc]{{pb}}As an administrator, you can judge conduct issues. You will be in a position where your words are very influential. If your advice to a new editor who is upset they were called a "grammar Nazi"/yahoo/other mild insults is to just grow thicker skin, you shouldn't be an admin. [[User:Chess\|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess\|talk]]) <small>(please use {{tlx\|reply to\|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 06:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #::'''Discussion moved to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aoidh#Chess' oppose\|the talk page]].''' [[User:Mr rnddude\|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude\|talk]]) 03:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #:Every time I think we've scraped the bottom of the barrel on reasons to oppose... <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- [[User:Tamzin\|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup>[''[[User talk:Tamzin\|<span style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</span>]]'']</sup> (she\|they\|xe)</span> 06:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #:<s>'''Weak Oppose''' per above, and particularly the lack of any attempt to get oppose defenders to quit escalating (see talk page). Between [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Aoidh#Synotia's_oppose\|the talk page discussion]] and [[Special:Permalink/1143177044#Abuse_of_power_by_the_admin_Maile66\|AN/I discussion]], they had plenty of opportunities to interject to try and de-escalate what eventually culminated in a (short) block for simply !voting against the mob. An admin not willing to speak up when they see something wrong isn't someone I'd want to be an admin. —[[User:Locke Cole\|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole\|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole\|c]] 19:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC) <small>Changed to '''Weak Oppose''' per answer to {{u\|Rosguill}}'s question —[[User:Locke Cole\|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole\|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole\|c]] 23:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)</small></s> <small>After further considering candidates response, moving to '''Neutral'''. —[[User:Locke Cole\|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole\|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole\|c]] 05:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)</small> #::{{re\|Tamzin}} Do you have any specific points on why my reasons to oppose are "bottom of the barrel"? [[User:Chess\|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess\|talk]]) <small>(please use {{tlx\|reply to\|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 17:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #::I've held off of responding to other inanities above, but RFA candidates are ''strongly'' discouraged from responding to !voters, and are routinely opposed for doing so. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, I suppose. And people wonder why RFA is considered an unpleasant environment. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93\|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93\|Talk]])</span> 21:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #:::Chess, to refute any part of your vote would require it to contain a single coherent point capable of refutation. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- [[User:Tamzin\|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup>[''[[User talk:Tamzin\|<span style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</span>]]'']</sup> (she\|they\|xe)</span> 19:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #:::I think this very much depends on the type of reply: arguing with an oppose voter? Yeah, very bad idea. Trying to curtail a mob mentality from spiraling into a (however brief) indef block? I'd admire that behavior. Quoting [[Elie Wiesel]]: {{tqq\|We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.}} —[[User:Locke Cole\|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole\|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole\|c]] 23:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #::::{{ping\|Tamzin}} this seems to be on the edge of [[WP:5P4\|breaking the 4th pillar]]. While staying neutral on whether they are right, Chess makes a coherent argument about how they believe an administrator should respond to personal attacks. For example, you could say: ''I disagree that administrators should show a greater willingness to act on and enforce civility, rather than just choosing to "grow a thicker skin"'' [[User: Crazynas\|Crazynas]]<sup> [[User_talk:Crazynas\|t]]</sup> 19:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #::::~~:If~~Are you ~~feel~~really Itrying ~~have~~to ~~violated~~apply ~~Wikipedia~~a ~~policies~~quote orfrom ~~guidelines~~a ~~you~~holocaust ~~are welcome~~survivor to ~~raise~~this ~~the~~minor ~~matter~~Wikipedia atscuffle? ~~an appropriate venue. I will~~It's not bethat ~~forced to treat Chess' trolling as legitimate discourse~~serious. ––[[User:FormalDude\|<span ~~class~~style="~~nowrap~~color:#004ac0"> Formal</span ~~style="font-family:courier"~~>~~-- [[User:Tamzin\|~~<span style="color:~~#E6007A~~black">~~Tamzin~~Dude</span>]]~~</span><sup>[''~~ [[User talk:~~Tamzin~~FormalDude\|<span style="color:#~~E6007A~~004ac0;font-size:90%;">~~cetacean needed~~(talk)</span>]]~~'']</sup> (she\|they\|xe)</span>~~ 2005:2505, 67 March 2023 (UTC) #:::::{{reply\|FormalDude}} If you say so. I'm trying to give an insight to how I think editors should conduct themselves, especially editors looking to be administrators. You're more than welcome to miss that point and get hung up on your perceived misuse of a very good quote to live by... —[[User:Locke Cole\|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole\|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole\|c]] 05:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC) #:::::: {{ping\|Tamzin}} can you substantiate how you think this oppose is a [[WP:Troll\|deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the reliability of Wikipedia]]? I'm certinaly not going to take you to the [[WP:An/I\|drama boards]] but if {{ping\|Chess}} wants to I wouldn't blame them. [[User: Crazynas\|Crazynas]]<sup> [[User_talk:Crazynas\|t]]</sup> 20:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #:::::::And ~~Well,~~I'm itjust ~~would~~trying ~~start~~to ~~with~~give ~~the~~an ~~part where he opposes per my support (joke-oppose). And continue~~insight to~~...~~ ~~every~~how ~~other~~I ~~word~~think ineditors ~~the~~should ~~comment.~~not Todistastefully ~~believe~~throw ~~that~~around ~~any~~holocaust ofquotes ~~that~~so ~~was~~as ~~meant sincerely would be an insult~~not to ~~Chess' intelligence. If people disagree with my assessment,~~imply that's ~~alright.~~Wikipedia ~~I'm~~editing ~~not~~is ~~here~~anywhere tonear ~~badger~~as ~~the opposes; I'm just replying to pings~~important. ––[[User:FormalDude\|<span ~~class~~style="~~nowrap~~color:#004ac0"> Formal</span ~~style="font-family:courier"~~>~~-- [[User:Tamzin\|~~<span style="color:~~#E6007A~~black">~~Tamzin~~Dude</span>]]~~</span><sup>[''~~ [[User talk:~~Tamzin~~FormalDude\|<span style="color:#~~E6007A~~004ac0;font-size:90%;">~~cetacean needed~~(talk)</span>]]~~'']</sup> (she\|they\|xe)</span>~~ 2005:4939, 67 March 2023 (UTC) #:::::::{{u\|FormalDude}}, is my understanding that you believe the same quote should have different meanings in different situations that depend upon knowing if the quote came from a holocaust survivor or not? In other words, I'm trying to understand why it is you think this quote is so "distasteful". Is it because it came from a holocaust survivor? You called it a "holocaust quote", but I don't really understand what that is? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I kind of agree with {{u\|Locke Cole}} that the quote is a very good one to live by that kinda makes sense here as it would in many other ordinary situations, and if someone had no idea the quote came from a holocaust survivor, then they would not have anything "distasteful" to compare it to so the fact we are even bringing that up at all is probably more distasteful than anything. Does that make sense? [[User:Huggums537\|Huggums537]] ([[User talk:Huggums537\|talk]]) 06:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #::::::::{{re\|Tamzin}} I'm bitingly sarcastic in general and love to communicate through the medium of trolling, but I do sincerely believe that an admin should recognize incivility when it occurs. If you want me to remove your username, I can go ahead and do so. #:::::::The only person bringing up the holocaust here is you. And ''that <u>is</u>'' distasteful. —[[User:Locke Cole\|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole\|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole\|c]] 16:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #::::::::But your response to me is essentially "your vote is bad". It added nothing but your signature beneath my words saying that you disagree. While I am unfamiliar with what exactly constitutes disruptive badgering, a reply in a discussion consisting of nothing more than "you're wrong" isn't constructive arguing. [[User:Chess\|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess\|talk]]) <small>(please use {{tlx\|reply to\|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 22:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #::::::::I didn't bring up the holocaust, but I think the whole thing was a big misunderstanding as I explained on my talk page. I was actually in favor of your quote and thought {{u\|FormalDude}} made a mistake by bringing it up in the first place. [[User:Huggums537\|Huggums537]] ([[User talk:Huggums537\|talk]]) 21:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #:::::::::It's funny how when you ping someone they tend to respond. On that note, please stop pinging me. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- [[User:Tamzin\|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup>[''[[User talk:Tamzin\|<span style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</span>]]'']</sup> (she\|they\|xe)</span> 22:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #::::::::Also, nobody has responded to my recent post there yet, so I think we should give each other the benefit of the doubt before jumping to any conclusions about what is distasteful. [[User:Huggums537\|Huggums537]] ([[User talk:Huggums537\|talk]]) 21:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC) #:::::::Opposing on the basis of a discussion from over 10 years ago, where the candidate fundamentally did nothing wrong, and construing a fault because they disengaged and did not identify what would only later become a pattern of behavior worthy of a block on the part of the editor they were disputing with, is pretty self-evidently a weak oppose. It's further ironic that this is on the same side of the fence as the outrage related to Maile66's block of Synotia, as Chess's line of reasoning if anything encourages admins to be more aggressive in sanctioning editors engaged in borderline incivility. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill\|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill\|''talk'']]</sup> 20:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #:::::::: Right, I actually agree it's a pretty weak argument, but I think that calling it incoherent or trolling is a stretch and unnecessarily uncollegial. As to your last point, I thought that the entire basis of the oppose was that incivility should be addressed ''more'' strongly. So I guess I'm missing the irony. (Although the replies from an Tamzin, as an administrator, are pretty ironic) [[User: Crazynas\|Crazynas]]<sup> [[User_talk:Crazynas\|t]]</sup> 22:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #::::::::More sanctioning for borderline incivility is good, but there's a difference between disengaging and saying that one ''should'' disengage when confronted with incivility. Because the second is tolerating an environment in which toxic editors can drive people out of areas they don't like. [[User:Chess\|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess\|talk]]) <small>(please use {{tlx\|reply to\|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 23:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #:[[User:Chess\|Chess]], I thought I we were beginning to come to an understanding at ANI for a moment there. Again, editors don't care about maintaining 100% support.<span id="Nythar:1678084536763:WikipediaFTTCLNRequests_for_adminship/Aoidh" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar\|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar\|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar\|❄️]]) 06:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)</span> #::It's interesting that "Saddam-like" goes too far but "grammar Nazi" did not. [[User:Chess\|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess\|talk]]) <small>(please use {{tlx\|reply to\|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 16:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #:::For better or for worse, [[wikt:grammar Nazi]] is part of the English lexicon. [[wikt:grammar Ba'athist]] on the other hand... <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill\|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill\|''talk'']]</sup> 16:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC) ~~#:Using your oppose vote to go on a bizarre rant about a completely different editor is definitely ''novel''. [[User:Parabolist\|Parabolist]] ([[User talk:Parabolist\|talk]]) 11:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)~~ #:Chess, I think you've confused ''I don't entirely agree with you on the interpretation of this policy'' with ''I think you shouldn't be an admin''. I happen to agree with you on the particular stance you're taking here towards wp:civil, but to oppose someone's RfA because they take –or perhaps even just appear to take– a different stance, is ... peculiar. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ [[User:Apaugasma\|<span style="color:#6a0dad">Apaugasma</span>]] ([[User talk:Apaugasma\|<span style="color:#000">talk</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Apaugasma\|☉]])</span> 13:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #::Not really. The candidate wants to work at the drama boards and someone unwilling to enforce civility should not be in that position. One of the problems on this encyclopedia is admins ignoring/unblocking for seemingly minor violations of [[WP:NPA]] as a one off event. That's the reason why the [[WP:UNBLOCKABLE]] problem exists in its current form, and the user that the candidate interacted with in 2012 is a good example of that. If the candidate thought their issue with that user was "thin skin", I don't think they can take the necessary actions w.r.t. civility. [[WP:CIVILITY]] isn't some minor policy, it's [[WP:5P4\|the fourth pillar]]. [[User:Chess\|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess\|talk]]) <small>(please use {{tlx\|reply to\|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 16:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #:I don't think Aoidh's stance to new editors is to just "grow thicker skin" necessarily; in fact, our very own Keilana used online harassment as a motivator to focus on content (see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-03-09/In the media\|Signpost article]]). I'm inclined to believe that Aoidh's stance is similar: not about dismissing harassment, but about staying true to Wikipedia's original mission—which is building an encyclopedia. That's commendable. Of course we need to deal with harassment, but let's not lose sight of our original purpose when doing so. —[[User:K6ka\|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka\|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka\|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 14:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #::Ignoring conduct problems to focus on content is fine if you're a regular editor. It's not fine if you're an admin who is going to volunteer at user conduct boards. To paraphrase one of the comments at that [[WP:SIGNPOST]] article, while I admire Keilana's work and respect her motivations, I can't stand by the normalization of harassment on Wikipedia. An editor dealing with harassment by working harder demonstrates that our existing processes can't handle harassment. And re: {{tq\|Of course we need to deal with harassment, but let's not lose sight of our original purpose when doing so}}; our original mission includes civility per [[WP:5P4]]. [[User:Chess\|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess\|talk]]) <small>(please use {{tlx\|reply to\|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 17:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #:10-9 years ago is a long time, people can change. I would note that it is not offensive to people, and is only use to signify that the person that takes spelling and grammar too seriously. I struggle with basic grammar sometimes, and that can lead to problems that I have to find a way to resolve. I'm going to support Aoidh here just for the fact that it was so long ago that it doesn't actually signify anything about his current personality. [[User:ElusiveTaker\|ElusiveTaker]] ([[User talk:ElusiveTaker\|talk]]) 16:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #:{{re\|Chess}} I know why you're doing this. You are convinced that the editors replying to the oppose votes want 100% of the !vote to be "support", so you're "fighting" this by opposing this candidacy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1143154362"{{tq\|Any warm fuzzy feeling potential admins get from their 100% approval score is outweighed by the need to prevent a chilling effect on possible oppose voters.}}"] However, I don't want to get into an argument with you since you're generally a fine editor, so I won't push this :-) [[User:Nythar\|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar\|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar\|❄️]]) 20:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #::{{re\|Nythar}} If you {{tq\|don't want to get into an argument with}} me you wouldn't have left ''two'' replies to my oppose vote pointing out the ANI thread (now with linked diffs) and proclaiming that you don't care about a 100% support vote. That being said, I would like to thank you for proving my point. After the administrator Tamzin said something described as being {{tq\|on the edge of breaking the 4th pillar}}, and I decided to show "thick skin" by ignoring your implications that I'm trolling/voted against the candidate solely to wreck the 100% support rating, you've come right back out and bludgeoned me even further on the same point. #::We don't need any more administrators who are OK with "minor" civility violations. Tamzin bludgeoned me, and now you are emboldened to be more aggressive. That is why I oppose administrators who implicitly encourage this behaviour by not taking it seriously. [[User:Chess\|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess\|talk]]) <small>(please use {{tlx\|reply to\|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 23:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #:::Meh. Two replies to you here isn't bludgeoning. I'll give you a moment to cool down so that you can start normally communicating again.<span id="Nythar:1678145355915:WikipediaFTTCLNRequests_for_adminship/Aoidh" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar\|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar\|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar\|❄️]]) 23:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)</span> #::::I also wasn't referring to myself when I said "editors don't care about maintaining 100% support", although I personally don't care about it either. I was referring to the other editors who replied to Synotia. And I haven't even voted in this RfA.<span id="Nythar:1678146503680:WikipediaFTTCLNRequests_for_adminship/Aoidh" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar\|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar\|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar\|❄️]]) 23:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)</span> #'''Weak Oppose''' per above, and particularly the lack of any attempt to get oppose defenders to quit escalating (see talk page). Between [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Aoidh#Synotia's_oppose\|the talk page discussion]] and [[Special:Permalink/1143177044#Abuse_of_power_by_the_admin_Maile66\|AN/I discussion]], they had plenty of opportunities to interject to try and de-escalate what eventually culminated in a (short) block for simply !voting against the mob. An admin not willing to speak up when they see something wrong isn't someone I'd want to be an admin. —[[User:Locke Cole\|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole\|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole\|c]] 19:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC) <small>Changed to '''Weak Oppose''' per answer to {{u\|Rosguill}}'s question —[[User:Locke Cole\|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole\|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole\|c]] 23:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)</small> #:I've held off of responding to other inanities above, but RFA candidates are ''strongly'' discouraged from responding to !voters, and are routinely opposed for doing so. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, I suppose. And people wonder why RFA is considered an unpleasant environment. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93\|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93\|Talk]])</span> 21:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC) #::I think this very much depends on the type of reply: arguing with an oppose voter? Yeah, very bad idea. Trying to curtail a mob mentality from spiraling into a (however brief) indef block? I'd admire that behavior. Quoting [[Elie Wiesel]]: {{tqq\|We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.}} —[[User:Locke Cole\|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole\|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole\|c]] 23:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC) =====Neutral===== #'''Neutral''' per my struck comment above. —[[User:Locke Cole\|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole\|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole\|c]] 05:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC) =====General comments===== Line 279 ⟶ 346: '''Comment''' – For maybe ten years, RFA has been a toxic process, with particular hostility directed toward candidates who either didn't meet a standard set of criteria of content creation, or who had offended someone, or who were on someone's enemies list. The antidote to that toxicity is to stop being hostile to imperfect candidates. This RFA seems to illustrate an attempt to counter that toxicity by fighting fire with fire, and by being destructive to No voters. Neither attacking the occasional No voters nor blocking the occasional No voters will clean up the process. Now RFA is a toxic process for a candidate who isn't a content creator, and is a toxic process for an editor who casts an eccentric No vote. [[User:Robert McClenon\|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon\|talk]]) 16:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC) :The process does not involve voting. That can be hard to remember, given the number of editors who believe that preceding the word with an exclamation point makes it a different word. One can only hope that bureaucrats, at least, understand that this is and never has been a democratic process. '''~[[User:True Pagan Warrior\|T]][[User talk:True Pagan Warrior\|P]][[Special:Contributions/True Pagan Warrior\|W]]''' 14:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC) ::The process very much involves voting, which is pretty obvious just from looking at the fact that we keep track of percents here, and the outcome is almost always based on the percent of people who pick one option over the other. Compared to deletion processes, for example, RfA is significantly less of a !vote and significantly more just a vote. There's ''nuance''. And besides, [[Duck test\|if it quacks like a vote]]... [[if a tree falls in a forest\|was there ever even a !vote]]? [[User talk:Casualdejekyll\|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 16:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) :::Perhaps we haven't read the same [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=897750777#Is_RfX_a_vote,_or_a_consensus_discussion?_(RfC) requests for comment] if that's what you think.'''~[[User:True Pagan Warrior\|T]][[User talk:True Pagan Warrior\|P]][[Special:Contributions/True Pagan Warrior\|W]]''' 17:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC) ---- '''On-topic off-topic comment'''. We should eliminate RfAs. I propose a quarterly lottery, the <s>loser</s> winner of which is automatically promoted to admin. Any editor with 0 or fewer edits may buy a lottery ticket (see my Talk page for details as to price, etc.). An alternative proposal is for the crats to get together every quarter and use a [[ouija]] to determine who should be appointed that quarter. These sessions must be supervised by a functionary from the spirit world (these are usually appointed by the WMF, or World of Medium Functionaries). The details of the sessions shall not be disclosed; however, any clairvoyant editors (I believe we have three) may vibrate what occurred at [[WP:AN]].--[[User:Bbb23\|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23\|talk]]) 16:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Line 284 ⟶ 354: ::I'll take that as an '''endorse''' of the first proposal, thanks, Ritchie. In all changes to the RfA, uh, system, two editors constitutes a "community".--[[User:Bbb23\|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23\|talk]]) 17:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC) :::@[[User:Bbb23\|Bbb23]], pretty interesting. This "outdated community" needs to be "updated", ouch.. ─ [[User:TheAafi\|<span style="color:SteelBlue">The Aafī</span>]] [[User talk:TheAafi\|<span style="color:#80A0FF">(talk)</span>]] 17:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC) :<small>(<span style="color:#555;">Not an expert in game theory, management, or related fields</span>)</small> {{tq\|Within a game theory-like approach, we explore different promotion strategies and we find, counterintuitively, that in order to avoid [the [[Peter principle]]] the best ways for improving the efficiency of a given organization are either to promote each time an agent at random or to promote randomly the best and the worst members in terms of competence}} ([https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2009.09.045 Pluchino, Rapisarda, and Garofalo 2010]). The Peter principle probably doesn't apply at RFA, and to my knowledge, no organization actually follows Pluchino et. al.'s advice, but I thought you would enjoy noting that "use a ouijia" is simultaneously more and less of a joke than perhaps Bbb23'd anticipated. [[User:Rotideypoc41352\|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352\|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352\|contribs]]) 16:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC) ::I am not participating in the process, but I need to thumb up this comment. I am likely to use it in some unrelated discussion in the near future. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (I typed it by hand). --[[User:Ouro\|Ouro]] <small>([[User_talk:Ouro\|blah blah]])</small> 15:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC) :[[The Lottery\|I think I read about this in middle school English class...]] [[User talk:Casualdejekyll\|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 16:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC) <!-- Place a horizontal rule (----) between separate discussions for organization. --> :''The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}\|this nomination]] or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div> ~~<!--EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE-->~~ ~~<!--DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE-->~~ ~~<!--When closing this discussion, only the line starting with {{hide until... and its closing brackets }} need to be removed; the rest is the archive bottom text -->~~ ~~{{hide until\|20:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)\|text=~~ :''The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}\|this nomination]] or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div> }} ~~<!--DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE-->~~ ~~<!--Please add any General comments above the "EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE" line-->~~