Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Tamzin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Q13

@

WP:OUTING against people connecting me to non-pseudonymous accounts on other websites. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Did you see the question before it was revdel'd? The page you link says you waive any outing issues on other sites where you use your real name. The revdel'd content didn't appear to be based on your real name. I can email the question to you, if you want, and you can decide whether to unrevdel or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I can't, since it's now been suppressed. But the question above might be useful to any roving oversighters. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam: I did see it, and already had an answer written. While the account in question doesn't have "Tamzin" in the username, I did explicitly give my full name in a post with that account, so it satisfies my test of a site where I participate under my real name.
Of course the privacy aspect is distinct from whether it's an appropriate question more broadly. That's something for 'crats to decide, and I express no opinion in that regard, other than to say I'm willing to answer it if it's restored. My main reason for commenting here is that I wouldn't want Geoffrey to get in trouble for an OSPOL violation when I've already consented to being asked about this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin I oversighted after consulting your privacy statement because the account that was linked was a pseudonymous account. I'm happy to undo it but want you to know what is being undone first. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin based on your comment above I have unspupressed it. I will have more thoughts on your talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I was considering undoing my deletion before it was suppressed. I am ... not thrilled that the question was asked in the first place. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have to question the efffort to track down a candidate's (heck, any editor's) other social media accounts from years ago. For most editors, who do not have a stated policy like Tamzin has written, this would be an automatic oversight. The question itself is unrelated to anyone's performance as an admin or their view on Wikipedia policies. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And no future prospective admin who stands for RfA should be required to answer any sort of question along these lines, whether it's mandated or simply encouraged as a matter of courtesy. WaltCip-(talk) 19:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how pointless the fundamental question is, it's hard to read as anything other than highlighting a real name. May not be
WP:OUTING, but it's creepy IMO. Wikipedia:Don't call people by their real name. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
But you don't have to call me darlin-- darlin' // You never even call me by my name. --Steve Goodman --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Willbb234's oppose

  1. Oppose Willbb234 15:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I'm arguing with your vote, but do you have a reason for opposing this candidate?
    talk) 16:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It's probably "I fancy trolling RfA for a good laugh" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333 Nobody's laughing though.. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 18:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    i am not required to give a reason, and saying shit like this doesn't help anyone. Willbb234 19:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This oppose is most inarguable so it is quite enough to !sway me. Rgrds. --
    talk) 20:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
     Bureaucrat note: Voter has declined to expand upon their initial comment, let's just leave it there. Primefac (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Primefac, with respect, it would be much more beneficial to the culture here if we did not just leave it at that. Opposing and refusing to explain yourself when asked is not only a behavior that is specifically articulated as a form of disruptive editing, but in this context it is tantamount to a personal attack; it’s an aggressive, directly negative comment about an editor that the OP is refusing to elaborate on. I mean look at the comments on their talk page. I don’t see how this is anything but blatant trolling. The fact that you won’t even articulate that these types of votes are given zero weight to dissuade such behavior is really disappointing. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have not looked at the talk page yet, so I may be back to revise this, but I disagree that refusing to expand is a personal attack. Not thinking an editor should have the mop is not necessarily an attack on them. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 06:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) For the record, this type of vote absolutely gets less weight than any of the other opposes, but with over 240 supports at the time of this comment, it mathematically has no weight either, and thus I should not need to state the obvious. Badgering someone who has already refused to explain their rationale for a vote that almost literally does not count is something that we see in every RFA, and it has turned nasty before (I even mused on IRC when this !vote was first cast how long it would take before it would get ugly). If this were a "close" RFA, or Willbb234 had not explicitly refused to explain, I would be more willing to leave things be and see how they shake out.
    I'm not sure which culture you wish to preserve (and I am more than happy to continue that line of thinking on my talk page or elsewhere) but one common issue that gets brought up is that any oppose vote without a perfect 100% reasonable reason with diffs and all the bells and whistles gets run out of town (and yes, I'm being hyperbolic); I honestly was expecting Greg's oppose above to turn into that and I was extremely pleased when it remained civil. People are allowed to disagree with each other, and just as we shouldn't expect our RFA candidates to be perfect we shouldn't expect every voter to be either. Primefac (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are seven support votes that are exactly as terse as this oppose vote. Nobody ever demands an explanation from them. – Joe (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This fallacious argument has been refuted times beyond counting. I don’t believe for one second that you fail to comprehend the difference between a support without an explanation and an oppose without an explanation. Two very different behaviors, and very different implications, which the crats have long recognized. Beyond that, I’m not going to get bogged down in the same regurgitated arguments that have been going on for years, but shame on anybody who defends this behavior, which is objectively a policy violation on several different levels. This is nothing new, and it still should not be tolerated. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe Roe I distinctly recall some badgering at my support for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vami IV (where, ironically, I was defended by Tamzin). Swarm I have attempted to discuss with Willbb234 why explaining your reason for supporting or opposing an RfA candidate is important (eg: so that future RfA nominators can make a note of it and see if candidates can address it) and given up because he isn't interested in discussing it. Compare and contrast with GregJackP, who always gives a consistent reason that is explained in depth, whether one agrees with it or not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's important whichever way you're voting, is what I'm saying. Correct me if I'm wrong but at Vami IV's RfA people challenged you on the content of your (quite lengthy) support vote, they didn't badger you for declining to explain. – Joe (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Future nominators can also simply ask the opposers directly in private instead of in a highly public place like the RfA itself. I don't think this is a good reason for demanding oppose rationales. —Kusma (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg is collaborative and willing to discuss, even if it seems like almost everyone disagrees with his criteria. I like that. I'm sure lots of other people like that. It boils over sometimes but I've made peace with his votes, personally.
    casualdejekyll 16:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Of course they're different, but if we treat them differently—i.e. make it harder to oppose than support a candidate—then this isn't a free discussion. – Joe (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Rightly so. An editor has been nominated and received support of several established editors, i.e., the presumption is that the person should get the mop. RfA is a process whose purpose is not as much to find more arguments in candidate's support as to identify potential problematic areas that would weigh in negatively on the nomination.
    Naked Oppose votes are meaningless and miss the point of RfA. They're akin to
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT at AfD and are rightly called out. — kashmīrī TALK 11:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I don't see how "oppose, I don't trust the candidate but I won't tell you why" (or even "I don't like the candidate") is any less valid than "oppose, candidate has not written a FA" or any other "oppose, candidate does not meet my arbitrary personal criteria". —Kusma (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the RfA process is about evaluating a candidacy, we need to understand well all the reservations – how well founded they are, how recent, whether there is a pattern to the reported problems, etc. Referring to personal criteria allows their evaluation and potential discussion; saying "I simply don't like the candidate", on the other hand, gives no such space.
    Wikipedia is a collaborative work. Nuking a community effort while refusing to engage in discussion is simply disruptive. — kashmīrī TALK 11:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The much more disruptive approach of giving rationales that are incorrect or not related to adminship and then answering challenges defensively is widely accepted. I don't think we are doing candidates any favours by encouraging rationales at all costs. —Kusma (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An interesting idea, but it's not how
    WP:ILIKEIT at AfD but are rightly not called out, because that would achieve nothing except degrading the already tense atmosphere. – Joe (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Joe Roe Because a support usually means that the user is a good cantidate and agrees with the discussion. If its an oppose it means theres a disagreement, but without knowing with what, it creates confusion. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, the way I see it is: If someone wants to oppose me without stating a reason, then—so long as the community doesn't categorically ban such votes—that's their right. However, in doing so, they forfeit the chance to give me any feedback on how to be a better editor/(potentially) admin. That's their loss. They also take on the risk of people reading any number of things into their vote, perhaps some less
    AGFy than others. Again, their loss. I don't think there's much benefit in having much ado about, literally, nothing, as much as I appreciate the eagerness of some to defend me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Perhaps those who badger and abuse oppose !votes should listen to Tamzin, she properly points out that an RFA is supposed to be a free discussion, and it is a user's right to oppose without providing any rationale. GregJackP Boomer! 10:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it also draws even more attention to an oppose that essentially has no effect on the RfA. There's really no upside to discussing an oppose that won't swing the discussion in any meaningful way, and it just adds more heat to RfAs, which are generally spicy enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly, editors opposing without a rationale give up the chance of persuading others to follow their rationale. It is very rare that pseudo-rationales are so bad that they are even less persuasive than not giving a rationale at all, so usually, oppose votes without rationales are better for the candidate's chances of succeeding. —Kusma (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm: I think we should change the culture and welcome opposes that come without a rationale. The out-of-context diffs or silly statistics that accompany many oppose votes are usually far more damaging and unfair to candidates than a straight oppose. —Kusma (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kusma, well said. FWIW, the discussion of this !vote got too ugly. The 'crats decide how much weight to give each !vote, and whenever this is discussed, it has been understood that S's without stated rationales are "per nominator's statement" or "found no problem," or "meets my standards." So, it's a perennial disagreement that generates more noise than sense when discussed. So, basically, I leave people alone when they make an oppose I disagree with beyond noting that I saw it in my support. I think this oppose actually gave Tamzin an opportunity to show what a great candidate she is. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't be surprised that some people feel that an oppose without a reason is a personal attack while others are taken aback by the response to those who oppose. A substantial percentage of the community feels RfA should be more like a vote, a substantial percentage feels it should be more of a discussion, and some like it the way it is. To quote from RFA2021, of which Primefac was one of the closers, For every editor who opposes making RfA less vote-like, there is an editor who opposes making it more vote-like. In many cases editors oppose both. Looking at the supports, there are more editors who support making it more like a vote than support making it more like a discussion, but both positions are in the minority compared to those advocating for the current balance. Taken together, the bulk of opinions seem to be for keeping the balance as is with a slight skew towards making it more vote-like. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a further tension here is that it's hard to read an unexplained oppose as anything other than "I oppose for reasons that the community would pillory me for", which several in the editing community naturally respond to by pillorying them anyway. We consider
    WP:JDLI to be tendentious reasoning in content discussions, and it's frequently cited as part of a verdict that someone is engaging in BATTLEGROUND and needs to be blocked/banned. We can say as a community, that RfA is different and shouldn't follow the same rules as discussions about content, but I can equally understand the perspective that RfAs should be held to the same discursive standards as the rest of the website, and that tendentious votes should be treated the same as tendentious arguments. The issue at stake is no longer whether or not Tamzin's RfA will pass, but rather whether the community should ignore signs of battleground attitudes at RfA. signed, Rosguill talk 15:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Tendentious arguments should generally be ignored if possible. It's the back and forth that creates the real disruption. There's no decent argument in these dumb opposes that is going to sway anyone, or start a run to oppose votes, and it's not like a content discussion on a small talk page where there are only a few people working towards consensus, so one JDLI editor can throw a spanner in the works. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the above discussion; just wanted to say thanks for the good laugh. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of a good laughter, #4 oppose actually really gave me a good laugh for some ≈5 minutes that I just couldn't control myself. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was talking about the discussion, not any vote. No comment on the above discussion might have been unclear – the point is that my comment was only referring to the discussion's existence, not its topic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised that this perennial issue of whether RFA is a vote, or a discussion with "!votes" wasn't explicitly discussed in RFA2021. If the RFA is a vote, there should be no rationales at all (besides the nom statements). You either vote yes (support) or no (oppose). There's no need to vote neutral - just not voting accomplishes the same task. A true vote doesn't have reasons or explanations for why people vote a certain way. Contrarily, if RFA is indeed a discussion and not a vote, then every comment should have a rationale to avoid giving the impression of a vote. Even support comments should have a "per nom" at a bare minimum. In a discussion, nothing is implied, and if it isn't explicitly stated, one cannot expect the closer of the discussion to include it in their reasoning (and "it" can be one of several things). We need to establish once and for all what the intended structure of RFA actually is: vote, or discussion? 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:0:0:0:F3C2 (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was discussed and I quoted the close about it upthread. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The newly-forming oppose votes in this RFA...

...Is the reason why I hate the whole RFA process. It's like you have to be this shining beacon of greatness, good, and responsibility to be given even the slightest chance of having an RFA go smoothly. You could be one of the most productive and helpful editors out there, but once you start showing the smallest inkling of opinion or personality, editors start pointing their finger at you and figuratively say "Oh no, you just showed you have an opinion on what is right and what is wrong, and since you do and you are not an emotionless and unopinionated robot, you should not be an admin." But hey, it's fine to be the robot and pass the RFA, and then show your true colors later because ha, you just gamed the system and tricked the community, and now you have free reigns to show some of your opinions to kill the motivation of other editors. So whatever, RFA is a screwed up, broken, and somewhat vengeful system where apparently the irony is that editors who are not the candidate can start showing their opinions and personalities, but still the candidate cannot show theirs. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's still 248 to 8, and I don't think there will be massive exodus from support. The right-of-center thing has been publicly brought up, and answered before most of the votes came in. What this might accomplish is showing Tamzin that there is a bit of worry about it, leading to strong assurances that it won't be an issue, and possible listed recusals. In my eyes, that's the process working as intended. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still effectively the same issue. Someone is up-front about their opinions, and they're expected to recuse. Someone hides their opinions, and no one questions it. I'd rather people be clear about what their views are than be expected to hide them lest their ability to be neutral on the topic be called into question. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Notice I said "go smoothly" rather than assume this thing is going to get tanked. Exactly on the fact that the support/oppose ratio is rather high now, so the odds are rather low for this RFA to fail, but that's not guaranteed 100%, and I've seen some RFAs tanking out of nowhere near the end for something even less controversial. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I basically agree with Tamzin about the suitability of Trump cultists for adminship, I doubt she thought she could express that opinion without any pushback whatsoever. It's weird to think she can opine that some people shouldn't be admins, but that if others opine that she shouldn't be and admin, it's unfair. I think the explanation in A14 was well done, and it appears hundreds of people agree; but I can see how others might not. An RFA going smoothly does not mean no opposes. An RFA currently passing at roughly 96% is still going smoothly. If she had not clarified at A14, I think there would be more such opposes, but I don't think dozens and dozens of people are going to switch to oppose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"An RFA currently passing at roughly 96% is still going smoothly." For what it's worth, that's a matter of opinion since what is said in the "oppose" section could still affect the following: The weight the bureaucrats put on the statements by the opposers, the possibility that the current state of the "oppose" section could flip support or neutral votes (as well as new votes), and the candidate's mental state of mind after reading the opposes. I mean, out of all of those, if the last one occurs in a way that negatively affects the candidate, the community may never know it happened; RfAs have been known to cause more to happen other than the RfA itself passing or failing. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tazmin expected and was fine with that position upsetting people in the answer to Q14: If someone concludes that, from their perspective, my political views (to the extent I've ever discussed those publicly) call my judgment into question, then I don't fault them for opposing or declining to support on that basis. (emphasis mine) Argento Surfer (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IDK I feel that if our expectation is for RfAs to pass perfectly and consider a 96% a low support ratio perhaps we're making a wildfire out of a match when talking about hostile RfAs. The candidate expected the question, understands and respects the opposes, and all in all (except for minor comments) it has all been a civil discussion. Is this not, as SFR mentioned above, the process working as intended? It's not like Tamzin's comments were run of the mill. They were very serious comments about wide swaths of the political spectrum (I say this as someone whose family had to plan escape routes out of the US and triple-check their houses' security systems during January to February of that year as we were fully expecting
WP:FINANCE! 00:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
As someone who passed RfA easily (5 opposes) and who regularly works with editors thinking about going through the RfA process, I bristle at the idea that I was a robot pre-RfA or that someone needs to be a robot to pass RfA. Maybe I should be less robotic and say that I take a small amount of personal offense when I see someone suggest this (with Steel not being the first one). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that's not you at all! (Seriously, there's no sarcasm there as I am somewhat aware of your edits on here.) Anyways, I did try to word that with a bit of ambiguity, but I apparently failed. There are some true good ones out there, but it just seems in my experiences with reading the situations which happen at these RFAs, ones with almost spotless records are the ones who usually pass with no drama. Something that is so out of left field that really has absolutely nothing to do with adminship can just take down an RFA. But yes, sometimes the line between "doing genuinely really good and showing it" and being labeled problematic is a really fine line. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that what would you propose as the alternative - that individuals not note their concerns when something is noted that concerns them? A look at the supports suggests that quite a few editors, like me, have noted it as a concern without changing from the support column. Some have, unsurprisingly, weighted it more significantly and gone for opposing or neutralling.
And while I am confident Tamzin won't use her standards against editors in the course of her admin duties, I also would not say that it is unreasonable to at least consider using a candidate's admin criteria as of significant in their own RfA. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"...what would you propose as the alternative..."? I'd rather the whole RFA process be abolished, but that's a perennial proposal that perennially fails and WMF apparently requires us to have RFAs for legal reasons anyways, so what the heck ever. It leaves those seeing issues such as the ones that caused me to start this discussion with only being able to say or do so much while accepting the fact that it'll never happen. And the proposals to reform RFA, though they've put a tiny bit of a dent in improving the process, seem to really miss the mark on figuring out what needs to be done to improve the overall RFA process rather than reinventing the wheel; limiting question counts and adjusting the basically superficial value for the pass/fail ratio are just bandages for a symptom rather than a cure for the disease. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The follow-on from that should perhaps be "what would you propose as the alternative for those who see issues along these lines" (that is, they view it as an issue). Your opening statement complained that they raised it, (with some being opposes and others changes to their support (!)votes). But you don't indicate what they/we should do differently. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...And I just stated how things could be done differently, but also the fact they can't be done that way because they aren't allowed to be done that way. Are you expecting something else? Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943 actually according to the rather large discussion we had late last year, Admin elections could well gain consensus if some of the concerns at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Proposals#Closed:_8B_Admin_elections are addressed. Temporary adminship is also on the table waiting for someone to pick it up and help it across the finish line. And also Legal is no longer mandating RfA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Wow, go figure all this new, great stuff happens during the year I don't make a single edit. I feel like someone who has to catch up with the times! 😅 Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Steel1943 +1 - I was in the middle of moving after 43 years in the same place but did manage to chalk up 1803 edits for the year. Aug –Dec was minimal, apparently when those discussions took place. Atsme 💬 📧 13:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are many good reasons to want to reform/abolish/whatever the RfA process. "Those who can weasel-speak have it easier" is in my view not one of them. As long as the process seeks some community approval to grant someone some amount of authority, it will be subject to politics (in a general sense of "the voting crowd is fickle and swayed by irrelevant arguments", not in terms of the US left/right divide). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose was based on "But what I see as clear cut acceptance of domination of what happens in Wikipedia based on political views is a fundamental and serious problem." I'm guessing that they thought they were talking about excluding a extreme fringe 10% of the US population vs. what is probably about 40%, which may make this less whacky than it looks. But that also means acting without understanding the limits of their knowledge, and even excluding that 10% would still mean clear cut acceptance of domination of what happens in Wikipedia based on political views, IMO a fundamental and serious problem. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FINANCE! 15:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. I think after answering my question, she would have been well advised to just move on. There would have been some opposes, but her subsequent addendum and comments elsewhere in response to opposes have not been helpful. I think they are being perceived as doubling down on her political biases. FWIW when I went to bed, I was still a weak support. That changed after I caught up on their overnight comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I'm supporting based on the need for admins and trust the community will quickly pounce on them if they act inappropriately. If they keep tripling down on their answers I might be swayed to neutral. —
WP:FINANCE! 15:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't care about Trump here. (In my non-wiki life I hope he disappears.) My concern is considering it legitimate to have political views influence such matters in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Tamzin to expound on their thoughts on the core question. I liked their response, although it was so brief that I'm not yet fully convinced. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all too common in today's climate that positions like "fascists are not good people" and "free and fair elections should be respected and not overturned by a coup" are mere "political opinions" and not core shared values we all believe in.
    talk) 16:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You can be right-wing and believe both of those things.
    talk) 22:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
GeneralNotability That is a chilling statement. The correct response is to tell everyone involved that they need to check their biases at the door or find another hobby. The day this project endorses discrimination for or against political/religious/cultural beliefs is the day I check out. I came close to doing that once, and for exactly those reasons. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem, I think we're largely agreed here, actually - I fully agree that biases should be checked on entry (don't forget your claim ticket!). The problem is when those biases seep through anyway, and how we navigate the balance of respecting both sides when one [culture/political group/religion/identity] says that [other group] [are bad people/are subhuman/are mentally ill/should have bad things happen to them]. And applying moral relativism is a cop-out that prevents us from having meaningful discussion about those beliefs. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is seriously disputing the rejection of legitimate extremists (Nazis, Communists, racists etc.) But this involves openly affirming hostility to people whose politics are center right, to the point where that would influence their ability to support someone for advanced permissions. That's not just problematic. For someone asking for the mop, that's flatly disqualifying. What's the difference in terms of social attitudes between a Republican and an observant Muslim or Catholic? Sorry, but I tried to give them an off ramp in my question (instead of going straight to oppose). Instead, they basically have been doubling down. I do actually respect them for their honesty and their obvious sincerity. But their biases go way beyond NONAZIS. And as much as I detest Trump and have great difficulty wrapping my brain around the rational among his supporters; the overwhelming majority of his voters are not brown shirted thugs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between holding a belief, and acting upon the belief. This sort of balancing act, when deeply held beliefs come into conflict, is all to frequent in the arena of equality law. I could cite a number of UK legal cases on this, from memory alone, where the locus of the dispute was surrounding how to handle two protected characteristics (ie gender, religion, philosophical belief) came into conflict. In those cases, unless the individual or company is holding a belief described as "unworthy of respect in a healthy democracy" (i.e. Naziism, racism, sexism), no action will be taken unless the manifestation of one belief impinges upon the rights of another protected group. When it comes to the actual manifestations, typically a dim view is taken when the manifestation of ones belief causes harm to or denigrates the other group. Where that line is drawn on social acceptability is determinant on where the Overton window is at any given time. But to use the example given by Ad Orientem, religion is not allowed in any way to impinge upon the rights of homosexuals. Yes that means that religious people would "lose out", however it is only the manifestation of their belief that is unacceptable. They are perfectly allowed to continue to hold that belief, they are just not allowed to act upon it.
What a lot of editors have missed in this discussion is that distinction between a belief and the manifestation of a belief. In their reply to question 14, Tamzin's answers were an explanation of the beliefs they hold. To paraphrase, Tamzin believes that there are certain disqualifying beliefs that could be applicable to an administrator or candidate. However what Tamzin did not say was that they would go the extra step beyond having that belief, and actually advocate for it to become live policy on enwiki. As such we have quite clearly the separation between a deeply held philosophical belief, and a manifestation of that belief.
Tamzin's belief is a perfectly valid one to hold. As is the support and opposition to it demonstrated by various commentors over the last couple of days. However it is very disingenuous to say that Tamzin will, as some have illuded to here and on the main page, actually advocate for it to become policy. Especially when they have in fact been very careful to not say as such I would not advocate creating such a rule, but if I woke up one day to learn that such a rule had magically sprung into existence, I would be okay with that. Emphasis mine. They have expressed a belief, they have not and have said they will not manifest it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree... "I think that avowed, continuing support for Donald Trump constitutes support for an oppressive regime, and thus should be disqualifying for the same reasons discussed in Point 1." -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is Tamzin's belief. It is not a manifestation of the belief.
Please show me where Tamzin has said something along the lines of that quote, with an addendum similar to "and I will advocate for that to become policy." Because it is only when it includes an action or a call to action that it transforms from a belief to a manifestation of the belief. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth's oppose

  1. Oppose per Cullen328, Hammersoft, and lack of content contributions. All I can judge on is the statements made by the candidate, which I find chilling in their lack of introspection on why people are opposing. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I too am opposing, I don't believe there was a lack of introspection, based on her answer to Q14 in which she stated she understands if people are opposing as a result of her judgment. WaltCip-(talk) 13:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to "The short answer is: I would not advocate creating such a rule, but if I woke up one day to learn that such a rule had magically sprung into existence, I would be okay with that." where I, as a person who has read extensively in the history of Nazi Germany, find it extremely chilling. That's what a lot of ordinary Germans thought (note this is not saying Tamzin is a Nazi - nor is it equating them exactly with ordinary Germans, much less Nazi supporters. It's pointing out the parallel in the thought process to a historical situation - while acknowledging that no exact situation from history ever exactly repeats itself). Ealdgyth (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry Ealdgyth, I know a candidate is never supposed to take exception to an oppose, but I feel compelled to say something here. You think that my not wanting to edit under the adminship of people who would in many cases see me forceably labeled a man as a matter of law and forced to use men's restrooms where I would likely be raped or worse, see my queer relationships made illegal or at least illegal to discuss around children, see my eventual children forced to learn the Christian Bible in schools—or who at the very least are comfortable marching arm-in-arm with people who believe these things—is comparable to people who sat back and allowed Nazism to rise? I don't want to be raped. I don't want to be murdered. I don't want to risk jail time for giving advice to minors who come to me questioning their gender or sexuality. And I don't want to be on the receiving end of administrative decisions from people who, at the absolute best, are somehow ignorant that those are among their movement's goals, and at worst actively support those things.
    If there is one bit of introspection that these opposes are engendering in me, it's making me question whether I want to spend my time serving as an admin on a project that takes this attitude toward people asserting their desire to not be governed by those who wish to oppress them. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 13:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that you assume people who support a real-life candidate, for reasons you know not of in most cases, are inherently seeking to oppress you -- let alone on an encyclopedia. It is fair to believe Trump wishes to oppress, but you should say that rather than taking problem with those who support him, whether now or in the past. Stating you would not support, and going as far as to say you think they should be desysopped (whether you were in the heat of the moment is a different matter), somebody who supports him does not make clear your intent to not be oppressed -- it makes clear that you have a problem with a differing viewpoint. Perhaps you should step back. Best regards. Rin (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made clear I have no quarrel with past Trump supporters. If you agree that Trump wishes to oppress me, then any supporter of his is either on board with that idea (and thus shouldn't be an admin), indifferent to it (and thus shouldn't be an admin), or too clueless to be aware (and thus
    shouldn't be an admin). I absolutely have a problem with differing viewpoints if those viewpoints promote my persecution. I think most people do. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 13:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I said it is fair to believe so, as that is your personal opinion on the candidate. When that opinion branches out to be actively against others who seek to help the encyclopedia is when I take problem with it. If somebody who supported Trump was running for administrator, and made clear that they despise minorities, are for oppression, etc. -- that I can understand; but this cannot be assumed for everyone who supports him, which is what you did. What if somebody believes he's not oppressive, or is against the oppressive aspects of him you believe he possesses?
    One supporting a presidential candidate for their personal reasons — whether it be financial, etc. — does not inherently mean they are out to oppress you, and absolutely does not mean they will negatively impact you as a person (which is what I'm lead to believe is what you take problem with) as an administrator. Whether you believe Trump is oppressive is no problem to me and I'm sure most others here; what is the problem is that you've declared your intent to push his oppressive views onto anybody who supports him, judge them by that (despite not knowing why they support the candidate), and outright stating you agree with desysopping them. As Cullen said above, editors should be viewed on their contributions to the encyclopedia and how their opinions affect their work on the encyclopedia. They should not be judged on personal opinions that do not affect the encyclopedia; this is a very slippery slope to get on, and different people view different people as oppressive. I will more than likely no longer respond to this as I've said all I wish to and I don't wish for this to turn political, as the issue lies not in politics but in how fellow editors are viewed through a neutral lens. Rin (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tazmin, no one here is oppressing you. Your reasoning behind “all current Trump admins are bad and need to be removed” is quite flawed, and as many have already pointed out, concerning. Not all current Trump supporters are bad, heck, I even know someone online in the LGBTQ+ community that is one. How would you like it if someone who hated President Joe Biden wanted to oppress every admin who supports him on Wikipedia? Let that sink in. Doesn’t feel too good hearing that, does it? Well, I would hope not, because it is exactly what your doing right now. SlySabre (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SlySabre, the line you have in quotes is not a quote, nor is it remotely representative of Tamzin's statements. Her comments relate specifically to people holding discriminatory views who want to be admins. Implying that she wants to ban all Trump supporters is a strawman. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FINANCE! 14:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I misread. I have changed my response to reflect this. SlySabre (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn’t feel too good hearing that, does it? I've never expressed any opinions on Joe Biden on-wiki, so I'm not sure why you assume I'd take personal umbrage to that, but supposing I were a Biden supporter: As I've said before, I'm absolutely fine being judged by my political views. If someone wants to take a position of "I'll never vote for a Biden supporter at RfA", or to express the view (without doing anything to advance it) "All pro-Biden admins should be desysopped", more power to them. I'd appreciate their honesty. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "All pro-Biden admins should be desysopped" wouldn’t be right either. Saying "more power to them" isn’t helping things either. I know you didn’t mean that when referring to Biden, but you did mean to do so when referring to Trump. Either way, neither one of them is okay, you shouldn’t be targeting anyone just for their Republican vs. Democrat preference. It would be different if we were referring to Adolph Hitler, in-which case, yes, everyone can agree that he was a terrible human being, but Trump, that might be a little too far? SlySabre (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In 1938, no, not everybody agreed Hitler was a terrible human being, even though his beliefs were visible for all to see in that curious book that he wrote. Even after World War Two, many of his countrymen still believed he was in the right. Given recent events, it's not all that difficult to understand why there has been great vitriol directed at Trump and Trumpism. Perspective is very important. This is what makes the outcome of this RfA so unfortunate. WaltCip-(talk) 18:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just the Trump thing though, it's also I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards. That's not a Trumpist, that's not someone trying to take rights. That is a regular, run-of-the-mill political stance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect it actually does refer to someone who would take away rights. I'm not an expert, but doesn't right-of-center by American standards mean being against transgender rights, being against gay marriage, etc.? I believe the candidate (who is a queer transwoman) has been active in educating young people about gender issues, something that a large contingent of the American right is trying to restrict as we speak. Isn't it at least understandable that from this position, she would take a somewhat sharper stance on Trumpists being admins? Isn't it, moreover, possible to profoundly disagree with that stance and still support her being an admin on this project? I think the oppose voters are doing Wikipedia a huge disservice by hyper-focusing on an issue that for the candidate herself, qua WP admin candidate, is extremely tangential (see A29). The stellar work she does on Wikipedia has nothing to with this issue, and I feel that people are misusing her RfA to try to make a point about it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, no. There are a lot of right-of-center beliefs, some further right than others. According to this Gallup poll 55% of Republicans support gay marriage, transgender issues are more complex. There are economic views, views on firearms, all manner of other beliefs. Much like the left, though, the right is not a monolith. When someone says I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards, should I think that I've lost any chance at support because I talked about the shotgun I use while hunting on someone's talk page? What right wing views are enough to trigger the "never vote" stipulation?
    The issue is why should any of that matter on Wikipedia? No one is opposing because of political views, they're opposing because she said she would let her political views affect her interactions, and now people are left to wonder how far that would go, and where the line would be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I want to know, ScottishFinnishRadish, is why in the hell you're hunting with a shotgun on someone's talk page? Take it to the woods and hunt, where the deer hang out, not the editors we consider dear!! [FBDB] Atsme 💬 📧 20:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Turkey season just opened, so I was out at my blind waiting quietly and declining edit requests when two beautiful deer walked by. Of course those two deer weren't there when I spent 50+ hours in that same blind during deer season. And obviously, no turkeys :( ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood right-of-center in this context not as referring to Republicans, who also have a lot of centrists in their ranks, but as referring to all those to the right of centrist Republicans, i.e., those rather leaning to the far right (extreme conservatives, Trumpists, etc.). Anyway, I think the key is to realize that she's probably not talking about gun rights (a typical issue over which centrists disagree, with opponents and proponents on both sides of the center), but about the LGBTQ issues that directly affect her own life, or about the cult following that would do away with democracy to keep Trump in power. The key is to realize that the line, for her, is not voting in as admin people who take stances on LGBTQ that call for taking away her rights, or even more extreme rightist positions. Even if one disagrees with it, it's not a particularly hard line when viewed in this light, and she only drew it in a particular context (defending someone who was losing their RfA because of their right wing views!) that is far from her day-to-day wiki-life, which has very little to do with political issues.
    I too when I first read A14 found her answers troubling. I don't agree with most of the opinions there. But I guess what it comes down to is that as much as I disagree, I have absolutely no fear that it will affect her work as an admin on here in any way. Current admins say stupid stuff all of the time, but I know of none that should have their tools revoked because of that. We need to think in terms of net-positive or net-negative here, keep in mind the
    WP:1Q. I don't think most oppose voters are doing a great job at that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    👍 Like
    talk) 17:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The
    WP:FINANCE! 14:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  1. That still isn’t a good excuse to treat users like that. There are many supporters who didn’t agree with the January 6 raid at the Capital or any of the violence that his extremists fans have done, but still support some of the presidents other views such as taxes or other various policies that he had while in office. That doesn’t make someone a bad person. Someone could have just supported the President and voted for him over one or a few key issues that they thought he handled better than Biden. The mentality your implying can be interpreted as pretty toxic and I don’t support it. As someone who identifies as a former Republican but now a Conservative Independent who is centre-right on the political spectrum, I honestly am still confused at Trump and still question a lot things he’s done. I don’t necessarily hate him myself, but I definitely don’t love him either. I’m able to understand where other people are coming from. Even then, I have liked a few Democrats and would’ve voted for them had they ran for office, even though I do lean to the right more than left. Like I said, just because someone supported a few things the president did but thought those very few aspects motivated some people to support him doesn’t make them overall bad people. There’s bad people and corruption on both sides. I think for Wikipedia, it’s important to stay neutral and see things from both perspectives before making a final decision on any manner. SlySabre (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Apaugasma: not necessarily, no. Just because someone identifies as centre-right does not mean that they are homophobic or transphobic. Take me for instance. When I took the political compass test, I said to myself that the government shouldn’t have too much nor too little power, and the same with the people. In my opinion, I think it should be somewhere in the middle. I’m also not homophobic or transphobic because I have friends who are part of the LGBTQ+ community. It wouldn’t make much sense for me to be homophobic or transphobic because not only do I support some of them as they are my friends, but also because there is good and bad in everyone, so I don’t like to be biased against anyone. Humans in-general aren’t perfect and are prone to failure and flaws all of the time, so I’m not racist either because I don’t see anyone who isn’t the same race as me any different because I’m not any better or worse then what they are, as we’re all human, and yes, we all look different in some way yet we are also so similar at the same time. SlySabre (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi SlySabre! As I explain above, I take "right-of-center" to mean to the right of center-right. As I understand it, in the American context that quickly means quite extreme stuff, often involving either racism or homophobia or transphobia or something along those lines. Of course it also includes the Biblical literalism espoused by extreme conservatives, or the anti-democratic ideology of Trumpists. I think that's what Tamzin had in mind anyway, though I could of course be wrong. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The moment we start getting into semantics about what type of right Tamzin was referring to we're really just splitting hairs. You can read my new support comment for more extended thoughts but if Tamzin shows repeated bad judgements related to this it'll be certainly taken to ARBCOM. We're really making a wildfire out of a match if the concern is granting permissions. Their views on adminship as a whole may be more problematic in some areas (e.g. serving under admins) but I think we're really making an insane amount of discussion on a minor bad call of a statement compared to the hundreds of hours they've spent on SPI and other administrative areas with a proven track record. Just my two cents, of course. —
    WP:FINANCE! 22:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Hell, by some people's definitions the American Left is center right!
    casualdejekyll 21:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I mean... yes? In most Western European countries they would be considered conservative right. —
    WP:FINANCE! 22:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Was just about to say this! The American left would be considered right wing in most of Western Europe, with American right being close to far-right. Though it does fluctuate from time to time as the Overton window shifts, and party leadership changes. From where I am in the world, what Tamzin said is entirely uncontroversial! Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is why I'm a communist.[
    casualdejekyll 02:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  1. "Trump was/will be only allowed to oppress through the votes and engagement of his supporters."
    As I have already stated above... "What if somebody believes he's not oppressive, or is against the oppressive aspects of him you believe he possesses?"
    Using a blanket statement to group all Trump supporters as supporting oppressive systems, especially in regards to an RfA, is detrimental. One supporting a candidate does not inherently mean they support the oppressive aspects some believe them to possess; you do not know why they support them, nor what aspects of them they support. Believing that one's support of a candidate also means they support the aforementioned oppressive/negative aspects of them, and that those aspects will be carried over to Wikipedia (not in reference to you -- this is in reference to the ideal, which is that people solely vote based on how the person will impact the encyclopedia rather than their personal opinions), is both fallacious and shows a misunderstanding of electorate systems. It is far more effective to evaluate on a case-by-case basis, taking into account personal character and contributions to the encyclopedia, rather than seeing one personal belief (which does not impact the encyclopedia) in one who is running for administrator, assuming that is the sole basis of their character, and running with it.
    "hesitate"
    Hesitation was not mentioned, nor was part of the discussion: "I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards..." certainly does not seem to convey any hesitation about the topic, especially that use of "never" in there; in fact, I'd argue it seems quite certain. I agree that it may be understandable; it is human nature to hold opinions and/or biases, but as an administrator it is your responsibility to attempt to keep that in check — at least within situations such as the one at hand — for the sake of neutrality. Rin (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree per above. Only looking at who someone votes for and going off by that and saying “bleh, they suck, they’d be a terrible admin” isn’t very professional. Honestly who cares what someone votes, as long as their able to perform the job without it interfering, then it should be okay. But only looking at it from that perspective is not the right way in doing so. SlySabre (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mcferran's oppose

  1. Oppose Anybody who believes that half of the population of the United States can't be a Wikipedia administrator, shouldn't be a Wikipedia administrator. Tamzin wrote, "I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter." (I'm not an American or a Trump supporter myself). Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where exactly was this written? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Up at Q.14, [1] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, it's much less than half. In the 2020 United States presidential election, 74,216,154 people voted for Donald Trump. The 2020 United States census recorded a population of 331,449,281, meaning that about 22.36% of the United States population voted for Donald Trump. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This shouldnt be a factor at all?!?!?!?! Political Views should NOT even be mentioned in an RfA under any circumstance. Tamzin already corrected the statement in question 14 and this seems to be grasping for straws. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin wrote above: "I think that avowed, continuing support for Donald Trump constitutes support for an oppressive regime, and thus should be disqualifying for the same reasons discussed in Point 1." Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin who supports an oppressive regime does not uphold the collaborative and free values of Wikipedia. I see no issue with the candidate's assessment.
    casualdejekyll 16:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Either way, the major point is being overlooked here. Real World Politics should not be a factor in an RFA at all to constitute a Neutral Point of View. As per their comment, personal opinion is allowed on wikipedia because wikipedia is not censored. This is a personal view with reason behind it and really should not be a factor here. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there are two parts to this. The support-for-oppressive-regime-means-one-is-not-suitable-for-adminship part, and the Trump-is-an-oppressive-regime part. The first part is definitely relevant. The second, not so much.
    casualdejekyll 16:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    People have the right to believe what they want. If Tamzin thinks that pro-right wikipedians shouldnt be administrators, thats her call. This is an opinion, not an enforcement. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because 20% of the United States (adult) population don't vote.
    talk) 16:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Turnout in the 2020 United States presidential election was estimated to be 66.2%, so it's a much higher percentage than 20%. -- Tavix (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the kind of comment that could sink an RfA, yeah.
    casualdejekyll 16:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Did you assume half the population of the United States voted for U.S. President Donald Trump at the U.S. 2016 Presidential election? SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 16:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    More people voted against him then for, and large amounts of people voted for absolutely nobody. Couldn't have even been close to half
    casualdejekyll 18:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Realized I haven't actually stated what I think on this... My criteria, as expressed above, is that a candidate 1. Knows what they don't know, i.e.. knows when to ask before jumping in, and when to not do anything because they don't know enough. - 2. Knows what a mainspace is, I.E. doesn't treat Wikipedia as a game, has written something (not even a GA, just something!) and 3. Won't destroy everything. (That one's self explanatory.) I felt that Tamzin met all these criteria.
    Note that political affiliation is not in there. Being a Trump supporter is not in there, and saying that Trump supporters can't be admins is ALSO not in there.
    So this situation does not affect my Support.
    casualdejekyll 18:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I will say though I am a Trump supporter and Tamzin was never rude or mean to me. With the few encounter I’ve had with her, she seemed nice to me. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 23:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Surprisingly although there are a lot of comments about how many people voted etc, no one pointed out the obvious (that I noticed). Voting for Trump doesn't mean you support him or that you can reasonably be called a Trump supporter. It's the nature of many democratic systems, especially FPTP ones (which despite some weird possibilities due to the EC, people mostly treat the US presidential election as), that people often end up voting for candidates they can't be called supporters of. In fact, I think we can be sure that for a variety of reasons some Trump supporters intentionally voted for Biden. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hako9's oppose

If a candidate running for adminship, advocates for desysoping any Biden supporter because they think Biden is an oppressor for fueling/being complicit in the Yemen war, would that candidate get any more than a grand total of zero support votes? Not really. And rightly so. Because support for a political leader shouldn't disqualify anyone. Why then do we have such a strong support for a candidate who is in favour of desysoping a Trump supporter, because in their view Trump is an oppressor. - hako9 (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a rather large misrepresentation of what Tamzin wrote. What they actually wrote was As to the latter, let me be clear. This isn't about conservatives. It isn't about Republicans. It isn't about people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. It is about people who continue to support him after he spent months trying to undermine the outcome of a free and fair election and his supporters then invaded the hallowed center of our democracy in an overt attempt to unlawfully overturn that election's result and impose an unelected head of state.
It is not support for a political leader that is the disqualifier. It is continued support for a man, whose words and actions lead to an invasion on the
US Capitol Buildings in an attempt to overturn the results of a free and fair election. If at the end of his term, Biden, or any other subsequent president, does the same or similar actions, I fully expect Tamzin would make the same sort of qualifying remark. The views and actions taken by Trump and his supporters, at that time (end of 2020 and start of 2021) are incompatible with the core fundamentals of democracy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I think some perspective from outside the US would be helpful here. January 6th was not a uniquely evil incident; US presidents have authorised coups that attempt to overturn the results of democratic elections they dislike many, many times. An editor could just as well find continued support for Obama as disqualifying for holding advanced permissions on Wikipedia due to some of the more disastrous humanitarian consequences of his foreign policy. But if an editor vowed not to support anyone with a userbox that praised Obama, due to those foreign policy considerations, I would oppose their candidacy for administrator too. And I suspect so would most people. Endwise (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference with January 6 is that it was domestic. There is, in the eyes of citizens, a big difference between meddling in other countries' politics and messing with your own democratic political system for personal gain. It's quite irrelevant to this RfA, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is mostly irrelevant, I'm just saying that from where I stand on the outside, Jan 6th was not so uniquely evil that it would justify a different standard for Trump compared to other world leaders (that would make the "desysop if Trump supporter" thing acceptable compared to other presidents). American presidents have never really seemed to care about democracy all that much. Endwise (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Biden also championed the Iraq War, in which the United States committed multiple particularly evil war crimes. If you hate Biden for this, I would understand those feelings, as I would understand hating Trump for a multitude of things he's said or done. But you should be able to disentangle the beliefs of a man and the beliefs of his supporters, and disentangle the political beliefs of editors and their contributions to creating a free encyclopedia. It worries me that an administrator would vow to not do either of those things. Endwise (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

272 people clapping and cheering for a candidate that advocates desysoping anyone who has a different political view than their own. Quite Kafkaesque. - hako9 (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

or maybe, perhaps, it doesn't affect Tamzin's suitability to be an administrator in their view.
casualdejekyll 02:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah let's strawman the opposite side of the RfA why don't we.[
WP:FINANCE! 08:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
this thread in response to hako9's vote should be moved back to the main page. some of these users pinpointed the problem pretty well. RZuo (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely; as an example of presumably unintentionally mmisreading what's been actually written, it's an object lesson. SN54129 17:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: I would argue against moving it back to the main page. First, it is not a copy/paste of hako9's initial !vote (it seems more like a supplementary comment from hako9). Second, this thread has grown a fair amount and is a bit too long to be re-added (if this were part of the main page I likely would have moved it here by now). Primefac (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: you appear to be answering my post; but I should've used, perhaps the {{sarcasm}} template, as it^^^ was a suggestion I was not entertaining for a moment. SN54129 17:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not, and I'll fix the indenting (and add an @) to indicate that more clearly. I dislike same-level indents for non-bulleted replies, hence the +1 indent. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Login attempts from new devices against opposition voters

(this section was split from #Mcferran's oppose)--RZuo (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email today from Wikipedia telling me that there had been multiple (failed) attempts to log into my account from a new device. Evidently I upset somebody who would have liked to impersonate me. This has never happened to me before after editing Wikipedia for fifteen years.Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also got a notification that there have been several attempts to login to my account immediately after !voting oppose. Is there something going on that T&S needs to know about?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
me too. first time getting this kind of notifications, minutes after voting no.--RZuo (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I woke up to three notifications saying someone tried logging into my account, after I opposed and before I moved back to support. One notification is from seven hours ago, the other two, from four hours ago. Looks like I'm not the only one. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) This is probably one of the regular LTAs who just want to cause trouble and stir up suspicion, rather than anything directly related to the RfA.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reminds me of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085#Failed login attempts. @Zzuuzz:, might this be you-know-who? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's one guess. Another is currently below. I would actually go for a 3rd known LTA, one who has actually done some (not very advanced) compromises and shown a relevant interest. There's currently no evidence that I've seen either way (I may have a proper rummage later), but it's almost certainly 3rd party mischief. Of course make sure your passwords are unique and secure, and if anyone sees any compromised accounts, anywhere on the site, feel free to give me or someone else a shout. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also think someone is systematically trying to break into editors' accounts just for the fun of it or desire to misuse the user rights. And where else would they find a larger gathering of editors than a running RfA? I'm saying this because I got this notification and email too. But it happened on 24th April, almost a day before I cast my support vote. The hacker (or whatever the correct term is) may have started before the RfA even began on the 25th and has now turned on against respondents of the RfA. My incident may be completely unrelated too, but still pointing this out here. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CX Zoom: Oh I can help with that one. You reverted Projects (see below). My guess is it's unrelated to this (see above). -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see that. This information was appreciated. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got this too; I assume no cause for alarm as long as you have a strong password. Bsoyka (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Projects or a similar LTA who has a grudge against the candidate. These aren't actual hacking attempts, these are being solely done to scare users and increase tensions. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add me to the list of "oppose" who got this message. Changed my password just in case. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've had three separate notifications of multiple login attempts since commenting. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's some LTA or other making a couple brute force attempts on people to worry them. If you've got a reasonably strong password that you aren't using anywhere else, there's nothing to worry about. If you are really really concerned, you can request two-factor authentication for your account. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never understand when people change their passwords if something like this happens. If you have a weak password, then you should have changed it anyway. But if you have a strong password, there will be trillions of zillions of possibilities, and you change it because someone has made five or six wrong guesses? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC) ([reply]
As an illustration, I've just checked the strength of my password (I entered a similar one with the same format, not my real one) and the checker estimated it would take 2 billion years to crack it by brute force. So if someone has spent half an hour trying but I don't change it, it will still take them half an hour less than 2 billion years to succeed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted support. I had thirty this morning. Probably they are watching this discussion, laughing very hard, and enjoying the disruption. FWIW, my password is XXX characters long. They'd have better luck hacking the Foundation's password data set table. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's all so incredibly pathetic. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is pathetic, most users have nothing that can't be gained in a month or two as far as user rights go, seen as I haven't got the notifications yet, I just changed mine and I should have a million years left as opposed to 5 years that my old password had. Unless I get the notifications a couple of times, seen as it would mean I would have to redo all my AWB stuff I am not going to bother with 2-FA. Zippybonzo | talk 17:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My notification email lists an IP. If I were concerned by this harassment from a disturbed individual, I would forward to ArbCom and request a checkuser. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My reset attempts were by IP address 134.122.47.207 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is part of a /17 blocked as a collocation webhost. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just wipe this entire section per
casualdejekyll 22:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Add me to the list of users who got those notifications after !voting oppose. Are IPs behind failed login attempts in fact recorded? Just askin'. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casualdejekyll is right that wiping this would be a good idea per DENY. However, FWIW, I found this discussion to be helpful. I received a notification almost immediately after my !vote, and I received a second notification roughly a day later. I assumed it was a spambot or some LTA, and I figured many others received notifications too. The second notification made me wonder if this was something that I should report, just in case there's some technical issue someone should be aware of, but seeing this discussion puts that to rest, so thank you everyone for your input here. GrammarDamner how are things? 05:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johnnyconnorabc My email notifications about password reset attempts contained the IP, as I noted above. Otherwise, I believe only the Foundation can see. I have my own candidate for who this is/was, but not naming names. It would be good to know the IP address . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do admins receive different notification emails? Mine don't contain any IP address. — kashmīrī TALK 10:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra There wasn't any IP address mentooned in the email. Just 'There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password.'. If I knew where exactly the IP address could be found it would be very helpful. Would this sort of disruption be in fact serious enough for the Foundation to intervene in some way? Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Password reset attempts (as seen by Deepfriedokra) are handled differently to failed logins (as seen by everyone else). I think there's a bug ticket about this somewhere if anyone wants to follow it up. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add me as well to the list of people that got a "multiple failed login" warning after voting for oppose. Luckily the attack has stopped, and I have changed my password as well. SunDawntalk 09:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I received a "multiple failed login" warning 15 hours after my oppose vote. I don't recall that happening before for me.Smallchief (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Multiple log-in attempts after my vote. Never happened before. — kashmīrī TALK 10:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon

@Tamzin, Drmies, and BDD:

Just want to make a few comments here that don't get buried elsewhere. For all of the good intentions of this nomination, it is too soon. You might make it anyway. Just a basic glance at Tamzin's stats, their total edits of 10 years has only been 31,801 on English Wikipedia. That needs to be way higher. You need to create a lot more content in the way or articles and etc., for the experience. If you are going to be an admin, you are going to be dealing with requests and issues that require that kind of experience to handle. And, believe me, there are moments when a well-intentioned admin action offends someone, and a big dust up results. You need to have enough policy knowledge to state your reasoning when that happens. There's a dust-up right now at ANI over some comments you made in this nomination, and someone offended by those comments. I can't help but believe that more experience would have helped you avoid that altogether. And however you state your view on anything, avoid political POV as if it were a plague. Admins have to be completely neutral in situations where they might be very opinionated of same in private life. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying a bit: The now-closed ANI was regarding comments said about the comments she made, not the comments she made. Rgrds. --
talk) 01:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Correct. But the comments she made on this nomination that triggered that, was her honest political POV reaction to something she was asked. Sometimes, for admins, it's better to play the neutral ground. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this RFA passes or not, the community likewise knows where she stands, just as she knows where her supporters/opposers stand. Playing the neutral ground would've definitely led her to getting more support and almost no opposition, but the fact that she was honest and upfront in her answers to the questions, gives the community a sense of preparedness if her views on Trump supporters being admins does indeed become an issue, hence why some (including myself) moved back to support after opposing for a bit, and why many are re-affirming their support for her.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maile, if you want to make the argument Tamzin lacks the policy knowledge or skill to be an admin go for it. But suggesting they need more than 10 years and 31,801 edits to be ready is an astounding way to make that case. 31,801 edits is enough to make someone one of the 3500 most prolific editors ever on Wikipedia - for context over the last year we've 400,000 editors making 1 edit a month[2]. I could keep going pointing out numerous ways that those metrics suggest a long tenured Wikipedian - for instance multiple arbs (including myself) were elected with less than 31,801 editors and 10 years of active editing - but I will leave it there because I think you were actually expressing a POV other than "Too Soon" and just choose a bad metric to support your (defensible) contention. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit counts are practically useless in determining anything. Worm That Turned, for example, had around 3,000+ edits when he became an admin in 2011 and is now one of the longest serving arbs. It's the quality of those edits, coupled together with a user's judgment and temperament that counts, but too many seem to be caught up too much in simply looking at edit counts. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit counts and length of editing time are useful as quick measures of a person's likely skill and knowledge. It seems less useful at an RfA when we can instead judge those by a more careful examination of their edits and their answers to questions (31 and counting at this RfA) designed to test their skills and knowledge. Like I said if Maile or others want to suggest Tamzin lacks the skill or knowledge to be a sysop, go ahead and make that case - if anything the referencing of such large numbers of edits and experience undermines the very case they're trying to make. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maile, you supported—not just that, you nominated—my candidacy for the mop when I was at 15,000 edits. I'm afraid I don't understand where you're coming from? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and 17,000+ of Tamzin's edits have been since May of last year. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled by this comment. The oppose rationale is very clear here – aside from Gregjackp, whose content creation criteria are much stricter than any other regular RfA voter, I don't see any editor opposing Tamzin for their lack of experience. Several of them previously supported Tamzin's candidacy, and some others speak positively, even in opposing, about Tamzin's qualities as an editor. Opposition to Tamzin's nomination is based pretty much exclusively on their answer to Q14, and it's pretty clear that Tamzin knew when they answered it that they were going to risk getting opposition on the basis of it. They could have come up with a nice safe answer walking back the comments on Vami IV's RfA and sailed through this RfA with minimal opposition. I don't believe that any amount more experience would have prevented the opposes based on that question. And I don't believe that more experience would have changed how Tamzin answered the question; I believe the fact that they tackled it head on despite knowing that their answer would be controversial is commendable. Much better for us to have a true idea of admins' political beliefs so that they can be held to account than for them to hide their biases and yet still be influenced by them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If "only" ~32,000 edits isn't enough to qualify someone for RfA, we should just delete
WP:RFA entirely as maybe 1 candidate a year at most would meet such stringent criteria. This is akin to telling Joe Biden he's not qualified to be president because he "only" spent 36 years as a senator and 8 years as Vice President. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Maile66, I'm afraid I don't get it either. 30,000 is a ton of edits. Tamzin has a lot of experience in various parts of the project, including article space; I'm afraid you and others are overplaying individual parts of the RfA of an editor who is simply very well rounded. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This isn't a "too soon" issue. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin, Drmies, BDD, and Theleekycauldron: trout Self-trout First of all, my apologies for the way my wording came out, and I certainly never intended it as any kind of negative on the candidate. Actually, I was looking at the Opposes that seemed (to me) to start to pile up. And I was trying to soften things if you ended up not being an admin this time around. Often when a good candidate doesn't make it through RFA, someone says, "Sorry, too soon. Try again down the line." (or words tto that effect). Yes, Theleekycauldron, I did co-nominate you for RFA. How did that work out for you? Would you say your first nomination was "too soon", and that you're willing to try it again (which I hope you do)? I have complete confidence in the abilities of either of you to be an admin, but the "too soon" also applied to Theleekycauldron, but I didn't put it to her that way - she gave RFA a shot, and it didn't work ... that time ... Leek can always (and probably will) give it another shot down the line. — Maile (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: good intentions as ever :) no regrets as to how it turned out for me. I admire your optimism, because I don't think there's a do-over to be had on this one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To anyone wondering why the supposed lapse in judgement from maile66, considering this is the same admin that brought us the nothing burger of the month only a couple of weeks ago, it was very much in form. Hey ho. SN54129 16:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking back over my long-term mental clouding that I suppose is Long-COVID,I wonder if anyone else is so afflicted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting trivia about this RFA...

Looks like this is the first time ever an RFA has had more than 400 unique participants. Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trump is polarizing. Mentioning him in any context is polarizing. I'm sure they'll have an article up on
casualdejekyll 22:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Time for Wikipedia:Times that 400 Wikipedians have participated in something.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FINANCE! 22:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
...Ugh, never mind, I stand corrected: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2. I guess this is the 2nd time then. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She's still just about to break his record though. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have surpassed Floquenbeam's RFA with 334 supports (a record), and have 451 total votes (counting neutrals).
talk) 23:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
(edit conflict) Yep. For the record, "Floquenbeam 2" had 456 unique votes, whereas this RFA as of this moment has 451. So yep, almost there... Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now at 454. @Floquenbeam: should retract his vote if he wants to have any chance saving his record. /s —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 23:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and it's a tie now. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 23:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One person struck the vote. The number is 455.
talk) 23:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
456 right now (334/110/12). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
God bless you, @Ozzie10aaaa, that's 457. And clearly, no one is going to strike any more comments. /s theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9:21pm CDT. RfA is pending closure. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 02:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the talk page of the crat chat (the part open to non-bureaucrats) is rapidly approaching 200K in size. Renerpho (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The time allocated for running scripts has expired"

What does that even mean? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was happening at
WP:BN the other day too. I thought someone had fixed it. SQLQuery Me! 01:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I attempted to fix the archive counter as a fix, as it worked at
WP:CR, albeit for a different error. It seems like this error probably can't be fixed by editing. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:8CB1:4D9D:1384:107D (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
This has nothing at all to do with the archive bot settings. The culprit is the tally component of module:rfx which counts the number of support and oppose votes on the page. if you look at the html source of the page there's a HTML comment at the end which tells you where the processing time is going, look for the section "NewPP limit report". In this case for a successfully rendered page the report is:
Extended content

Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)
100.00% 6338.702 1 -total
90.81% 5756.008 1 Template:RfA_tally
1.87% 118.794 87 Template:Tq
1.60% 101.355 32 Template:Tqq
1.05% 66.448 1 Template:Cn
1.03% 65.555 1 Template:RfA_toolbox
0.99% 62.606 1 Template:Navbox
0.91% 57.963 2 Template:Fix
0.68% 43.207 2 Template:User
0.56% 35.752 3 Template:Category_handler

so on one of the new rendering servers the tally component is using 6 seconds of processing time 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Lua error messages § Lua timeout error explains it; this occurs on very large pages. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This page is indeed at a whopping 465kb so lol yeah it takes a while just to load it, let alone any scripts on top of it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can you tell what the page size is? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go to "Preferences" --> "Gadgets" --> "Prosesize" (enable). Endwise (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sidebar "page info" -> page length.--RZuo (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When MediaWiki parses a page it caps the maximum amount of processing time for LUA modules at 10 seconds, if the LUA code on the page hasn't finished running when 10 seconds is up any additional {{invoke}} magic words are just replaced with an error message. Oftentimes you can fix this error just by purging the page - the WMF has two server clusters set up for rendering pages, one using old machines from 2015 ish and one using relatively modern machines, but you get the same 10 second limit on both. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

i'm curious how this would be decided. if this request were to be extended or rerun, the trend is the percentage would be quite likely even lower.

in my opinion, it might be nice if such candidates would be granted the user right temporarily, and be subject to a confirmation vote after a year or so.

it's ofc even better if all sysops have to be confirmed every few years. unlimited term is the root cause of many troubles.--RZuo (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: See the 'crat chat, they assess consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i know where this would be decided. i'm actually sceptical, rather than curious, about their reasoning. given the downward trend and the fact that the percentage reached the threshold on the final day, if the request were not forced to close because of the hard time limit, it's gonna fail. RZuo (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues with this comment, RZuo. The first is that such trendline analysis is misleading. The second is that RfA voters are not drawn from an infinite supply, but from a small sample of people within the inner en.wiki community; were the RfA re-run, I'd expect that at least 80% of voters would be the same people, and they would vote in the same way (modulo random fluctuations that would cancel out). — Bilorv (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's simple to know if that'll be true or false: let the request be open for another seven days, instead of accepting the decision of a handful of users, the socalled bureaucrats. RZuo (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the mechanism allows for it, I would like to see the time extended for more comments. Normally I'm against such a step, but in this case it might help bring about a better overall answer. If it's never been done before at RfA and it would be a problem, then lock it and I wish the best of luck to the B who closes it!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree, I think new mods that win RFAs should have to go through a confirmation vote. However, I'm not sure if they should be confirmed every couple of years. That's just what I think though. Toad40 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be too bureaucratic to work with both the high number of admins and the time that would take. I think it would burn out all expect those most bent on desysop-ing someone they hate or keeping their friends in. I see it as unnecessary. If the admin is problematic they will be either recalled or ARBCOM'd; the rest don't deserve the unnecessary attention. —
WP:FINANCE! 17:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess now that I think about it, it does seem flawed. According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators
There is a total of about 1,000 admin accounts today, and that would take a long time to have reelctions for all of those admin accounts, problematic or not. Toad40 (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Four years at five per week or two years at ten per week isn't that long (and if you look at historical data, five or fifteen RfAs running in parallel does not need to be a problem). I don't think admin reconfirmations are a great idea (I am open to persuasion), but the effort would be manageable. —Kusma (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A confirmation vote after an RfA? Given that an RfA can't pass with under 50% support (and generally 65% is the lower bound) I fail to see what purpose that would serve except making it even less appealing to become an admin. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Time for a statement of the obvious: consensus Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. This RFA's number of opposes, too, was very high. A large number of these opposes came from editors, not only in good standing, but whom history has proven quite wise and thoughtful in their judgment calls, in my opinion. If I saw likelihood in some of their expolarations, predictions, thinkings-through-to-the-end of what the candidate stated, I would not have supported. I tried to indicate that in my support. Looking at the number of opposes and gravity of given reasons for opposing ... I think it was acceptable for the bureaucrats to err on the side of caution here, and take a closer look. In fact, I expect no less of them. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had not been too busy, I would have voted to approve the promotion. Bearian (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was on the oppose side. What's done is done. If any admin can't handle not being on the side of consensus and still following the rules, that editor probably shouldn't be an admin. If the admin in the RFA ends up violating polices as some of us feared, we handle it that way. If the admin doesn't, then we were wrong. I don't mind being happily wrong and I hope that's how it turns out. I am opposed to another layer of bureaucracy. And in closing, I wish the new administrator well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Tamzin&oldid=1111113085"