Vami IV

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (98/6/2); Scheduled to end 16:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination

Vami IV (talk · contribs) – As an editor with over six years of activity across mainspace and the back end alike, Vami IV is long overdue for a nomination for adminship. His content work is prolific: Vami is responsible for creating 242 articles, 164 of which are biographies of women under the auspices of Women In Red. He has expanded numerous others with well-researched and encyclopedic content, particularly stubs for the long-running 50,000 Destubbing Challenge.

On the back end, Vami is a born collaborator who works well with others, an essential skill for any admin. His 229 GA reviews, many nominations of others for Editor of the Week, efforts to educate users interested in helping out at the highly technical contributor copyright investigations area, and work as coordinator of WikiProject Germany all bear witness to this. I hope you'll agree with me that Vami will be a strong addition to the admin corps. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Lee Vilenski

I am absolutely delighted to introduce Vami IV to the community as a candidate for adminship. Vami has been with us for almost six and a half years, and in that time has produced over 80,000 contributions. They have been continually active since 2016 and are a fantastic contributer, working on articles up to FA class, such as Fort Concho and Ludwigsburg Palace with 25,000 edits to mainspace. Their skills in content creation is exemplified by having a Triple Crown, and won the Editor of the week award in 2019.

However, Vami is much more than just a content creator. They work in WP:CCI, somewhere where the toolset is incredibly helpful, for revision deletion as well as handling blocks. I very much trust Vami with handling themselves with decorum in discussions, and have no qualms with them having the toolset. I hope you’ll agree that Vami IV is a fantastic editor that would benefit from the toolset. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept these nominations, and thank their authors for writing them. And the people, admins or otherwise, who convinced me to run for the mop. For five Marches out of the six I've been here, I never treated the idea of being here at RfA seriously. I was of the opinion that I didn't need to be an admin, and that Wikipedia didn't need me as an admin. I still believe I am correct about those things. But in my sixth March I decided to run because, as I said at my ORCP, I believe in this project and want to help maintain it in a greater capacity. So I reaffirm this: I do not see adminship as something owed to experienced editors, but something a suitable, experienced, and motivated editor owes to the project. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have never edited with an account other than this one or an IP address, and I have not and never will engage in paid editing. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to be a copyright admin, investigating and cleaning up copyright violations. I understand that there is also a deficit of admins at WP:AIV and WP:PERM, but my focus, especially while I get my sea legs, will be copyright cleanup.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The easy answer would be the two Featured Articles, five Good Articles, and Did You Knows that earned me my Triple Crowns. There's also my participation in Women in Red, the contests run by Encyclopaedius, or my GAN reviews. But my answer is the article Hololive Production. I ordinarily wouldn't be proud of a C-class. As experienced editors know, a C-class is a job half done. But I am proud of the story behind it. A handful of editors, and a community of volunteer fan translators built that article from scratch, from Japanese-language media. It still has problems, and has changed a lot since I started pursuing other projects in December 2020, but that collaboration on- and off-wiki – giving readers a new, more collaborative and accurate sense of this project – is my best work.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Of course. Always because I made a mistake, because I was gung ho about something. To be honest, it was people like me for whom WP:BRD was written. How I've resolved disputes (and my goofs), is exactly that formula: be bold, get reverted, and then work it out. Take this example from back in 2018. As an admin however, I will be more cautious before doing something like this again.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Cryptic
4. What was the context of your recently-deleted User:Vami IV/Userboxes/clericalfascist?
A: I grew up in a conservative household, but in the lead up to the 2016 US Presidential elections, I fell into the camp of Donald Trump. I adopted increasingly right-wing politics, and even publicly professed to be fascist. Thankfully, I had a lot of people to mock and shun me for my cringe beliefs, and friends to talk me down from those cringe beliefs. Since then, I've done a lot of soul searching and reading, and on-wiki written about such things the history of American imperialism, Confederate war crimes, and helped purge racists from this project. It goes without saying that I still feel a lot of guilt about how I used to be. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from John M Wolfson
5. Your edit summary usage is spotty compared to what is ideal for an administrator, at a rather low 75%. Furthermore, as late as last November it was as low as 50%, and has vacillated between there and 100% since then. Communication is an essential skill for adminabili, so edit summary usage should be rather high. Will you commit to using edit summaries in all of your edits? There is an option in your preferences that you can check to remind you to use a summary at every edit. You don't necessarily need to check it (I don't), but it can help.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes. I turned on that preference a couple months ago to force myself to use edit summaries. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Go Phightins!
6. I was just wondering if you might say a little bit more, in general, about how you think about reaching conclusions like this one, that "enough is enough" and the encyclopedia is better served moving on without a particular editor in our ranks. I imagine this comes up in the CCI area too, and so I am just a bit curious as to your thought process about these sorts of conduct issues (and am not asking for reflection on the particular AN/I thread I linked). Thanks.
A: I reach my conclusions regarding the net positivity of someone based on their willingness to consider criticism and advice, and change. In that case, that editor was absolutely unwilling to do any of that, had demonstrated this on their talk page and at ANI, and had a history of angrily rejecting any input regarding his edits while trying to pull rank. As the Buddha is incorrectly said to have said, "It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles." –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Bilorv
7. (Per a comment below.) Do you believe this 79-word attributed blockquote to be a copyright violation? Why or why not?
A: Yes. And I explained as such to that editor, though admittedly by linking an essay (twice), which they also did. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text: Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. I punctuate, Brief quotations. It is worth noting that I am not the only editor who thinks that OQ and other OQs constitute copyright violations. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Elli
8. You do a lot of work in CCI, removing copyright violations, because they are against site policy. However, one of our most fundamental site policies is "ignore all rules" - as long as doing so makes the encyclopedia better. How can you justify removing copyright violations from articles that are deemed good/vital - cutting them down significantly - why not apply IAR and let them stand?
A: "Copyright violations" and "good/vital" are antonyms. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Would you consider closing controversial discussions as an admin? If so, how would you assess consensus in a large discussion where, if you count the !votes, it's split narrowly in favor of one option, but you're convinced that the other side has stronger policy-based arguments?
A: No, not really. That's not where my attentions lie. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Scorpions13256
10. Imagine a situation where a 10-year-old article has turned out to be a complete copyright violation. Would it be smart to nominate it for deletion via AFD?
A: AfD is not the process for removing copyright violations; WP:CP is. There have been many times I've used CP to delete presumptive or confirmed copyright violations because of the difficulty in just cleaning them up by hand, but there are times you really should just clean it up by hand. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Celestina007
11. Thank you for volunteering, You have my support. Generally, what are your thoughts on undisclosed paid editing?
A: I strongly dislike paid editing in general, as I see it being fundamentally at odds with this project, but hate UPE in particular. It is a threat to our credibility. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Sennecaster
12. At CCI (and copyright cleanup in general), both copyright editors and violators are capable of violating civility policy. As someone who will (presumably) be opening cases at CCI and dealing with repeat copyright violators, what are some ways that you could handle heated case openings and exchanges?
A: That really depends. There are editors who violate copyright and contribute in good-faith, and can't grasp copyright policy, and then there are editors who refuse to, or perceive your warnings about copyright as a personal attack. There are and have been CCI cases on both types of editor. So I will observe WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF, even while opening a case. A copyright violator's actions will speak to the goodness of their faith. There is also the input of other admins, copyright admins especially, to lean on. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Celestina007
13. Good Response, I’m sorry to ask two, my second question is, are you ready to do the hard and controversial work, other admins would generally shy away from?
A: Yes – after all I'm investigating and cleaning up copyright violations – but I'm conscious of the consequences of being brash and reckless, and of offending LTAs. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Chess
14. You said in question 1 that you "I fell into the camp of Donald Trump" and that "thankfully, I had a lot of people to mock and shun me for my cringe beliefs, and friends to talk me down from those cringe beliefs." Would you allow an editor who supports Donald Trump to be mocked and shunned on the English Wikipedia?
A: No. That would constitute a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
15. You also said you were proud to help "purge racists" from the project. What would you say the line is at which an editor is a racist and needs to be "purged" from the project?
A: I did not say I was proud about that. I'm not going to be proud about banishing contributors. The line is bringing that racism on-wiki – a racist username like the linked example, edit warring to keep a racist and demonstrably false view in an article, use of slurs, – and refusing to cease racist on-wiki behavior. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Haleth
16. I'm aware that you are fairly active on Discord, and a fairly outspoken participant at that. Obviously Discord is a more informal environment compared to Wikipedia, being off wiki and all, and everyone has the prerogative to dislike another editor on a personal level. That said, whenever you openly denigrate another editor on the public chat log who isn't in a position to respond, I WP:AGF that it is probably said in jest as opposed to a malicious casting of aspersions at said editor. Still, now that you are seeking adminship, and because we all agree that a sysop's conduct is held to a higher standard compared to other editors, do you think you will self-reflect on your prior conduct and consider whether it is appropriate public behaviour befitting a sysop, even when it is off wiki?
Optional question from Ifnord
17. A piggy back to Haleth's question, for clarity. Have you engaged in off-wiki behaviour which would not have been appropriate on-wiki, in terms of civility, etc?
A:
Optional question from Beeblebrox
18. As you are apparently active in working to remove copyright violations, could you explain why User:Vami IV/Archive/Stadtarchiv Stuttgart is not one?
A: I had completely forgotten about that subpage. That is trans-copyvio and should be deleted immediately. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have requested that page be speedily deleted per G12; I created it at 14:55, 11 October 2016 UTC to work on Stuttgart and History of Stuttgart. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Cullen328
19 My question is a follow-up to #7 above and to DGG's oppose. I happen to think that judicious use of properly attributed quotations can often be a great improvement to articles. Personally, I use them frequently in the "Critical reception" sections of articles about books, films, works of art and so on. I just checked one such article that I wrote and found a three sentence quote from a professional critic that was about 80 words in total, attributed by name to the critic and the publication. I think quotes like that are often proper, and I would hate to have you come along and revision delete that quote and block me for copyvio. So, please describe in detail the factors that you use to differentiate an acceptable quotation from one that you would deem a copyright violation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A: With the discussion surrounding this matter now, I believe this is a question bigger than just me and look forward to the relevant RfC(s). To answer your question, I first ask, "is a quote necessary here?" or "what does this add?" (questions I ask myself especially after reading Tony's guide) – I've also seen "am I unable to word this better?". This is kind of vague, and is governed by personal taste. In my experience, the answer to the first is almost always "no", "not much", and "no" (such as in the link for the third question). Reception sections are where this changes. I have experience reviewing them before becoming a copyright investigator and writing them, as at Harry F. Sinclair. I haven't reviewed or written an article about music or a movie yet, but a quick review of My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (picked at random) leaves me feeling comfortable in my beliefs. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I want to note, in case you aren't joking with have you come along and revision delete that quote and block me for copyvio., that I will follow BRD or start a discussion on the talk page if I object to the use of quotations in an article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Support
  1. Support trusted user, demonstrates a need for the tools. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 16:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - not a jerk, has a clue, will be another admin to look at my RD1 requests at CCI. firefly ( t · c ) 16:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support I am passionately enthusiastic about this RfA. Vami is a fantastic editor and person. He's unyieldingly dedicated to his goals; he writes with fluency and sophistication; he understands what the project wants and needs, and serves it best he can. He won't just be a good admin, he'll be a fantastic, Hall of Fame admin. Vaticidalprophet 16:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. support Net positive, seems to be a good editor for adminship! 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Proficient, hard working, good history of content creation. I have a lot of respect for Vami and the work he does around here, and I'm certain he'll be a great admin, peko. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I, like many others, have been watching Vami for some considerable time to push them towards running. I would have supported off their work a year ago. However, since that point I've also got to know them personally in more depth, and have been able to experience their good judgement and interaction with other users. All of these nicely combine in someone who would be a good mop, especially in the perenially understaffed copyright field. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Vami is an important contributor at CCI, a place where he demonstrably has a need for the tools. He knows (and follows) rules and customs, and (afaict) is civil and can introspect. He will do well with the bit. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Not a jerk; has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, trusted contributor and shows a need for the tools. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 16:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I have interacted with Vami quite often over the last few years, at first because he reviewed some of my good articles, then actually to collaborate with a good article with him. From these interactions, I have found him to be trustworthy. I have also seen him conduct a lot of cleanup at CCI, which sadly is a little understaffed. I think, based on his activity at CCI, he has a pretty good need for the tools there. Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Trusted editor with a need for the coveted mop. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. MER-C 17:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I have come across Vami IV a few times in the past and they have been amiable without appearing to be a pushover. They are a fine content creator, with a couple of successful FA nominations to their name, the most recent being promoted just three weeks ago. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Looks like a great candidate. Best of luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I have full confidence in Vami. Their GAN work is particularly praiseworthy. (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Trusted user, genuinely dedicated to improving Wikipedia in all facets, took serious thought into running for admin. Most importantly, does a good deal of work at CCI, which always needs more mops. Kncny11 (shoot) 17:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Net positive. Has a clue, not a jerk. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 17:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I'm surprised I haven't encountered him in my content work and FACs, but seems good to me with the appropriate answer to Q5.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Clear need for the tools, and has the skills to use them in an area that I’ve heard needs more admins. Honest and satisfactory answer to Cryptic’s question makes me feel even better about supporting. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support: brilliant content work and I gave them an award for it recently. We need more people in CCI who have the mop, enough reason for a strong support by itself. #4 doesn't concern me—people can change and any current fascist will give off a spectrum of warning signs that are not present here. Some random checks convince me that Vami IV has a temperament plenty good enough. — Bilorv (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Looks good to me. – SD0001 (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support as nom, obviously. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Had good experiences with him since our first interaction. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Passes my RFA criteria. Clovermoss (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Have only seen good things from them. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support On balance, I am satisfied with what I see in terms of reflectiveness, willingness to change course when necessary, and instincts on conflicts with other editors. And any help in the copyright area is, of course, welcome. Go Phightins! 18:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support: Looks fine; answer to Q4 especially shows that he can reflect and accept mistakes. Another copyright admin is great. Tol | talk | contribs 19:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Is competent, has a need for the tools. Good luck! ~ANM🐁 T·C 19:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I doubt they'll misuse the tools and they clearly could use them, so why not? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. I have had many conversations with this user in WP:DISCORD and feel they can be trusted with the tools. Link20XX (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support with enthusiasm. The candidate is clearly dedicated to the project and has been an asset to the community, and will make good use of the tools. DanCherek (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Vami IV is willing and able to accept criticism and learn, and he is an enthusiastic Wikipedian. Let's give him more types of work to do! —Kusma (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support A demonstrated need for the tools and a clue as to go about it, both of which are my criteria for supporting any candidate. Furthermore if MER-C & Premeditated Chaos trust someone I trust them too. Celestina007 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Very familiar with Vami from GAN, definitely has the head to be an admin. Kingsif (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Per the excellent response to my question. There was a situation a few months ago when Vami IV did in fact nominate a Billy Hathorn article for deletion via AFD. He did also have notability concerns. His answer tells me that he has learned and is ready for the mop. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - has the right attributes. Cabayi (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - an ability to introspect and change questionable beliefs is to the candidate's credit, even if the views are not. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. An archetypal admin candidate here. Fills in all the checkmarks in relevant experience and clearly has both extraordinary passion and dedication, which more than qualify him for the role. Aza24 (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, user can be trusted with the admin mop. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 21:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I have had a decent amount of interactions with Vami in the past month and they have always been pleasant. Combine that with solid copyright knowledge and great content creation and you have an absolutely fantastic candidate. --Trialpears (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Not a big deal, one asks why not? - TNT 💞 21:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Good answers, good overall opinion of them. Guettarda (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Have had several interactions with them through participation in the MILHIST project, and I've seen no red flags. I personally think the use of overlong attributed quotes is more of a WP:NFCC violation in most cases than a copyright one, but that's nothing to hold against them. Hog Farm Talk 22:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Although some points have been raised here that might in other circumstances be concerning, I believe that Vami has been and will continue to be in earnest when they express a desire to address and such points. Their genuine humility and willingness to take ownership for previous errors and not repeat them is exactly the type of attitude that admins should display. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, demonstrated need for the tools, history of content creation and interacting well with other editors, clearly would make a good admin. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Vami has enough knowledge and I know that they'll do a good job as an admin, good luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  50. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Vami has earned my trust on matters of temperament and disposition, and has served the encyclopedia with honors as a content creator and as a CCI cop. He is diligent and dedicated, and will make a wonderful admin. — Goszei (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Vami has been a tremendous help at CCI, and has unrelenting dedication to that sphere. Also a friendly editor overall and in our interactions with one another (mostly off-wiki). I'm interested to see their future endeavors as an administrator. --Chlod (say hi!) 22:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support of course. Have seen Vami IV around, and have been quite impressed. Answers above indicate an ability to engage in self-criticism and self-reflection, very useful attributes in an admin. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support no brainer considering adminship is no big deal at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - As a great editor and decent trustworthy fellow, Vami would no doubt be an asset. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 23:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Good contributor, and no reason to think he'd abuse the tools. The userbox might've been a red flag some time ago, but he removed it years ago, asked for it to be deleted, more or less disavowed it, and thus far nobody has identified where those beliefs actually caused problems while editing. What else could we want? For what it's worth I don't know anyone my age (or really anyone over 30) who isn't embarrassed about some belief they held when they were younger. I'm ever thankful that social media wasn't really a thing when I was in high school/college. No reservations about supporting. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support as a net positive. Miniapolis 00:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - encountered him as an active user on Discord; always helpful and without a doubt knowledgeable on copyright matters. His response to the userbox shows openness to growth and change; we can't expect anyone to have always held perfect beliefs. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I do believe that this user can be trustworthy with use of any of the tools listed at WP:MOPRIGHTS.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support: a trusted contributor with good judgement; thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  61. It is indeed hard to forgive the candidate's sins... namely the one time he called me "Tammy". But I think I can bring myself to look past that in recognition of his long history of positive contributions to the project. (In seriousness, I've known Vami to be a conscientious person capable of great introspection and self-critique. There's a number of ways that I wish more Wikipedians could be as self-aware and open as he is.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel obliged to elaborate here, as I think the discussion below is utterly unfair to Vami. Joe Roe and others have spun a narrative based on a hypothetical version of Vami that simply doesn't exist. I'm a disabled queer trans leftist Jewish woman. The Nazis would have killed me five times over. And I am an ardent anti-fascist. I have spoken to Vami at length about social justice issues on Discord. He has readily acknowledged and apologized for his past beliefs, never trying to hide them, always unequivocally acknowledging that he was wrong. In fact, I've had to dissuade him from being too hard on himself about them. He's someone who's passionate about social justice and about opposing fascism in all forms. I would not vote for him otherwise.
    I imagine my views on the intersection of far-right politics and adminship are more extreme than Joe's: 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 (although I wouldn't vote against someone solely on that basis). I'm sure that'll piss some people off, but, like I said, I'm a disabled queer trans leftist Jewish woman. I have very low tolerance for those I associate with my oppression. Vami asked me (unprompted) a while ago, did I think he should have been blocked for the fascist userbox? I gave him my honest answer: Yes. And, I told him, I would have supported an unblock once he wised up and apologized. Wikipedia is no place for fascists. But it's a perfectly fine place for people who believed dumb things as teenagers and later apologized.
    All of this criticism is of a caricature, painting a conscientious supporter of social justice and anti-fascism as some wolf in sheep's clothing based on unsubstantiated fearmongering. I think several commenters here should be ashamed of the conclusions they've leapt to. We don't check WP:AGF at the door when we come to vote at RFA. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support: I have been waiting for this for a majority of my (really short) tenure on Wikipedia. We need more willing admins at copyright, and he fits it well. The tools will be put to good use. I think that every mistake made there may look bad, but CCI in general lacks a general collective knowledgebase to ask for tough cases, so mistakes arise out of WP:BOLD and are hopefully never made again after they are criticized. His encouragement for me (and others) entering copyright work and to continue said work is not exactly related to his sysop candidacy, but shows that he is an editor willing to collaborate and make people feel valued around the project. Sennecaster (What now?) 01:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support based on my interactions with the candidate, good Eddie891 Talk Work 01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Vami has helped me on several occasions via the unofficial Discord server. They have always been polite, patient, and helpful. They seem quite qualified.DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, I have seen Vami around and witnessed the valuable contributions they make, will be an asset. Cavalryman (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  66. Support Looks good to me, definitely seen Vami around once of twice before. Justiyaya (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support as a wikifriend. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 03:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Net positive. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I met Vami in the Discord server and he's always been kind in my interactions with him. Additionally, I appreciate the work he's done at CCI. Regarding the questions I asked - I think the first one ended up being phrased quite poorly, as everyone I talked to didn't seem to understand what exactly I was asking about, so I appreciate his response to it anyway. As for the second, I'm glad Vami answered honestly - nothing wrong with admitting there's a task you're not interested in / won't enjoy doing. I'm sure Vami will be a great sysop around here. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Pamzeis (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, no problems here. Graham87 05:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support net positive. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. CCI work is thankless and absolutely necessary. Just like mopping. Vami seems like an editor who demonstrates dedication, competence and a positive attitude. BusterD (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. The user shows a clear need for admin privileges. Despite some of the issues raised, some of which are notable, I think that this user will be a net benefit to the admin team, and shows a strong editing history. Bibeyjj (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Yes! Leijurv (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Belated support as Co-nom. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - great content creator who is also dedicated to CCI, an area where we badly need admins. Exactly what we need. As someone who is very much not a fan of Trump (and that's putting it politely), to the extent I generally stay well away from writing his articles. I want to say a few things. Firstly, there is a massive difference between Conservatism and Fascism - indeed, I think compared to some countries such as Sweden, Joe Biden could be called a Conservative - and mixing up the two terms is dangerous and wrong. Secondly, it is not a problem to have believed right-wing politics (or, as I prefer to call them, lies) in your youth, and then distance yourself from them with remorse as you mature. So I trust VamiIV will be able to use the admin toolset responsibly in a neutral manner. The blockquote issue is something I have come across. Calling it a copyvio is a legitimate view, but more often the problem is that articles with excessive quotations tend to not be written too well, and trimming the quotations down so they are paraphrased can improve the article. In any case, nobody has given any evidence that VamiIV would abuse administrator tools in this area - he seems to be just stating his view in discussion, with people disagreeing politely. So I think that point is moot. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of this is strawman, Ritchie333: something's either a copyright violation or it is not (in this case a fully sourced quote is not), and whether they are a sign of a well-written article or not is cobblers (nothing to do with with either admin toolkit or copyright generally). so, to clarify, you've addressed 50% of the opposes. ——Serial 10:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure stating a living person is a criminal (when they haven't been convicted) goes against BLP. Specifically stating that one would jump for joy when a living person "gets done over for tax fraud". Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply)Template:Z181 10:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie said that they will be pleased if he gets done over for tax fraud. "Done over" here is a British idiom meaning 'defeated' or in this context 'convicted'. Nowhere in his !vote did he state that anybody was, at present, a criminal. firefly ( t · c ) 10:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoping that someone will be convicted of a crime presupposes that they are, in fact, guilty of the crime. I don't see why attacking an living person and saying they committed tax fraud is OK here. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply)Template:Z181 10:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie could just as well have meant that he hopes it turns out that Trump has committed tax fraud. Personally, when I say "I hope Donald Trump spends the rest of his life in prison", I'm expressing no opinion on whether he's actually committed any crime. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 11:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support—Anyone with the capacity for the kind of introspection that led Vami IV to disavow his past political leanings, not to mention the honesty and courage it takes to admit it openly in their RfA, is somebody we should want to have as an administrator. @Vami IV: Don't be ashamed! You were inundated with extreme right-wing demagoguery, and your old beliefs are a reflection of this—but you outgrew it! That's more than can be said for many other people who adopted those sorts of reactionary views. You have matured into a genuinely decent, compassionate person. And look at how far you've come: literally hundreds of new articles under your belt, stellar work in some of the more contentious of the site's subject areas, and now you're at the precipice of being granted a set of tools that are given only to the most highly trusted of volunteers. We're proud of you! Kurtis (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Very strong support They are a very trusted editor here, leading me to believe they would be an outstanding member of our cadre of sysops here because they have the proficiency and competence of one. They’ll be a helpful addition to the members who use the tools due to the fact that they are sufficient and pre-eminent. ScrapheapNinjaShuriken77 10:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  81. I see nothing to make me belive that the editor in question would abuse the tools. Additionally, I strongly trust the nominators here. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 10:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support precious, lasting good relations --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Grimes2 (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Fine for me. --Minorax (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support No issues, good luck. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support with thorough disgust at what's taking place in the comments section at this RFA.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support: trusted, has a demonstrated need for the mop. JavaHurricane 16:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Vami is a superb contributor, and we have worked together before (see Vami's very voluminous list of birds). Vami is very kind and helpful, and have no doubt they will take the feedback received here on board. The copyright quote matter is a result of the lack of proper guidance, and I think we as a community should lay better ground rules around what quotes do and do not count as copyvios. In several places, all our guidance says is "brief" quotes are allowed. In practice we have allowed up to paragraph length quotes, somewhat contrary to a textualist reading of "brief". Something ripe for an RfC it appears... With regards to the political angle, this is the first time I've ever heard of it, and I have interacted with Vami significantly on and off-wiki over the years. Never once have I thought that Vami was bringing POV or disruption, and they have always been beyond courteous. Political indoctrination is a spooky thing that happens to many young folks, and we should be glad that folks can escape such things. Vami seems to have done much soul searching on the matter. So all in all: Vami's political issues lie behind him, the copyright issue is a matter of community disagreement, not inherent fault on Vami's part, and Vami is an excellent contributor. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Can be trusted with the toolset. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. A good editor, who is responsible and motivated. Aside from minor peccadilloes and dirty laundry (of which most people, including adminstrators, are guilty), there is nothing to suggest that Vami would be anything less than an excellent admin. They have a great deal of experience with creating, reviewing and editing content. Things like AfD participation do not really matter if they're not going to work in AfD. They've been making the place better for a whole, which I expect this to continue after enmopment. jp×g 19:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - I believe this user can be trusted with the mop. While I was concerned that Vami once professed to being fascist, I believe that it was merely a case of not understanding the true meaning of the word. - ZLEA T\C 19:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support meets most decent criteria. Vermont (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support It's not a slam dunk for me; the fascism thing does bother me even after professing a hard turn, and I disagree on the copyvio stance (as expressed in Q7). But I like most of the answers and I definitely like the straightforward style shown there. The content work is, of course, great. I guess the WP admin works will be able to buffer a candidate with some less middle-of-the-road views, in exchange for the likely benefits of having them on team. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. I also disagree on the copyvio stance, but (as a longtime intellectual property attorney) I agree with the applicant and |CaptainEek that the project as a whole needs to be clearer in this area. The political issue is potentially a firecracker, but I would just advise the applicant to steer clear of the use of administrative powers with respect to disputes in that area unless obvious vandalism or the like is involved. Other than that, I see no problems here. BD2412 T 03:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - Clear net positive planning on doing important work in an understaffed area. The discussion around the copyright specifics has been interesting, I think I'm in the camp of people who don't entirely agree with Vami IV's stance on quotes - but it's become clear that this is a fairly broad disagreement that probably does need some RfC work, so I'm happy that any disagreements seem to be solvable in the future. Any other direct behavioural issues seem to go back into the relatively distant past, and as long as Vami IV isn't planning on swinging into serious American politics admin work I do not see it as an issue today. ~ mazca talk 09:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I am not satisfied with the response to Cryptic's question, in which the candidate feels guilty about being conservative and/or right-wing. Wikipedia already has enough of the opposite bias. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 18:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The owner of all: He was fascist, not conservative. He never once implied that voting Trump was something to be ashamed of. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be true but I have experience in real life of conservatives being labeled fascist. That's about as much as I'm willing to discuss that on Wikipedia. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 18:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, but I'd like to let you know that I am conservative too. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anecdotes from offwiki life don't really matter in RfAs, you know. It was Vami himself who called himself fascist, and Vami himself who regrets it, as is his right. This is not a discussion of conservatism in particular or political beliefs in general. This is a request for adminship, where the Wikipedia editing community collectively decides whether (or not) a user has need for the tools, and is fit for the tools, per the established guidelines, traditions and precedent that govern the project. So please, oppose him all you want for valid reasons you might have to believe Vami will not be a good admin per our rules, but if the only reason you can think of is political, know that it is not relevant. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 19:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to what Scorpion has said, what the candidate wishes to feel about being right-wing/conservative is, to put it very bluntly, none of your business, nor is it relevant to this RfA. Outside of extremes such as racism/fascism/transphobia/homophobia, we do not police editors' opinions; even if, as you charge, Vami is "leftist", that is simply irrelevant. Your vote, being based on the private, non-harmful, personal identity of the editor not being the kind you like, is a bad-faith vote. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 18:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Wikipedia is extremely influential in real life and there is politically-motivated things that happen in real life that affect people. I believe it is not bad faith to use someone's stated political opinion as a factor in determining things. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 19:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also disagree with your assertion that my !vote is based on disliking his political views. There are other issues raised. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 19:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then mention those in the vote, rather than politics. I hope you understand this is not a political election. If you do not, it is very unfortunate. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 19:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea how a candidate's guilt towards a previous personal political opinion is enough to single handedly disavow every single other aspect in support of their nomination. Unless you can provide some actual evidence for why this has been a bad thing (e.g. difs) then there is quite literally no validity to the argument. Aza24 (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we move this to the talk page? This has to be one of the most ridiculous opposes I've seen. The nominator has changed how they describe their political views, so it's believed that they can't manage the admin toolset on Wikipedia? If there is additional reasonings, then this is the place to share them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I too oppose using long quotes, and in fact unnecessary quotes in general, as a matter of style. . But an attributed quote of 75 words is not in my opinion a copyright violation when discussing ordinary prose, and I specifically disagree with the example in Q6 above . I don't think we can draw an absolute line, and we've never defined "brief", but I think it depends on the nature of both the cited work and the article, with an upper limit of perhaps 300 words or so (which is about the normal academic limit) Complete quotes of a work however short are copyvio. 25 words from a 50 word newspaper notice are probably copyvio; 100 words from a printed nonfiction book probably are not. I'm much more worried about using snippets, which easily can be quoting out of context and distorting NPOV. There's enough disagreement here that we may need a more general discussion. But I think the views of the candidate are at one extreme end, and I therefore would not give admin powers to enforce them. (and though I may stand at the other end, I don't take admin actions to enforce my view) DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think it's sufficiently clear (based on answers to my question) that the Vami IV wouldn't let their political biases affect their editing and I appreciate how they've managed to distinguish between off and onwiki conduct. That being said, I had some concerns about the nominee's userpage (I elaborated below in the discussion section) and on further review I've come across something far more troubling.

    Apparently two weeks ago Moneytrees deleted the page with a G7 rationale and restored it 30 seconds later "per request" as seen at Special:Log/User:Vami IV. The page history from before that moment has disappeared into thin air. I don't like to cast aspersions on other editors but it looks like Moneytrees deleted and then partially undeleted the nominee's userpage. If this occurred, it is in my opinion WP:ADMINABUSE and a misuse of the WP:Selective deletion process which is not to be used for covering up bad stuff before an RfA; only complex history merges. Given that I am not an admin I cannot see exactly what happened here but judging by circumstantial evidence it looks like that is what happened, given that Joe Roe has informed us that deleted revisions on the nominee's user page exist and I cannot see them. While I can forgive someone being an open fascist in the past and the minor userpage issues I see right now the fact that there's some kind of cover-up going on here w/r/t the nominees userpage history makes it impossible for me to support them. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply)Template:Z181 06:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved to talk.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I can't feel comfortable with what I regard as the candidate's tendency to occupy fairly emphatic or extreme positions; in my view it is desirable for an administrator to be comfortable with the middle ground, where subtlety, nuance, moderation and compromise can be found, and I'm seeing too much of the opposite in the candidate. The fascism thing is one example, another - seemingly coming from the opposite political pole - is on (Redacted). I also don't like that the candidate requested that a question be removed from this RfA - it seemed a pretty inocuous question to me, and not exactly difficult to answer in a casual manner, even if the candidate found it objectionable. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I probably won't win any friends with this oppose, but I don't think this user is suitable for adminship. Looking into their contributions, I saw several incorrect uses of English. Those struck me as odd at first, but then I saw the statement "As this the first of the reviewee's articles that I have reviewed, they should note that I am a grammar pendant and will nitpick in the interest of prose quality" attached to around twenty GA reviews, over the course of a year and ending only recently. This might have been a simple typographic error (with a lot of irony), but it strikes me as too much. I don't think our admins have to have a perfect command of English, but I do think they should be alert to such glaring errors. Vami IV, sorry I can't support, but thank you for running. --- Possibly (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Amusing case of Muphry's law, but is this really an oppose matter? Vaticidalprophet 05:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you serious? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 05:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (small note: it seems that usage of “grammar pendant” started and ended in April 2020 but some of the talk pages have been edited by others since: see e.g. this GAR from that month with "grammar pedant" in its place) eviolite (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that a user who writes FA quality articles is somehow not suited to adminship because they do not have good enough grammar? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I came to this RFA expecting to support the candidate. I was aware of their excellent work in content creation, which I admire. I'd also like to say how much I value their contributions to the GA process and CCI. Having read this RFA and looked through the candidates userpage, I must echo PaleCloudedWhite's rationale for opposing. While choosing a userbox in support of a form of fascism shows an egregious lack of judgement, it's also been at least a few years in the past (I've seen 2017 suggested below). It seems the candidate has moved on and disavowed these beliefs but I'm not sure their judgement has improved much. The CCI Bingo on their userpage is an example of this. Why would one name "Indian subcontinent" in the same breath as "sockpuppet party in the edit history" and "awful attempt at paraphrasing to get around Earwig's"? Regardless of the statistics being discussed in the comments section, this box is plain bad taste and inconsiderate to a large share of our contributors. (It is also WP:BITEy.) I wonder why this box wasn't taken down before running to be an admin since it was bound to raise questions. It's this tendency towards the unnecessarily emphatic and the lack of judgement associated with it that make me uncomfortable. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Obviously the Seamus Heaney farce was quite unacceptable; I'm glad the candidate acknowledges this. Only eight days ago, too? I note that they also think a referenced block quote is a copyright violation; I'm yet to see them distance themselves from it. Bizarre. Having said that, anyone who can respond to the kind of foolishness we regularly see at AfD without bursting their spleen with laughter clearly has something praiseworthy in their temperament. Good luck.
    FWIW, I'm also interested to know the answer to Cryptic's question, for obvious reasons. ——Serial 16:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: Where is the "referenced block quote" link meant to point? I'm not seeing Vami at a glance? -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 17:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that ~80 word referenced-block quote is what they believe to constitute a copyvio; it would be useful to hear from them in this regard. ——Serial 18:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You won't hear anything unless you ask, so I've asked. (Though my own opinion is that this is reasonable to link in CCI when searching for a general context of copyvios by a user, that we should be stringent with long quotes and that there's certainly not sufficient reason for using such a long quote rather than picking snippets and/or paraphrasing.) — Bilorv (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: I'm actually pleased to see someone in copyvio work. The issues from [1] with VAGUEWAVE comment discussed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 May 27 would have been an oppose by me if the candidate had not brought it up themselves at Answer 3. In general I'd support removal of copyvio's first and ask questions about it later but was this over the top. The risk of Red mist, and a couple of other points which may be giving me very slight twinges combine to making me sit on the fence, certainly for the moment. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
👍 Like Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson: I know my question is bad. I am asking this question based on an experience I recently had with him. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpions13256, actual concerns are never bad questions. If you have an actual concern your question addresses, that is a good and relevant question. —valereee (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I will explain after he answers. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. —valereee (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson: @Valereee:, he answered satisfactorily, and I explained my reasoning for asking the question. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm disappointed that you chose to make this comment with an edit summary that accuses Vami of a crime. I invite you to self-revdel it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have to agree here. I’m also not entirely sure making a comment along the lines of “why isn’t this getting more attention” is particularly helpful. There is a whole question and response above about the userbox, so it’s hardly flying under the radar. firefly ( t · c ) 21:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gave serious consideration as to whether this was eligible for R2 revdel and decided it isn't but agree that the edit summary came out in a way I am guessing Joe did not intend based on the contents of the edit itself. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: I left a message on Joe's talk (but not here) explaining why I made an R2 redaction of the edit summary. I agree that the content itself isn't at the same level, so I left it alone. To avoid further digression, anyone is free to raise concerns on my talk page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as disappointed as I am that the majority of the great and good of this community are apparently more concerned with the minatuae of copyright law than having an administrator that a few years ago openly espoused fascism. The use of fascist symbols outside of education etc. is a crime in Germany. That is a fact, not an accusation. And presumably the Coordinator already knows that. But again our priorities have become distorted to the point that it's apparently more important to quickly expunge uncomfortable truths rather than discuss, say, what might happen if a journalist finds out about them. – Joe (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key point here is that Vami has quite obviously done some deep soul-searching introspection and realised that their prior views were wrong. They are now no more a fascist than any of us - their content work alone is proof of their changed perspective, to say nothing of their answer to Cryptic's question. With regard to quickly expunge uncomfortable truths, I presume you are referring to the revision deletion - revdel was applied because Wugapodes felt it was a BLP violation eligible for revdel under RD2. That is not expunging uncomfortable truths, that is simply Wug following policy. Regarding "journalists finding out", not only is that an extreme hypothetical, I would argue that someone genuinely changing their problematic views, expressing profound regret for them, and being respected and lauded by the community for doing so is precisely the sort of thing Wikipedia should be known for. We must allow for, and indeed even celebrate, people changing their minds. firefly ( t · c ) 12:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did not simply say X is a crime in jurisdiction Y. You said, unequivocally, that non-public figure A is guilty of a specific crime despite that person having never been convicted (let alone charged) of that crime. As I said on your talk page, that is a bright line violation of WP:BLPCRIME. While we are on the subject of crimes, homosexual activity is illegal in many countries and in some cases punishable by death. At my RfA, no one thought I should be held to the legal standards of countries I do not live in despite me, a homosexual, being in violation of the laws of multiple countries. Why? Because whether I might have violated the laws of other countries is at best irrelevant and at worst grasping at straws. If we want to talk about things that are crimes, remember that defamation is also a crime, and unlike the laws of Germany or Saudi Arabia, it is a crime in your jurisdiction, Joe. Privacy and the avoidance of defamation is what motivates our BLP policy, and RfA is not a free pass to charge people with crimes for rhetorical points. No one has removed your comments raising concern about the candidate's past beliefs, and editors have asked about and discussed the particulars of fascism on this very page without violating BLP. Despite your hyperbole, you are free to do so as well. But do not confuse the point: you are not being criticized for "uncomfortable truths", you are being criticized for a bright line violation of our BLP policy. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: Your analogy with homosexuality only works if I picked a jurisdiction at random. Obviously I didn't. I mentioned Germany because Vami has repeatedly referenced his leadership of WikiProject Germany in this RfA and, as I said, he became the coordinator of that project just months after he apparently stopped calling himself a fascist. For historical reasons, Germany—and words cannot express how astonished I am that I have to spell this out—is especially intolerant of fascists.
And what part of that factual statement is defamation, exactly? Any admin can see that Vami's user page once contained a fascist eagle, accompanied by the words This User Identifies as a Fascist. Plz no discriminate. He doesn't deny it. A statement has to be false to be libel. But good job tackling the real problem here: not talking about whether we're happy with our community's abject failure to confront an open fascist, but making sure that edit summaries referencing pseudonymous editors on project pages conform precisely to our biography of living persons policy. Real defender of the wiki stuff. – Joe (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, it is defamatory to state, as you did in your now-removed edit summary, that someone has committed a crime. Full stop. I find it hard to believe you can't see that, and harder to believe that you are actually choosing to double down on it. What do you mean that Vami has "apparently" stopped having fascist beliefs? Are you suggesting that it's impossible that a teenager on the internet could fall into reactionary beliefs and then reconsider them with age and maturity? Do you think Vami's answer to Q4 is a lie? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Apparently" as in Vami might well have abandoned his beliefs before he removed the infobox from his userpage, but that's the only data point we have. Apologies for the ambiguity there. As for the rest, I'll just reiterate that something has to be false to be defamatory. I don't doubt that Vami has matured and changed his mind. I haven't even formally opposed this RfA yet. The question I was raising was whether, given the chain of events and his continuing involvement with WP Germany, he has matured enough, plus whether we as a community are happy with our failure to deal with an open fascist four years ago. It is very, very disheartening to see that editors respect instead would prefer to talk about petty CCI disputes or wikilawyer BLP to take the sharp edges off the real-life implications of espousing fascism. – Joe (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of Wugapodes talking about how bad it is for an editor to accuse another of a crime onwiki then in the same comment accusing an editor of criminal defamation is not lost on me. Hypocrisy at it's finest. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply)Template:Z181 21:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say Joe committed defamation and I challenge you to quote where I did. I said, as a fact, that defamation is a crime. I never said anyone defamed anyone else (unlike what Joe said about Vami) — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh, saying "defamation is also a crime, and unlike the laws of Germany or Saudi Arabia, it is a crime in your jurisdiction" is 100% not an accusation because you didn't say the magic words. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply)Template:Z181 23:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Joe That is a fact, not an accusation. But nice try! It's funny that when asked to say specifically where I made an accusation, you try to hide your failure by sarcastically pointing out that you couldn't. I know you say it with sarcasm to try and make it seem like you're clever and "won", but is 100% not an accusation because you didn't say the magic words is actually a very important aspect of what distinguishes an accusation from other kinds of statements and even Joe acknowledged that when he distinguished stating facts about laws from making accusations about breaking them. Now of course I'm just a lowly linguist who teaches how language works to university students, so I'm sorry if my understanding of speech acts is not up to your level, but merely reminding someone of what is and is not a crime is not an accusation that they are criminally liable, particularly in the context I used it: the very next sentence is about how defamation as an abstract concept informs our local policies and why we should therefore take that policy seriously. Defamation is a crime in pretty much every jurisdiction, so unless you think "Robbery is a crime in your jurisdiction, Chess" is also an accusation, you'll need to work a little harder than a proof by sarcasm. That will be hard, of course, as we both know you're blowing smoke and scrambling to save face now that you've been called out in public for baselessly accusing me of hypocrisy. Unlike Joe, I didn't point out a particular law that was broken. I didn't even say Joe broke a law. Unlike Joe at no point did I say that anyone committed any crime, and your sarcastic admission of your failure to quote an actual accusation when I asked shows that. But sure, keep trying to both-sides this by willfully misreading what I said so that you can win an argument on the internet. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has Chess now committed the crime of defamation by falsely accusing you of falsely accusing me of defamation? Have I by asking this question? Will we be able to stop this spiral of libel-inception before the whole wiki is revdel'd? Help us, oh mighty linguist who teaches how language works to university students. – Joe (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, neither the Italian or Spanish fascist symbols fall under Strafgesetzbuch section 86a. —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Nazis also used the eagle symbol. In any case, as should be obvious to anyone reading my comment with an ounce of good faith, the point was not to play lawyer, but to point out the embarrassing fact that at one point we had an American teenager who recently called himself a fascist "coordinating" our coverage of Germany. And raise the question of whether we are happy to give that same person the bit just a few years later. – Joe (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are rising to the level of sealioning - "just asking", oops, nothing bad meant, just raising a little eensy question - never mind that the question of Vami's discarded beliefs has been asked and answered at Q4 right from the start. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly didn't mean to do that. As you can see from the flak I've already gotten, it's hard to be direct on this issue. But to clarify, I am indeed saying that it is very bad that Vami had a fascist userbox on his page four years ago, very bad that he shortly thereafter became the coordinator of WikiProject Germany, where hypothetically to the best of my knowledge etc. etc. displaying that userbox would be a crime, very bad that this is trivialised in Q4 as a "cringe belief", very bad that you or the other nominator didn't even mention it, and very bad that few people here seem to care much about any of this. It was a question in the sense that I assumed my comment would provoke some good faith discussion of this – apparently wrongly. – Joe (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe, If you had stuck to the language you used in any of the actual edits you've made we would be discussing Vamis userbox to the extent we were discussing anything at all. But you went a good deal further in the edit summary and accused a teen, who was perhaps a minor at the time, of a crime. Like an actual specific statutory crime. That's why you are getting pushback and Cryptic who asked the actual question is not. I think I did extend good faith in my response above and would ask you to consider in good faith the concerns others have and consider in good faith that others are considering whether they trust Vami given the totality of their record. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: What interests me is whether you, or anyone else "pushing back" at me on this, actually thinks what I said was incorrect. – Joe (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At WikiProject Germany, Vami hasn't displayed any fascist tendencies or sympathies. When he wanted to be coordinator, we all said "meh, sure, whatever, go for it" so he was kind of elected unopposed (see here if you really care). —Kusma (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to get a sense of what they consider to be unfair or excessively harsh. I think this is very relevant to an editor's ability to be an admin. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are trying to make a point, I think is what you mean. —valereee (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith. What I said is what I mean. You and I may disagree about if considering what you consider unfair or harsh has an effect on being an admin, but that does not mean I am not being honest. Please argue the points I make and not make comments about what you think my motives are. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That question is coercive and pointy re: your bludgeoning at WT:RFA. I'm going to remove it. Please let's discuss at talk. —valereee (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The question has been removed at the request of the candidate, and the talk page discussion closed. Primefac (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving aside the rest of your commentary, I find it hard to take the phrase "kill-on-sight" as "violent rhetoric" when used in reference to written sources. If you do an onwiki search excluding mainspace there are plenty of examples of well-respected users using it in discussions to refer to similar things that they don't like and wish would be removed. It's certainly a bit expressive, but violent? No. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To recognise that the Indian subcontinent generates proportionately a more serious amount of copyright/COI/spam problems than other places isn't stereotyping... it's true. 27 cases out of 200 at CCI are explicitly subcontinent-related, possibly higher than any other single geographical entity. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 15:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI, If you consider that India a population that is +/- 250 times that of Norway, you'd have to conclude that CCI cases of Norway related subjects (1) are at least ten times worse than India's (21). Vexations (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) How at all is 27 out of 200 cases (13.5%) disproportionate when the Indian subcontinent has a population that's 22% of that of the world? – SD0001 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, SD0001, the WMF in 2011 measured Indian contributors to be only 3% of all Wikipedia editors across all languages. The metric is indeed old, but I have no reason to believe we are 22% of the English Wikipedia editing population, the same as the general population. Comparing the English Wikipedia population to the world population is fairly useless - even the Brits outnumber the subcontinent's editors despite having only a twenty-fifth of the population. Remember also that we're talking only about CCI here, where cases are only opened for long-term copyright issues. As someone who roams a lot in India-related topics, I assure you that plenty of small-time editors add a ton of copyvio to a depressingly large number of articles. Copyvios are a chronic, festering disease in subcontinent-related articles. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite composing 3% of the editing population, the Indian subcontinent commits 13.5% of the copyright violations". While the stat may be true, it ignores the actual root causes. Specifically that we haven't done a good job at turning Indian editors into productive editors or accepting them and our general lack of "good" coverage on India related topics. Throwing in a cavalier reference to Indian subcontinent = CCI ignores the root causes and feels like stereotyping without any context. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply)Template:Z181 21:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ifnord Is this meant to include any time the candidate has done something rude in the history of their life, or just in the context of Wikipedia? If the latter, it might be useful to clarify. jp×g 19:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hear Vami doesn't inline cite everything he says offwiki. Vaticidalprophet 19:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait wait wait... Ifnord is at worst asking if Vami has ever done anything uncivil in their entire life and at best in the last 6 years?? What is going on people??????? Aza24 (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Charitably, I would assume that Ifnord is asking about off-wiki but Wikipedia-related forums, like WP:IRC, WP:DISCORD, and the like. Presumably we aren't requiring everyone wanting +sysop to be the Uncondemning Monk. Vahurzpu (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More