|
→Support: Yep
|
||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
#'''Support''': The noms make a remarkably strong case in favor. I particularly like an editor with such a strong understanding of what is high-quality content, what is notable, and what is vandalism. The opposes come from some wise editors, so I encourage TNW to consider their critiques. Best of luck and thank you for standing! ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 13:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC) |
#'''Support''': The noms make a remarkably strong case in favor. I particularly like an editor with such a strong understanding of what is high-quality content, what is notable, and what is vandalism. The opposes come from some wise editors, so I encourage TNW to consider their critiques. Best of luck and thank you for standing! ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 13:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' Good users but you should see Tamzin's oppose as a reminder for which should you resolve after adminship. <span style="background-color:#50D246;font-family:cambria">[[User:JrandWP|''Just a random Wikipedian'']]</span><sup>([[User talk:JrandWP|talk]])</sup> 15:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' Good users but you should see Tamzin's oppose as a reminder for which should you resolve after adminship. <span style="background-color:#50D246;font-family:cambria">[[User:JrandWP|''Just a random Wikipedian'']]</span><sup>([[User talk:JrandWP|talk]])</sup> 15:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''': The candiate looks good to me, and if they believe that admins should be more polite, then that's just another positive.<span style="color:red">→</span>''[[User:Stanistani|<b style="color:green">Stani</b>]][[User talk:Stanistani|<b style="color:blue">Stani</b>]]'' 15:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=====Oppose===== |
=====Oppose===== |
||
#I don't like the idea of opposing over a past negative interaction. People have bad moments. But I had an interaction with TNW that frankly concerned me a lot more than if they had, say, edit-warred with me or told me to fuck off in the heat of the moment. After a user personally attacked me, and I [[Special:Diff/1170700456|replied]] with links to similar personal attacks by the same user, TNW saw fit [[Special:Diff/1170702685|to interject]] to tone-police me for the wry wording with which I'd presented that evidence, while not acknowledging the unprovoked PA I was responding to—a PA that the user was in fact blocked for subsequently. I was genuinely upset by the initial PA, and to have someone butt in to take me to task like a disapproving parent was considerably more upsetting. Is that how the candidate intends to handle disputes as an administrator? One of the most common scenarios admins deal with in dispute resolutions is where one editor has egged another on, and the latter has snapped—often snapping in much harsher terms than my "Surely". Admins need to be empathetic to the people they exercise administrative power on. I came of age on-wiki in an era where tone-policing was often used as an excuse to go after victims of personal attacks rather than take their concerns seriously. I would just as soon not return to that era. I '''oppose'''. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe]])</small> 03:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC) |
#I don't like the idea of opposing over a past negative interaction. People have bad moments. But I had an interaction with TNW that frankly concerned me a lot more than if they had, say, edit-warred with me or told me to fuck off in the heat of the moment. After a user personally attacked me, and I [[Special:Diff/1170700456|replied]] with links to similar personal attacks by the same user, TNW saw fit [[Special:Diff/1170702685|to interject]] to tone-police me for the wry wording with which I'd presented that evidence, while not acknowledging the unprovoked PA I was responding to—a PA that the user was in fact blocked for subsequently. I was genuinely upset by the initial PA, and to have someone butt in to take me to task like a disapproving parent was considerably more upsetting. Is that how the candidate intends to handle disputes as an administrator? One of the most common scenarios admins deal with in dispute resolutions is where one editor has egged another on, and the latter has snapped—often snapping in much harsher terms than my "Surely". Admins need to be empathetic to the people they exercise administrative power on. I came of age on-wiki in an era where tone-policing was often used as an excuse to go after victims of personal attacks rather than take their concerns seriously. I would just as soon not return to that era. I '''oppose'''. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe]])</small> 03:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC) |
Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (38/9/2); Scheduled to end 23:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The Night Watch (talk · contribs) – Having had my eye on The Night Watch for a while, I am confident they will make a great admin and am excited to nominate them for adminship. Night Watch is a well-rounded editor with experience in anti-vandalism, page moves, and patrolling new pages. They have a history of accurate AIV reports, a cool head in discussion and at noticeboards, and friendly interactions with new editors. Night Watch's CSD log is a bunch of red, but their userpage is gold and green: they have considerable content chops, with three featured articles, a featured list, and 12 good articles. Their articles range from Kingdom Two CrownstoFive Nights at Freddy's (video game) and Elden Ring (!), and I think my favorite is The Longing. Night Watch rounds this out with their contributions to featured article candidacies and various discussions, where they exhibit a calm and focused demeanor. I believe The Night Watch has the qualities the community wants and will be an excellent admin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am honoured to be nominating The Night Watch for adminship. Their content creation is amazing: a dozen good articles and three featured articles, including a Four Award for Kingdom Two Crowns. The Night Watch is active in a number of other areas as well, including new page patrol and counter-vandalism. Their accuracy in admin areas is incredible: more than 99% accuracy with their speedy deletion nominations, and out of their 130+ reports to AIV and UAA every single one has been actioned. They've also contributed to articles for deletion, where they have an accuracy rate of 90% and their !votes demonstrate an excellent understanding of notability. I hope that you will join Moneytrees and me in supporting The Night Watch's candidacy. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limitoftwo 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 Tooncool64
Optional questions from Dreamy Jazz
technical areasas something you probably won't get involved in. With this in mind, how would you handle a new user asking you for help solving an issue with a gadget on your user talk page?
Optional question from Red-tailed hawk
hindering, impeding or otherwise hampering the creation (and/or maintenance) of contentand
Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of viewas forms of unacceptable behavior. Given that, how would you respond to a report to WP:AIV where, upon examination of the report, you can confirm that the reported user has created a number of non-neutral, but decently referenced articles?
Optional question from Theleekycauldron
Optional question from Conyo14
Optional question from NYC Guru
Optional question from Spicy
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
disappointed and betrayedby a comment any editor would make and we probably see daily is not conducive to the mop or a good indicator that they'll handle things well despite them saying they wouldn't say it again. Star Mississippi 13:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]