Synotia's oppose[edit]

Like the corresponding thread at ANI, this has run its course. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  1. Oppose Nothing personal but I will systematically vote against any admin election as long as the system is not reformed with a direct procedure for desysopping like is the case for example on the French, Portuguese or Chinese Wikipedia, and some sort of term limit/revoting. --Synotia (moan) 17:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't a better idea be to propose your changes on Wikipedia talk:Administrators or a Wikipedia:Village pump? Systematically voting oppose for unrelated reasons seems unfair on the candidate. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Synotia (moan) 18:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the most counter productive oppose have seen. Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can think of quite a few worse. There used to be a guy that opposed every single RFA for months with the reason "Too many administrators currently". Another one opposed constantly as "Self nominations are prima facie evidence of power hunger" (I'll bet seeing that just made some oldtimers shiver). That user eventually ran for Arbcom on a pledge to decline every case, a sort of proto-Hasten the Day candidate. Users like that do crop up but they've mostly been allowed to continue on the basis of us giving a very wide latitude to RFA votes, and one oppose being incredibly unlikely to impact the result. If it was right on the cusp, Crats typically ignore votes that are unrelated to the candidate. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that people still remember the "self noms" opposer as this master disruptor - by all accounts, his view on self-nominations is now mainstream. I can't be bothered to look up the last time a self-nom managed to get through RFA (aside from reconfirmations) but I'm sure it was donkeys years ago, and I'm sure our myriad essays on running for admin now all advise against self-nominating. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Filelakeshoe The most recent successful self-nom was 6 months ago, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DatGuy, on the other hand if you want to see an ill-fated nom from an editor with chutzpah see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shushugah ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shushugah: For what it's worth, I regret not supporting you back then. I placed way too much emphasis on one mistake. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I stand corrected, those both slipped under my radar actually. Still it remains the case that self-noms are now viewed with a lot more suspicion, which is a shame really. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this oppose will definitely affect the outcome of the RfA, I think it's very important that we get into a long argument about it. Spicy (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. There is not enough time-sink argument on wiki, and too often people are overly focued on content and getting things done rather than fighting and blocking each other. Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Has zh.wiki gotten over their political meltdown yet? I wouldn't be rushing to emulate their governance policies. signed, Rosguill talk 19:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Synotia is a disruptive only account. Follow the links: blocked for a week at Wikitionary for disruptive editing, Commons comment Definitely not here to build an encyclopedia. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indef blocked this editor. Not his first block, in January "(Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy)". As far as I can see, no other purpose across the wikis but disruption. Admins are free to revert me if they see otherwise. — Maile (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Synotia I can get behind an effort to change from this US supreme court-like lifetime appointment. However I do not think it is fair to the candidate since they have no power to change this system. I see that the candidate is open to recall under a specific process. I would amend that process to say that administrators should not be allowed to ivote for any recall - since they are likely not likely to be critical of a system which gives them a lifetime appointment. Anyway, you can oppose, but the candidate is only playing by the rules in this RFA. Lightburst (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maile66 I just looked at their contributions and I think your block was over the top. JMHO. Lightburst (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They have the right to appeal it. And you have a right to see it differently. But what I saw across multiple wikis was in effect "not here to build an encyclopedia". — Maile (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maile66 his contributions show non-vandalistic edits to articles, which calls into question your whole premise of "disruption-only." Ribbet32 (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. Unblocked. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thank you for backing my argument. Synotia (moan) 20:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't back you. — Maile (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit conflict with move to talk page] There may be a language barrier, but I'd interpret it as you made their point for them by blocking them as you did. The fact that so many people just couldn't leave this oppose alone speaks volumes though... —Locke Cole • t • c 23:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My treatment of Aoidh (posting a single oppose vote preventing a Saddam-like 100% result) would by your own criteria probably be more fair than Maile's treatment of me (block for eternity for this very oppose post)
    [censored joke] Synotia (moan) 21:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with adopting a more formal recall process for admins, but I would also strongly be in favor of replacing the Supreme Court appointment system with our RfA and desysop process and think the comparison is misplaced. signed, Rosguill talk 22:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but what about the French or Portuguese Wikipedia? Have they got political issues? Synotia (moan) 20:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm less familiar with their drama and don't have a handy Signpost special to point you to, but I've mostly heard bad things about pt.wiki from editors here who used to contribute there. I'm not aware of any issues with the French project. signed, Rosguill talk 22:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankfully, WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, and RfA votes are considered on merit of argument. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 00:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(moved by Beccaynr (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

(edit conflict) Please don't press the issue @Ad Orientem:. We can all see that it is a procedural oppose and not targeted at the candidate. We need to allow all editors to participate and ivote in any way they want. The editor already caught a block just for opposing. And @Rosguill:, agreed, nobody should have a lifetime appointment for anything. Lightburst (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the block was a bit precipitous, but RfA is not an open forum for disruptive editing. And until/unless POINT is repealed by the community, this sort of thing is a no no. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, that makes two admins who apparently should never have been handed a mop. First a baseless block and now "strike the vote and threaten the editor". No candidate is entitled to unanimous approval and voting "no" is not disruptive. Get a grip. Banks Irk (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banks Irk, Synotia's "vote" was nothing more than an attempt to bring attention to their proposal. I'm not saying it's a bad proposal, but RfA isn't a place for proposals. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I take a pretty tolerant approach when it comes to opposes, and have expressed disapproval on multiple occasions of badgering opposers, even when I think their reasoning is lame. But this is different. The oppose has absolutely nothing to do with the candidate or their qualifications. It is a crystal-clear breach of POINT, and it is disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you stop harassing and bullying oppose votes. It will discourage people from voting at all. Editors are quite capable of assessing that vote for what it is worth. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that we need to tolerate blatantly disruptive behavior for fear of discouraging legitimate participation? Really? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restrain your zeal. You always have the option of keeping your mouth shut or your fingers still. There would be little change except for less drama. Water passes under the bridge. This RfA has been harmed enough already by Maile66 who could do with the same advice. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I will take that as a "yes." -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The French statesmanTalleyrand (1754-1838) who survived at the top of the violent and dangerous regimes of Louis XVI, the French Revolution, Napoleon, Louis XVIII, and Louis-Philippe attributed the success of his career to adoption of his motto “Above all, not too much Zeal”. A sentiment that could be usefully adopted by Wikipedia administrators and might save unneeded drama. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Xxanthippe, while I agree that it's a waste of time to think about that !vote at the moment, it's also pretty obvious that in the long run, this will encourage others to do the same: vote against an RfA candidate because they dislike RfA (and administrators, from what can be interpreted on their talk page: "it is truly a projection of just how important this status is to these people's egos."). — Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If people give silly reasons for their votes than the community will just ignore those votes. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Normally I would come down on the side of "It's only one oppose, it's not going to have any effect, why draw all this attention to it".... but come on, this is a purely disruptive POINT violation as it has literally nothing to do with the candidate themselves. They even said at the ANI thread I only wanted to use the RfA (Requests for Adminship, right? Not for Admins?) as a platform for my own opinion. This type of behavior is unfair to Aoidh. Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because a single protest vote is going to prevent their election! Give me a break. Synotia (moan) 09:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chess' oppose[edit]

Oppose based on A3 (per User:Tamzin). The ANI thread against User:Tarc the candidate started in 2012 was justified imho. I would say calling someone a "Grammar Nazi" is a personal attack. "Wiki-Retardation" was certainly a questionable term he also used, and the same for referring to others as "yahoos". Sure, you (the candidate) were wrong in the dispute over the category, but you took away the wrong lesson here about behaviour. Your belief appears to be that you should've just grown a thicker skin and just ignore these mild conduct issues (not even a warning or trout for Tarc?)

But if you look at Tarc's history on wiki, they're the perfect example of why you can't just ignore these mild civility issues hoping they won't spiral. Tarc only got worse over time, being mentioned by name by ArbCom in 2013 as engaging in "inflammatory and disruptive speech" over the Manning name dispute, being banned from transgender subjects. [1] Tarc continued being toxic on wiki (see their user talk page archive) until 2015 when they were indeffed by ArbCom for off wiki harassment. [2]

As an administrator, you can judge conduct issues. You will be in a position where your words are very influential. If your advice to a new editor who is upset they were called a "grammar Nazi"/yahoo/other mild insults is to just grow thicker skin, you shouldn't be an admin. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 06:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I think we've scraped the bottom of the barrel on reasons to oppose... -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Do you have any specific points on why my reasons to oppose are "bottom of the barrel"? Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 17:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chess, to refute any part of your vote would require it to contain a single coherent point capable of refutation. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: this seems to be on the edge of breaking the 4th pillar. While staying neutral on whether they are right, Chess makes a coherent argument about how they believe an administrator should respond to personal attacks. For example, you could say: I disagree that administrators should show a greater willingness to act on and enforce civility, rather than just choosing to "grow a thicker skin" Crazynas t 19:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel I have violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines you are welcome to raise the matter at an appropriate venue. I will not be forced to treat Chess' trolling as legitimate discourse. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: can you substantiate how you think this oppose is a deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the reliability of Wikipedia? I'm certinaly not going to take you to the drama boards but if @Chess: wants to I wouldn't blame them. Crazynas t 20:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would start with the part where he opposes per my support (joke-oppose). And continue to... every other word in the comment. To believe that any of that was meant sincerely would be an insult to Chess' intelligence. If people disagree with my assessment, that's alright. I'm not here to badger the opposes; I'm just replying to pings. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I'm bitingly sarcastic in general and love to communicate through the medium of trolling, but I do sincerely believe that an admin should recognize incivility when it occurs. If you want me to remove your username, I can go ahead and do so.
But your response to me is essentially "your vote is bad". It added nothing but your signature beneath my words saying that you disagree. While I am unfamiliar with what exactly constitutes disruptive badgering, a reply in a discussion consisting of nothing more than "you're wrong" isn't constructive arguing. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 22:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how when you ping someone they tend to respond. On that note, please stop pinging me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing on the basis of a discussion from over 10 years ago, where the candidate fundamentally did nothing wrong, and construing a fault because they disengaged and did not identify what would only later become a pattern of behavior worthy of a block on the part of the editor they were disputing with, is pretty self-evidently a weak oppose. It's further ironic that this is on the same side of the fence as the outrage related to Maile66's block of Synotia, as Chess's line of reasoning if anything encourages admins to be more aggressive in sanctioning editors engaged in borderline incivility. signed, Rosguill talk 20:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I actually agree it's a pretty weak argument, but I think that calling it incoherent or trolling is a stretch and unnecessarily uncollegial. As to your last point, I thought that the entire basis of the oppose was that incivility should be addressed more strongly. So I guess I'm missing the irony. (Although the replies from an Tamzin, as an administrator, are pretty ironic) Crazynas t 22:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More sanctioning for borderline incivility is good, but there's a difference between disengaging and saying that one should disengage when confronted with incivility. Because the second is tolerating an environment in which toxic editors can drive people out of areas they don't like. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 23:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chess, I thought I we were beginning to come to an understanding at ANI for a moment there. Again, editors don't care about maintaining 100% support. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that "Saddam-like" goes too far but "grammar Nazi" did not. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 16:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For better or for worse, wikt:grammar Nazi is part of the English lexicon. wikt:grammar Ba'athist on the other hand... signed, Rosguill talk 16:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using your oppose vote to go on a bizarre rant about a completely different editor is definitely novel Parabolist (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chess, I think you've confused I don't entirely agree with you on the interpretation of this policy with I think you shouldn't be an admin. I happen to agree with you on the particular stance you're taking here towards wp:civil, but to oppose someone's RfA because they take –or perhaps even just appear to take– a different stance, is ... peculiar. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The candidate wants to work at the drama boards and someone unwilling to enforce civility should not be in that position. One of the problems on this encyclopedia is admins ignoring/unblocking for seemingly minor violations of WP:NPA as a one off event. That's the reason why the WP:UNBLOCKABLE problem exists in its current form, and the user that the candidate interacted with in 2012 is a good example of that. If the candidate thought their issue with that user was "thin skin", I don't think they can take the necessary actions w.r.t. civility. WP:CIVILITY isn't some minor policy, it's the fourth pillar. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 16:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Aoidh's stance to new editors is to just "grow thicker skin" necessarily; in fact, our very own Keilana used online harassment as a motivator to focus on content (see Signpost article). I'm inclined to believe that Aoidh's stance is similar: not about dismissing harassment, but about staying true to Wikipedia's original mission—which is building an encyclopedia. That's commendable. Of course we need to deal with harassment, but let's not lose sight of our original purpose when doing so. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring conduct problems to focus on content is fine if you're a regular editor. It's not fine if you're an admin who is going to volunteer at user conduct boards. To paraphrase one of the comments at that WP:SIGNPOST article, while I admire Keilana's work and respect her motivations, I can't stand by the normalization of harassment on Wikipedia. An editor dealing with harassment by working harder demonstrates that our existing processes can't handle harassment. And re: Of course we need to deal with harassment, but let's not lose sight of our original purpose when doing so; our original mission includes civility per WP:5P4. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 17:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: There's no disagreement between us on the issue of harassment and civility, speaking as someone who's been very badly harassed on-wiki (to the point that it required a T&S email—they're very good folk, by the way, the community should show them more respect!). But also to your point: Aoidh was very much a regular editor when they made that ANI thread 11 years ago, and I don't think they thought about becoming an admin then. So, I don't think something made 11 years ago during one's time as a regular editor should affect their current attempt at becoming an admin if they've since acquired more experience. And as Aoidh is for sure reading this section, I would like to acknowledge that he's clarified his stance with his response to Q13. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
10-9 years ago is a long time, people can change. I would note that it is not offensive to people, and is only use to signify that the person that takes spelling and grammar too seriously. I struggle with basic grammar sometimes, and that can lead to problems that I have to find a way to resolve. I'm going to support Aoidh here just for the fact that it was so long ago that it doesn't actually signify anything about his current personality. ElusiveTaker (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was really hoping that someone would bring up that that ANI thread is ten years in the rear view mirror. Even if saying, "maybe I shouldn't get so mad about something someone said on the internet" was a mountain of an offense, then surely the decade since that happened should have reduced it to a molehill at most. If anything, this should speak to one's ability to keep a cool head. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: I know why you're doing this. You are convinced that the editors replying to the oppose votes want 100% of the !vote to be "support", so you're "fighting" this by opposing this candidacy. "Any warm fuzzy feeling potential admins get from their 100% approval score is outweighed by the need to prevent a chilling effect on possible oppose voters." However, I don't want to get into an argument with you since you're generally a fine editor, so I won't push this :-) Nythar (💬-❄️) 20:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nythar: If you don't want to get into an argument with me you wouldn't have left two replies to my oppose vote pointing out the ANI thread (now with linked diffs) and proclaiming that you don't care about a 100% support vote. That being said, I would like to thank you for proving my point. After the administrator Tamzin said something described as being on the edge of breaking the 4th pillar, and I decided to show "thick skin" by ignoring your implications that I'm trolling/voted against the candidate solely to wreck the 100% support rating, you've come right back out and bludgeoned me even further on the same point.
We don't need any more administrators who are OK with "minor" civility violations. Tamzin bludgeoned me, and now you are emboldened to be more aggressive. That is why I oppose administrators who implicitly encourage this behaviour by not taking it seriously. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 23:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Two replies to you here isn't bludgeoning. I'll give you a moment to cool down so that you can start normally communicating again. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also wasn't referring to myself when I said "editors don't care about maintaining 100% support", although I personally don't care about it either. I was referring to the other editors who replied to Synotia. And I haven't even voted in this RfA. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aoidh. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More bludgeoning at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aoidh Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 03:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chess says above that they love to communicate through the medium of trolling and at ANI, they say I love trolling discussions on places where it doesn't matter (internet forums, reddit, my userbox User:Chess/based claiming I don't understand what being "based" is, or putting trouts under "awards" on my userpage). Trolling always matters and it is uncivil, cruel, disruptive, deceptive and unethical, so I do not know why I should be expected to believe the denials of a self-admitted troll that they are not actually trolling right now. People who consciously and openly obliterate their own credibility by engaging in deceptive, unethical behavior should not be surprised when people do not trust them. Particularly striking is that the editor professes to be concerned about enforcement of civility, when trolling is one of the most uncivil behaviors imaginable in a collaborative online community, and Chess revels in trolling. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of empty hyperbole that invites the reply: ok, boomer. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that an ad hominem attack refutes my point? Cullen328 (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't refuting the invective-laden comment; it was a rebuke. Dissimilar actions stemming from dissimilar intents. It was a dismissal of the substantial inflation of the severity of the crime through the injection of flippantly selected adjectives. Hence: empty hyperbole. That's not a serious assessment of the mundane behaviour raised to be worth refuting. That said, this is off-topic to the RfA and a distraction from the candidacy. I hope that answers your question. I shall return to productive areas of the encyclopedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe User:Chess/based is actually cringe you can MfD it. I consider it somewhat humorous even if slightly misleading. Maybe you consider "trolling" to mean something something different than I do, I wouldn't know. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 15:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the meaning explained at Troll (slang). Cullen328 (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting[edit]

Trolling has already been accomplished. No need for new trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How an oppose vote generates so much tension. Why are you guys like this? Synotia (moan) 11:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synotia, try reading the conversation. It's not that simple. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have. Synotia (moan) 12:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to RfA. If you oppose a popular candidate, but don't have diffs evidencing wiki-atrocity levels of misconduct, prepare for a dog-pile of escalating personal attacks from the very editors that complain about the 'toxic atmosphere' of RfA that they actively nurture and uphold. Though neither of the two standing opposes are merited, they should not engender the levels of vitriol displayed regularly here and at previous (and future) RfAs. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder women are driven away. Synotia (moan) 12:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see a different side, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read Wikipedia:Advice_for_RfA_voters#Voting_'Oppose', specifically If you don't like the Wikipedia system of adminship, RfA is not the place to get the system changed, so don't use RfA as a political platform; your vote will not be counted and you'll only make yourself look silly. Propose changes by all means but please do it somewhere else, such as WP:RfC or by testing the waters first at WT:RfA. Your vote was not actually anything to do with Aoidh's suitability to be an admin, so you should not be surprised that there was pushback.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some say piling on opposes is unfair to people opposing and contributes to the toxic reputation of RfA; others say opposing for a lousy reason (or using what is already a highly stressful time for someone to make a point at their expense) contributes to the toxic reputation of RfA. IMO when there are only a couple opposes total, and they've already been responded to a couple times, it's a good idea to just leave them alone. Especially a protest-vote, which the candidate couldn't take personally and isn't going to influence further opposes. Perhaps the worry is we'll start getting a lot of those, making this process even more broken than it already is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More