Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Night Watch

The Night Watch

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (129/36/6); Scheduled to end 23:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

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 Crowns to Five 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)

Co-nomination statement

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)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept the nominations with thanks! I have one alternative account, The Knight Watch, which I use on public Wi-Fi networks or when vacationing overseas. I have never edited for pay. The Night Watch (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: I plan to use these tools to help action AIV and UAA requests, and also answer WP:PERM requests, particularly those for autopatrolled or rollback. I will likely not get involved in technical areas as that is outside my domain of experience. I'm a content creator at heart, and I derive much of my enjoyment on Wikipedia by bringing articles up to a good standard. Most of my maintenance work is done as a way to give back and help the current body of sysops keep our project running smoothly, and these recent backlogs indicate that we need all the help we can get.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contributions are my content work, especially the featured and good articles that I helped make. Some efforts that I am particularly proud of are Five Nights at Freddy's, a horror video game with a notorious fanbase, and Kingdom Two Crowns, a simple article that I helped develop from beginning to end. The project one I loved working on the most is The Longing, where I later learned via social media that the video game's creator had seen it on the main page when it was a TFA. My involvement in content areas has helped me learn how to work alongside scores of fantastic users in our community, from veteran article writers to eager newbies trying to find their way through the web of policies and guidelines. A big hope of mine is that I can continue helping those users long into the future when I'm taking a break from maintenance 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: Throughout my first year after registering, my eagerness to contribute made me rush into areas that I did not fully understand. I ran into several errors during new pages patrol in particular, and after an incident where I discouraged an established user, I knew that I had to slow down and reflect on my limitations. In the end, I voluntarily relinquished my NPP tools and afterwards completed a course at NPPSCHOOL to improve my policy knowledge before returning to the patrol. Another conflict that stood out to me was when I naively closed a requested move discussion while poorly understanding the context behind the move and got into a heated discussion with another user regarding it. Both incidents were quite stressful for me at the time, and rightfully so. No new user can expect to improve their competency without stress every now and then, and although those interaction were difficult in the moment I feel as though I have learned quite a bit from experiencing them, more so than I would from having made no mistakes whatsoever. When it comes to contentious situations, I try to keep a cool head, and in some very intense discussions may step away to approach with a calmer mind later. Though the most important part of addressing conflicts with other users is to demonstrate humility and an open mind, and to always address your own shortcomings and potential CLUElessness regarding the matter. In essence, my perspective towards contentious disputes is to stay calm and step away from the computer to collect yourself if necessary, consider the positions of others, remain humble, give dignity to those you interact with, and be accountable and open to criticism. I'm by no means perfect, and I do remember losing my cool back when I was a newer user, though I have learned a lot more since then and and have found better ways to keep calm in the years since. These experiences have taught me to extend the courtesy granted to me as a newer user to eager newbies that I interact with now, which is something that our project needs to stay healthy.

---

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 Tooncool64

4. Have you ever been involved in an ANI incident, either as a complaint or complainee?

A: I have made a few edits to ANI over my tenure to offer some limited feedback on cases that other users have reported, though only recall starting one ANI thread and that was for an editor making legal threats. I see ANI as a very unpleasant but necessary noticeboard, and would just ask anyone I have concerns about on their talk page first to avoid having them be subjected to this sometimes demoralizing escalation. There is a reason why so many user essays have been written about that noticeboard: everyone involved typically feels a little less courteous and less enthusiastic about editing afterwards. As such, I try not to open threads there unless absolutely necessary.

Optional questions from Dreamy Jazz

5. Thanks for standing for RfA. I notice in your answer to question 1 you mention technical areas as 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?

A: Since gadgets started out as user scripts and are maintained by volunteer users, I would ask the new user what gadget they are having a problem with and check to see which active users are maintaining the gadget, then leave a message on the talk page of one of them to see if they can identify the issue. Another approach would be to leave a post at the talk page for the gadget as a key criteria for gadgets is that they are well-maintained, and see if someone there can help with the issue. If all else fails, I could ask at the village pump to see if the technically-inclined editors there can help identify and solve the problem. My current understanding of technical matters such as gadgets and scripts is very limited, so I would try my best to help direct the new user to another editor who could help their gadget function properly.

6. You mention that you will help out at WP:PERM in your answer to question 1. What would you do if a user asks for the account creator group at WP:PERM/ACC because they want to run an edit-a-thon?

A: I remember reading that the event coordinator group was created to replace the account creator user flag in the case of edit-a-thons, as the account creator group is now granted to those heavily involved in ACC. I would inform the user of this distinction, and would check their contribution history to see if they have no recent issues that would lead to potential abuse of this tool. Seeing no issues, I would ask them when the edit-a-thon occurs and verify its existence, then grant the tool temporarily for that date. I would also try to monitor the account creations and/or granting of confirmed to see if everything is going as planned. If the requester is an established user with a history of good contributions and running several edit-a-thons, I would grant the flag indefinitely.

Optional question from Red-tailed hawk

7. In your response to question 1, you refer to using the administrative tools in order to block disruptive users. UCOC Section 3.3 ("Content vandalism and abuse of the projects") lists hindering, impeding or otherwise hampering the creation (and/or maintenance) of content and Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view as 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?

A: I would decline the report as not an instance of blatant vandalism, after a double-check to make sure that there are no instances of vandalism in the editor’s contribution history that were not mentioned in the report. For the articles, I would look at each individually to see if whether or not they were marked as patrolled by a new page reviewer, and if so would check whether or not they were marked with relevant maintenance tags, potentially talking with the reviewer if they neglected to place any. There is no single approach to be taken in regards to non-neutral articles, it all depends on the nature of their violations. If the articles were written by someone who seems to be little more than an eager fan of their subjects, I may drop a quick note on their talk page on the importance of NPOV and how their articles appear to not be compliant with that currently. If the neutrality violations appear to promote their subjects, I may warn the creator about COI/PAID editing and tag appropriately. If the articles appear to be Contentious topics violations, I may check to see if the creator has been made aware of the topic and may block them to enforce any pertinent restrictions. Either way, a simple report to AIV is not the way to go, and the distinct nature of the neutrality violations means that a more complex response would be required to address each of the articles and the user in question.

8. I notice that User:The Night Watch/Recall was deleted per WP:U1 (user request to delete page in own userspace). Can you give a bit of insight into what went into the decision to request deletion of that page? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

A. Back when I was a new user, I was very self-conscious about my ability to use my user permissions according to our guidelines, and I thought quite a bit of how other users perceived my as using these flags appropriately. I remember running into a page from an administrator saying about how they were open to recall, and I was inspired to create a similar approach for the user rights I was granted access to: if some users thought I was not using them correctly, they could mark their name down with a comment and I would relinquish them. Eventually, I realized that recall had not been called upon for any user in many, many years and I thought that the page was quite pointless when recall was never used, and I supposed I did not need to write down a specific page for that. Nonetheless, if anyone has any specific problems with my edits or behavior, I welcome all criticism of my conduct and have a strong belief in WP:ADMINACCT. If anyone has a problem with something that I did, please do let me know and I will gladly take your feedback. I am still open to recall in a way even if it is not written down: I try to judge the feedback given to me and bow out if I am found to be incompetent. Anyone reading this message, please do come out and tell me if I was wrong somewhere.

Optional question from Theleekycauldron

9. If there is anything you would like to say in response to Tamzin's oppose, I would encourage you to do so in the oppose section; however, I would like to provide you this alternate space to do so as well :)

A: Thanks Theleekycauldron (am I allowed to call you leeky?) I do not remember much of that day the comment was made, but I do remember seeing the sarcasm in Tamzin’s comment and disapproving of that in the moment. What I have seen for years now online is that sarcasm is counterproductive and is generally a negative addition to any discussion in a virtual format, and whenever it is employed in a conversation the dialogue tends to go downhill from there. I actually do respect Tamzin and their advice quite a bit and my strong reaction was probably me feeling a little disappointed and betrayed after seeing that remark. I definitely could have softened my word choice, and my abrupt bluntness probably stemmed from my belief that sysops should not engage in that type of language. Rereading the context from that !vote, I do think I should have talked to Tamzin from the sidelines about my concerns rather than giving a firm remark. Seeing that they were hurt by my comment, I would like to apologize; my intent was never to hurt you, I was just somewhat shocked in the moment. I was just a little surprised that a sysop that I looked up would be doing something like that. I can only offer my word that I will not resort to such remarks in the future. I respect your !vote and opinion, and would say that using such language was a large mistake on my part.

Regarding the immensely kind comment that you gave to me in the neutral section, leeky, you are completely right. I would like to give a more deserving apology to Tamzin, and since your own RfA stresses were caught in the mix, extend it to you as well. However, doing so now would be too insincere, too knee-jerk. I cannot yet give the apology that Tamzin and you deserve when my mind is yet clouded with unavoidable stress. It matters not whether this bid of mine succeeds or fails, I only care that I can get to you the words that both of you need. What I did a truly inexcusable wrong, and I doubt I will ever forgive myself for acting like a rude, patronizing parent. I truly am Malvolio, a blind, vain fool that did not show compassion to the harmed, said words that I did not hold myself to, and lacked the wisdom to examine the context and hold my tongue. I ignorantly did not want the discussion to devolve, but only ended up devolving it further. All of the opposes have been truly eye-opening for me, and I will consider them into the long future. I cannot grant the apology you both need now, but to say nothing or scrape out a dishonest response would compromise all that I stand for. All I say is thank you for giving me the chance to speak to you and Tamzin, and I will search my soul for the words to say.

Optional question from Conyo14

10. Hello. Could you provide examples of times in which you were a neutral arbitrator (or closer) to an RfC or content dispute and elaborate on how you resolved potential conflicts between editors?

A:

Optional question from NYC Guru

11. How would you react if Wikipedia had to shut down?

A: I think I would react with a mix of sadness, regret, and acceptance. Wikipedia is a truly amazing project, but history shows us that there are very few things out there that last forever. However, on the day that Wikipedia shuts down, I have no doubt that its content will be imported elsewhere through our free licensing and our contributions will live on through the minds of the readers that we helped. I also smile to myself to think there will be budding historians in the future who would like to learn what we did and how we did it. I have printed a few articles myself to act as a memento so I can always remember the things that I and other editors have done here. Although I presume that there are users who cannot imagine a world without Wikipedia, or even a time where they would willingly stop contributing, time cannot be stopped, lives change, and we all have to leave sometime. My greatest hope that before I leave, I will be able to make amends with the users that I harmed or discouraged however I can. I cannot change the past and I cannot prevent the inevitable, but what I can do is offer a free olive branch to those where I should have been a little nicer, a little more helpful, and hopefully set things right before the future arrives.

Optional question from Spicy

12. You've expressed an interest in handling autopatrolled requests. Please describe how you would handle the following requests:

• A user has edited since 2010 and created 50 articles on various topics, none of which have been deleted or tagged for issues. However, they have only created 2 articles in the past year.
• A user has edited for three months. Over the span of two weeks, they created 25 stub articles on beetle species and requested autopatrolled.

A:. For the first request, I would lean towards declining it as the primary purpose of autopatrolled is to help reduce the load of the new pages patrol, and an editor who has such an intermittent article creation rate would have a minuscule impact on the feed and would therefore might not have much of a need for the tool. I would encourage the user to re-apply in the future should they create more articles in the coming year and the articles they create have no problems such as copyright violations or neutrality issues. For the second request, I would also learn towards declining that one. Autopatrolled is generally not for very new users, and although the stub articles may be notable (I would do a check to confirm their notability and/or sure that they are all reviewed first) their creation record of short stubs does not give much information of their understanding of copyright and other content policies, which are integral to understanding and granting autopatrolled. There are always exceptions to the new users rule, I remember successfully petitioning autopatrolled for an editor with less than five hundred edits due to their very prolific and high-quality non-stub creations. But those are the most likely approaches that I can see without deeper context.

Optional question from RoySmith

13. I see you've left a lot of messages on the user talk pages of IP editors, mostly warnings generated by various anti-abuse tools. Could you talk a bit about the technical issues involved with communicating with IP editors via their talk pages?

A: A key technical issue about messaging IP addresses is that the messages left on their talk pages can potentially be shared between multiple people on the same network. For instance, say a reader interested in Wikipedia visits through their school's IP address which has been recently been used by a vandalizing student and subsequently blocked. Said reader could try to make an improperly formatted but well-meaning change after the IP block expires, but a vandalism patroller could see the recent warnings on the IP's talk page and give a level-4 warning that could accidentally WP:BITE the contributor. Seeing that the great majority of IP users make constructive edits, and seeing firsthand how easy it is to inadvertently scare away newcomers who feel distraught over these messages, I sometimes think how the anonymous and shared nature of IPs means that the user behind the mask may in fact be a good-faith contributor caught up in the wrong moment.

Optional question from Vanamonde93

14. Thank you for volunteering to serve as an administrator. A good many of our most intractable disputes, including ones that end up at arbitration enforcement or similar, are ones where the lines between content and conduct blur. I'd like some insight into how you may deal with those situations. With that in mind, please describe your thought process if you were responsible for responding to the following situation. Apologies for a long and contrived question, but I don't want the background of a real incident to distract: I'm more interested in your goals and considerations than a singular action as a response.

Editor A (400 edits, one month tenure, no blocks) is edit-warring with Editor B (20,000 edits, 12 years tenure, 5 FAs, 5 short blocks for edit-warring or incivility) over "1975 war between Syldavia and Borduria". Editor A changes the "result" parameter of the infobox from "Inconclusive" (sourced to two books from Oxford University Press) to "Syldavian victory". Editor B reverts, using twinkle, leaving no edit-summary. Editor A reverts, with the edit-summary "fix result". Editor B reverts, saying "Read the cited sources, you idiot". Editor A reverts again, adding a single Syldavian newspaper as a source, saying "I have cited a source". Editor B reverts, saying "CIR: kindly fuck off". Editor A takes this to ANI, complaining that Editor B was rude. You see the report a few minutes later.

A:

Optional question from Daniel Case

15. Since how you handle disputes is becoming a central issue in this RfA, I ask you to consider another situation of the type admins have to deal with: an editor questioning your decision to not take administrative adverse action.

Here, you will have been reviewing reports to AIV. In the "bot-reported" section is one of many on an IP. There are no actual mainspace contributions from the IP, and no deleted ones either. Instead, the report is based on the edit filter having stopped the IP from adding a pornographic image to an article over one far more appropriate. The last attempt was several hours ago, so you decide that the filter has done its job here and decline the report, leaving a templated comment to that effect.

Several hours later, an obscenity-laced tirade from the bot operator lands in your email inbox. They angrily contest your decision, arguing that even as they speak the would-be image vandal is looking all over Commons for another image to use (it is common to temporarily protect images vandals have attempted to use) because you wouldn't block them (yet by that time, you see that there has been no other activity from that IP). They claim no admin has ever not blocked a reported image vandal before. Lastly, they request ("politely", they say) that in the future you leave taking action on any AIV reports involving image vandalism to other admins.

I ask not only what your response would or would not be (what would do, or not do? Say or not say?) but why you would do those things. What policies would you cite if you chose to respond? Or would you believe your response did not need a policy justification?

A: I would first respond as carefully and civilly as I can my guideline-based reasoning for declining the request, which is that AIV is only for recent vandalism, and the IP has made no activity and I made the legitimate assumption that the filter had done its job and that there would be no vandalism in the immediate future. This is because the response was made through a template, and templates do not always adequately explain an editor's rationality for a decision and the bot operator could have missed my reasoning. I would ask them on the email why they believe that the image vandal is looking over Commons for another image to use when the IP has made no further activity, and ask if they are familiar with this vandal; they may be a potential LTA that the bot operator is familiar with that I did not know about. Since the editor is likely familiar with image vandals because of their related bot operation, I would gently ask them if there are any other typical practices in blocking image vandals, and will reach out to other admins frequenting AIV to ask for their advice as well. I would then tell the editor that I hear their concerns, and will watch and observe for some time to ensure that I am following good practice with image vandals. Anyone could be having a bad day, and the best I can do is briefly outline my reasoning while acknowledging their concerns. I remember that sometimes as a sysop you will have to make decisions that could make someone unhappy, or perhaps everyone unhappy, but you will have to do so because policy and good practice calls you to it. The best I can do is respond with civility since I do not know what that editor has been through, and they may just be upset and made the request to that I avoid blocking image vandals merely out of frustration rather than sincerity. This is the best approach that I can do, and although the editor may double down on their request, it is not one mistake that requires an editor to step back from an area or face sanctions, but a notable pattern of poor judgment.

Discussion

• Links for The Night Watch: The Night Watch (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for The Night Watch can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. as nom — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

   It's unfortunate to see that people are opposing over a single comment, made almost half a year ago, that TNW has acknowledged was a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes - I've certainly made my fair share - and unless a pattern of incivility is found, it shouldn't prevent an otherwise great editor from becoming an admin. I would urge anyone who is unsure to go through TNW's talk page archives, as well as their reviews of good article nominations; I'm sure you will find that they are a consistently civil and helpful editor who will be a very clear net positive as an administrator. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

2. Beat to first again ;,,,( Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Mach61 (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Support – Seems like they'd do ok as an admin. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Support per noms and exemplary circumspection in answer to Q3. Generalrelative (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

   Like most of those who have commented below, whether in the Support, Oppose, or Neutral sections, I sympathize with Tamzin's reason for opposing. There is clearly a broad consensus that TNW's comment was inappropriate. I'll even go a step further and agree with those who have pointed out that TNW's answer to Q9 leaves a lot to be desired in terms of interpersonal understanding. But I have seen much (much) worse from admins. What I care about is whether they have the competency not to abuse their tools. It's okay to lack some social fluency so long as one is aware of it. I expect that if they do pass RfA, TNW will take this experience to heart and think twice before tone policing someone who is presenting a legitimate grievance in the future. And if not, well, I think City of Silver said it well: even if they persist in this really irritating behavior they'd still, by a wide margin, be a net positive as an administrator. Generalrelative (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

6. Support Always seen them as admin material. Prodraxis _(talk) 01:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
7. (edit conflict) Support Unless I find anything which raises major objections between now and next week, I believe the candidate will be an asset to the admin team. I trust the nominators and I appreciate the answer to Q3. It's always good to know your limits. UPDATE: Tamzin's comment does bring up a valid point, but I still believe their positives outweigh their negatives. They should be more careful in responding to sarcasm, but that comment does not lead me to oppose their candidacy. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 22:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
8. I was greatly impressed by the candidate's demeanor in this discussion on their talk page, where they were calm, friendly, and polite to a new editor despite the latter's misguidedness and belligerence. That alone proves to me that TNW has just the kind of temperament we need in an administrator. On top of that, I have seen a lot of good work and reasonable commentary from TNW in multiple areas of the project. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
9. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
10. Support: Oh my God, I love this guy editor. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    @TrademarkedTWOrantula: Perhaps you should reword your vote; we shouldn't presume the candidate is a "guy".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    Good idea. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    Future comment: Although TNW's tone was wrong, it really doesn't hinder what they've really done. Like others have said, I don't see a pattern of repeated behavior. In fact, my experiences with them have been pleasant; they don't complain, brag, whine, or act up in any way. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

11. not a jerk; WP:NOBIGDEAL HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    One test I like to apply to RfA oppose rationales is to think about them in the context of a case request at ArbCom. If they already were an administrator—and thus held to a higher standard of behavior per WP:ADMINCOND—would they lose the tools? I realize that the standards to grant and remove the mop are different, but they shouldn't be miles apart. I think we all know that this is not even close to WP:ARC-worthy behavior.

    That is not to defend what they said to Tamzin. There is a reason that responding to tone is just one step away from ad hominem in Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. WP:BIKESHED comes to mind: the PA was the problem, not the less-than-ideal-but-not-that-bad response to the PA.

    I also want to note (for 'crats, if this ends in a chat) that I do not think the fundamental question at this RfA is Was TNW in the right when they criticized Tamzin's tone?. I think the question is whether a bad comment and response is enough to deny the mop. In other words, think it would be a mistake to say "well, the supporters agree that the candidate did something that would be unbecoming of an admin, therefore there is no consensus to promote." HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

12. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 02:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
13. Support (With silly commentary) This editor is, in terms of content added to Wikipedia almost, but not quite entirely, unlike a Plantepedia editor. Five hundred edits and all video games and anti-vandalism. Nothing green. So support, but I might drop off a Triffid at their domicile at some point. As a gift. ... Edit more plants, people! 🌿MtBotany (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    Taking off my silly hat for some actual serious evaluation talk. The sheer mass of contributions made it hard for me to get a handle on the behavior of TNW. It very largely looks responsible and good. I have now seen some reasonable opposes. I'm not sure if the rise to a neutral or oppose for me but I want to note that have seen them and considered them and I have not just blithely done my bit and not tried to be a thoughtful voter. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

14. Support. Good answer to Q7. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    I've read Tamzin's oppose, and I not moved to oppose by it, as it consists of a single edit that could have been phrased better. I find the candid page at User:The Night Watch/Mistakes were made to show a sense of humility, and I don't see evidence of a pattern of hubris or other sorts of behavior that indicates that would contraindicate adminship. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

15. Support Very experienced, has a clue, understands policies and guidelines to an excellent degree. Everyone should strive to be like them! Mox Eden (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
16. Support – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
17. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    Support moving to oppose I am noting Tamzin’s oppose and that it is easy to offend people with written word... and from my reading the comment was not an attack. I have seen TNW around. Great content creation. I have had positive interactions with them. They have consistent editing participation. Relatively low participation on the drama board. They have positive AfD participation. I will overlook the demonic number for Large edits (>1000 bytes) in their edit count (spoiler it is three sixes). I do wonder why they have (5%) deleted edits. My main criteria is that they will protect content and content creators and I think TNW will do that. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    @Lightburst You can rack up a lot of deleted edits doing NPP/AfC work. 5% actually seems pretty low, considering. Compare TNW's noms, at 6.6 and 7.5%. -- asilvering (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    @Asilvering: Oh thanks for the note. I did not look into it the reasons, but in any event, I think the candidate is a good one and I am sorry to see that one finger wag has led others to cosign the oppose. I was also sorry to see that TNW apologized for it. I remember when TIG was blocked for saying "get a real job and materially it was about their oppose at TLC's RFA - I thought it was absolute rubbish. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

18. Support no issues. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 04:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
19. Support A respected editor I trust with the tools. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    Fuck yeah. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    I'll expand here, since "fuck yeah" isn't a great rationale and if anything is dismissive. I understand 'zin's opposition and agree that Nwatch could've handled it better, however I believe neither side was right or wrong and that, overall, we should not tank an otherwise good RfA on the basis of a single interaction that could've gone better. ^Queenof_Hearts 19:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    Moved to neutral 13:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

20. Seen them around and I'm glad to support this Volten001 ^☎ 04:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
21. Support Seeing the answer to Q9, that has pretty much solidified my support. Great candidate :) Kline • talk to me! • contribs 04:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
22. Support - all the best. Tolly4bolly 05:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
23. Support. I pulled up the "What links here" report for The Night Watch's user page, filtered it for Wikipedia-space pages only, then looked at all their noticeboard comments. Observations: well-versed in policies and guidelines; always polite; appears frequently but not too frequently at ANI to make a useful comment (in other words, they're familiar with ANI but not obsessed). Never BITE-y. Seems like they'd make a good admin! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
24. Support. WP:RFAINFLATION is getting too serious recently and everything big seems fine. Also, the single argument against this user below is probably not too big of a deal and if not common, should not be taken into too much concern. 2003 LN6 16:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
25. Support LGTM ^^ Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
26. Heck yeah! Great user! Panini! • 🥪 06:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
27. Yep-As someone who get's into edit conflict with them so frequently during RTRC patrolling, they deserve the mop. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    SupportAmazing, since you are getting more support than you always wanted, I decided to select support for you, as having support is very beneficial to others and its community. I wish you do an excellent job at being an admin and cleaning up the mess that bad users created and protecting its new content. ArtForDecades610 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC) Striking !vote from blocked sock. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

28. Support per the reasons already given by other editors. Professor Penguino (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
29. Support I paused with Tamzin's oppose. I did not see a pattern from TNW and their apology partly assuaged my concern. With my support I hope that nominee takes this feedback seriously with them. Being an admin is a tough job and other admins need to know they can rely on you not to tone police them. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
30. Support. Will be a positive for the encyclopedia if given a mop. Endwise (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
31. Support. I have come across TNW at FAC, where I had the pleasure of reviewing their last nomination. It demonstrated a good understanding of how main space policies work in practice, and TNW demonstrated an ability to readily accept criticism of their work. They have also carried out several informed and constructive reviews of others' nominations. In one case they opposed promotion - which is a little unusual for a relatively new reviewer, to the point of demonstrating editorial courage - and when challenged by the nominator backed their opinion up with a range of accurate references to policy and a selection of other similar articles and examples which supported their point of view. More than enough for me to feel that they have what it takes to wield a mop, and the comments of others strongly suggest that they are readily able to transfer these skills to other areas of the project. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
32. Support - Only pleasant interactions with TNW. Their work got me interested in reading about several video games I had never heard of. I am usually put off by newer editors who are in a rush to get the mop and do everything by the book, but TNW in particular seems like a good guy.--NØ 12:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
33. 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! ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
34. Support Good users but you should see Tamzin's oppose as a reminder for which should you resolve after adminship. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 15:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    I would likely think that only one bad interaction is not enough to ruin the adminship. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 05:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

35. Support: The candiate looks good to me, and if they believe that admins should be more polite, then that's just another positive.→StaniStani 15:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
36. Support - We all have our bad moments and the single one described below should not disqualify an editor with a good record of service. If that's the only bad thing that can be cited, TNW is a paragon of virtue. Smallchief (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
37. smallchief swung me over. ltbdl (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
38. Please continue pontificating on why no one wants to be an admin after this nomination gets dragged down by one comment made 5 months ago. I'm sure we'll find the reason some day. AryKun (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
39. Support. While there is a valid concern raised in the opposes below, I do have to agree with some of the above !votes. For me, that single interaction does not counterbalance the candidate's reasons for seeking the tools, which seem valid, nor does that one interaction negate the good content I've seen them create. (If it were a behavioral pattern, it would be a different story, but thus far I'm not seeing evidence that this is a behavioral pattern.) – Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
40. Support. Lots of people saying nice things about their interactions; one person had a not-nice interaction. JMCHutchinson (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
41. Has a clue, not a jerk, happy to support. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
42. Support: with all due respect to Tamzin, I have not yet seen a pattern of poor temperament or offensive comments by the candidate. I'd like to see an opposer engage with User:The Night Watch/Mistakes were made (which shows the opposite so far as I can see). I particularly like their answer here about ANI. My questions to someone opposing would be: should one ill-judged comment that was not a personal attack disqualify somebody from adminship? Is it reasonable to take it as representative of the candidate when there are hundreds of comments and tens of thousands of edits of theirs to review?
    The candidate is an accomplished content creator (something I've already checked). They have much knowledge of technical areas such as NPP, CSD, AFD and AIV/UAA. I was actually worried their AFD "accuracy" was too high (an indicator of pile-on !votes when the outcome is already clear). However, from reviewing some AFD comments I was thoroughly reassured: their rationales are well-explained and well-researched. They are willing to change their mind in light of other opinions or evidence. — Bilorv (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
43. Support A single bad interaction shouldn't sink the whole ship. As long as there is no pattern for abuse, I didn't see any need to deny the adminship for just one bad interaction. And the "bad interaction" is not abusive or demeaning at all. Tamzin is being sarcastic and The Night Watch replies with more snark (interpreted as "tone-policing" by Tamzin). Both are not fully professional in this regard, but we didn't expect Wikipedia interactions to be business-like all the time. Finally, this is just one interaction - in the grand scheme of things this should be nothing. If a single snark/sarcasm comments could sink a whole Wikipedia "career" no one would like to be an admin anymore. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
44. Support I don't see any patterns of poor interactions. I DO see a lot of content creation, and thoughtful answers to questions on their talk page. Joyous! Noise! 17:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
45. Support Good editor... should be good admin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
46. Support Good answers to questions, and unconvinced by the rationale for opposition. I wouldn't have commented on Tamzin's tone myself, unprompted, but I also feel sarcasm is rarely appropriate, especially for an admin. And I absolutely believe that one or two poorly-thought-out comments shouldn't prevent a good, effective editor from being an admin. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
47. support don't see question 9 as an issue, IMO --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
48. Support – has a good history here; if one comment with seemingly decent intent but poor phrasing disqualified editors from being admins, I don't know if we'd have admins for long. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
49. Support: Unless it's a recurring problem, I don't think a single negative interaction is enough for me to oppose. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
50. Support based on the totality of their record. The incident with Tamzin cited below was obviously not TNW's finest moment. But they have apologized for what looks like an honest failure to look at the big picture before jumping into a situation and I am not seeing a pattern of concerning behavior. If we are looking for perfection, we are unlikely to find it on this side of the pearly gates and this unfortunate lapse in judgement by itself is not enough to move me into opposition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
51. Support, based on their record. I don’t see the interaction mentioned the opposes as being too problematic (I’ve seen admins say and do much worse than this on a regular basis and been backed up and praised by other admins). - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
52. Support I respect Tamzin, and can understand why they would oppose, but one incident isn't really enough to convince me. People screw up sometimes. Additionally, with the apology and the "mistakes were made" page, I am not concerned about them being accountable when they make mistakes. Ping me if a pattern of issues or a serious accountability problem is found. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
53. Support - not a jerk, has a clue. And please take note of what AryKun said above... SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
54. Support I really hope we don't lose a potentially good administrator for calling out a sarcastic comment. SportingFlyer T·C 21:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
55. Support. I think others above -- for example Gog the Mild and Epicgenius -- have made a good case for supporting. I think a poor interaction, which I believe TNW has learned from, is not a sufficient reason to oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
56. Support Shows clue, has a grasp of good content work. I don't see the occasion Tamzin brings up as anything to oppose over—while it didn't fully take the entire context into consideration, I expect admins not to get upset when someone rightfully points out their tone isn't improving things. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
57. Support A very good candidate. Bruxton (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
58. Support - I actually don't agree that it's necessary to call out sarcasm per se, and I definitely wouldn't have responded to Tamzin's comment that way (or at all, actually) but I really don't think that TNG's response is worth withholding the mop over and am surprised that Tamzin brought it up (I also disagree with beating up on lone oppose !votes in RFAs even if they're unreasonable, something I really don't see the point of when they are not going to affect the outcome). I also don't see anything wrong with the response to Q9 at all - it seems on-point and addresses the issue. The oppose !voters jumping on with Tamzin all seem to be responding to that single incident without raising anything additional incidents that could evidence that this was a pattern of behaviour rather than just a single comment but if some more additional incidents were raised I might change my vote depending on their nature - ping me if anything comes up.
    TNG seems an OK editor with good content output and we need more Sysops. That's sufficient for me. I would advise them to get more familiarity at AFD before doing complex/difficult closes though - 83 !votes, and only 26 !votes in the last 12 months, isn't enough. FOARP (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
    So I just read the updated answer to Q9 and, yeah, I have to agree that it is somewhat strange. I'm going to put this one down to stress. Not changing my vote at this point. FOARP (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
59. Slightly weak support. Changing to Strong support per Lightburst and similarly antagonistic opposes. Shushugah, currently support voter #31 #30, expressed hope that The Night Watch will cease tone-policing even though the answer to question 9 leads me to believe TNW doesn't quite know what tone-policing even is. Contrary to what they seem to think, the problem is what was said, not where it was said or who it was said to. Expressing that sort of sentiment is almost never appropriate whether it's at that RFA, on a talk page, via email, or anywhere else and it would have been no less so had Tamzin been a brand new editor, someone TNW dislikes, etc. That said, Tamzin doesn't "like the idea of opposing over a past negative interaction" and I don't either. TNW's résumé and their answers to the other questions on here are all enough to show that even if they persist in this really irritating behavior they'd still, by a wide margin, be a net positive as an administrator. City of Silver 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    In light of the additional response The Night Watch just left at question 9, I'm now close to changing to flat-out support or strong support. I wasn't the only person to worry that the growing oppose section, almost entirely grounded in one bad incident that isn't even close to proving unworthiness of adminship, was going to put an unfair amount of stress onto TNW. Sure enough, that's exactly what's happened and there are still five more days to go until they're out of this gauntlet. I don't think TNW's extension to their Q9 answer is going to sway anyone who's already voted oppose/neutral but I'll be legitimately shocked if new voters come here, read this entire thing including that message, and somehow manage to conclude the opposers' rationale is fair or appropriate. City of Silver 22:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    I do see that The Night Watch is under quite a bit of stress right now. The fact that RfA incentivizes this is... not fair, as you said. But as for swaying neutral voters, they have my strong support and I would hope that Dreamy Jazz and Brat Forelli see the same positive change I did in the candidate. Truly a tour de force for the amount of pressure they're under (dun dun dun dududu dun). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    @Theleekycauldron: You proved me wrong on that part and I'm glad for it. I'm still dismayed that, per the incredibly cruel message User:Lightburst just left in their oppose vote, that the stress this RFA is causing the nominee isn't going to abate. City of Silver 23:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    @Theleekycauldron Yes, sir! Glad the whole story had a good ending after all! Brat Forelli🦊 23:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

60. Weakish Strong support per Lightburst. The interaction the candidate had with Tamzin was quite patronizing and kinda disappointing behavior for such a prolific editor. Nevertheless I think the positives outweigh the negatives here, and I think very, very few candidates would pass RFA if the bar was "never have a moment where you're the jerk." I hope, if successful, the candidate does well in their adminship and chooses wording slightly more carefully in the future. Generalissima (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
    • The candidate's very thoughtful response to Question #9 has greatly soothed my doubt. I am very happy to see such sincerity at RFA. Generalissima (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
61. Support. Dedicated editor with impressive track record of excellent contributions to the project. The interaction with Tamzin was not great, but TNW has recognized and acknowledged that. I agree with FOARP above. -Mojo Hand (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
62. Support - Based on their thoughtful answers to questions, skills and contributions to the encyclopedia. I think they can be trusted with the tools and do not see a problem with temperament. I’ve thought about what Tamzin said and the like-minded opposes, and to my way of thinking, a single incident of an editor scolding an administrator for sarcasm is not enough to disqualify someone from becoming an administrator themself - even if they were wrong for doing so and/or it was "tone-policing". I doubt this type of error will be repeated, nor do I think it was particularly bad behavior. We need good, solid editors who are also content creators on the admin team. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
63. Support largely per the nominators. Seems like a fine editor with enough participation in admin-adjacent areas to merit the tools. Has a clue, not (consistently) a jerk. I'm singularly unconvinced by the Oppose !voters that The Night Watch would exhibit a pattern of ill behavior as an admin. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    Amending my vote to Weak Support. TNW, I was shocked by the sheer number and quality of initial Oppose rationales - they really did not hold up when held against the net positive weight of your other contributions, and I'm sorry you were subjected to them. Your first repsonse to Q9 I found affirming - you tactfully admitted a mistake and apologized, yet took time to more clearly elucidate where you were coming from. And you were right on the content matter (sarcasm is not helpful in heated discussions) even if you were wrong in the patronizing tone, or wrong for having commented at all (sometimes, it's best to let things die out on their own). However, your follow-up response to Q9 I found rather disappointing. As an admin, you need to be sympathetic and open-minded with complaints (as WP:ADMINACCT says), but you also need to believe in yourself. Make the right choices with the tools, and then stick by them - though, still remain open to amendment or admonishment from the community. But you should believe in everything you do so wholeheartedly that you never have walk back an interaction as heavily or with as sweeping, melodramatic language as you used.

    Still, despite this new concern, I find myself believeing you would be a net-positive as a admin. Just be careful where you step, with the tools. The 'pedia is vast in its many forums and topics, and not every admin is well-suited for all of them. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

64. Support Seen around at AfD and generally a polite and insightful collaborator. Their answer to Q9 is thoughtful and sensitive while also not being ingratiating or people-pleasing. I think knowing when to say something is one of the hardest skills to learn, and one of the most important. I hold good faith in TNW to keep their right-mindedness going forward. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
65. Support for an editor who seems to be a net positive to me. If one (possibly inadvertent) error in judgment can sink an RfA, that may be why so few editors want an on-wiki hazing. Miniapolis 00:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
66. Support I appreciate the example presented in the oppose section, but I don't think that rises to the point of opposing. If the standard for becoming an admin is perfection it's going to be very difficult to find admins. Nemov (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
67. Support per Bilorv and Ad Orientem, among others. I see why the opposes are !voting the way they are, but there's a blurry line between "seeing a pattern of poor behavior" and "expecting perfection", and from what I've seen this is closer to the latter. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
68. Support, because I respect the nominators and the candidate's answers seem OK to me. Anecdote: My own RfA was nearly sunk by a single unfortunate AfD-related exchange I had once had with a prolific editor. Going in, I was expecting opposition from a completely different direction (which I also got). Deor (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
69. Weak Support I don't think the interaction with Tamzin is enough to prevent me from opposing. When I sent Ad Orientem the email that changed the direction of Tamzin's RFA, I did not tell him to confront her. I just wanted his opinion. I also did not oppose her right away because I couldn't find anything else wrong with her editing. I feel like opposing now because of one instance of poor judgment would be a mistake given that nobody has dug up more serious dirt on TNW, like they failed to do with Tamzin. The answer to q9 concerns me a little, but it is not quite enough to sway me. I am open to changing my opinion if more serious concerns are raised. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
70. Support (moved from Neutral), mainly per Thebiguglyalien and Scorpions. Admining is not and should not be about perfection. A history of a single, relatively minor altercation that doesn't form any sort of a pattern is hardly a sufficient reason to oppose an otherwise experienced and trustworthy candidate. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
71. Support meets my criteria; the most the opposers appear to be able to produce is a single edit and wild conclusions about tone-policing. If that's enough to disqualify a user from adminship, we'd have dozens of desysoppings within a week. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
72. Support – Has clue/strong candidate. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
73. Support If the worst thing that has turned up is expressing concern over sarcasm being posted in a heated exchange, then I have no problem supporting. - Bilby (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
74. Support. Dedicated user who won't break the wiki, should mop helpfully, is generally a good communicator, and shows no evidence of behavioral issues. Regarding the interaction mentioned with Tamzin, it doesn't seem worth fussing about. A user had a meltdown, behaved ridiculously and disruptively (and later was blocked for it). Tamzin and TNW both in retrospect got a bit too emotionally involved in their responses, but that happens, and neither behaved badly, just unnecessarily. Martinp (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support. I continue to think the original interaction with Tamzin was well within bounds of appropriate behaviour and not worth fussing about, and that TNW's original response to Q9 was about right. I am pained to see the continued disproportionate concerns on TMW's judgment in the oppose section, and I am pained to see TNW's doubtlessly stress-induced over the top and unnecessary addendum to Q9. I personally am a self-confident individual who has had the privilege of being able to ignore attacks on my behaviour, judgment, temperament with no impact on my self-esteem. So it is easy for me to blithely expect we should all on wp be able to step back, impersonally self-reflect, and strive to perfect tone in any reply. This whole episode is a good reminder that we're human and social pressures continue here on wp as in real life. So during a ridiculous, raving interaction, it seems Tamzin genuinely felt personally attacked rather than a random bystander to a meltdown. TNW presumably underestimated how much stress Tamzin might be feeling. And Tamzin felt attacked (or unsupported) by TNW's correction enough to remember it months later. And now TNW feels attacked the the momentum behind Tamzin's oppose. To an outside, dispassionate observer, so many opportunities where someone could have said "Oh! I didn't look at it through that lens, but I guess (other user) has a point, though I do think they miss a bit of the big picture" and continued on, emotionally unfazed and a little bit wiser. But couldn't, since wiki-life was giving them stress at the time. Let's just all cut each other more slack... Martinp (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

75. Support. I remember looking at TNW's user page and thought they were an admin already. The Night Watch is definitely a net positive to the project, and although Tamzin's oppose gave me some pause, I really don't think it is more concerning than if they had, say, edit-warred with me or told me to fuck off in the heat of the moment. The latter, if happened recently, should be more concerning for an admin's ability. I have no reason to believe a good candidate like TNW should be forced to say that their reply is wrong, or that Tamzin's use of sarcasm is right either. I don't see a reason to believe that admins should not express their thoughts on others' comments in a civil manner. And this was in the context of an RFA, where TNW is not an admin and Tamzin is. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    .. disappointed at this process for doing exactly what I was worried about: a good candidate like TNW [..] forced to say that their reply is wrong. I still believe you are a good candidate, TNW, and I understand the stress. Oh, and I still don't see how this relates much to wielding a mop. So one of their comments from a few months ago raised concerns about a single incident of behavior that looked like tone-policing, and when we get a followup to A9 where TNW apologizes and says that they were wrong, and the response to that, is.. more tone policing?? How ironic that TNW got opposes for expressing their disapproval at a sarcastic comment, and got more opposes because people think the tone of the followup could be sarcastic? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

76. Support When God created humankind, He created us as imperfect beings. And based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, we are encouraged to look beyond a person's minor transgressions and look instead to the heart of the individual. I believe that the nominee is well-qualified for adminship in spite of the negative comments posted below. Johnnie Bob (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    Extended discussion moved to the talk page.

77. Support, well-qualified candidate. DanCherek (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
78. Support I support TNW. I have had good interactions and respect their work. I think the Tamzin thing is not a big deal. As other have noted, this is not a pattern. Additionally, in itself, it is more of a poor showing than a fatal flaw. TNW's work speaks to me way more than this incident. Glennfcowan (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
79. Stephen 04:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
80. I'm not in favor of an opposing an RfA just because the candidate once suggested that a popular admin shouldn't have used sarcasm in response to a stupid comment. Since that seems to be the main reason for opposition, it would appear that this is a pretty good candidate. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
81. Support TNW may not be perfect, but will make a great admin. Llwyld (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
82. Support I was not familiar with this editor, probably because of the subject-matter in which they're typically involved, however, I was impressed by their work. After just two years they've contributed to an impressive number of FA and GA-class articles. I note with bemusement they once committed to retiring after 10,000 edits [1] unless they could "find a greater purpose in serving the website". I'm happy they've done so as it appears they've been a net positive and Adminship would, I'm sure, amplify the benefit we receive by their presence and participation. Chetsford (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
83. Support I don't typically participate in site-wide discussions such as RfA, but I personally believe that TNW would make a great admin with their contributions across the site. Additionally, they're an amazing editor to work with, and I don't see a purpose in opposing based on previous remarks which they've apologized for. Nobody is perfect. λ NegativeMP1 06:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
84. Support - I've looked over the incident that Tamzin brought up below, and, while TNW's comments in that discussion definitely seem a bit misguided, it doesn't rise to the level of misguided-ness that would bring me to oppose, especially for a one-off incident. TNW appears to be an excellent contributor, and I am sure that TNW will exercise more caution in the future. I also commend TNW for recognizing their mistakes and owning up to them. (Perhaps we can all learn a lesson to avoid badgering, piling onto or commenting on or in relation to controversial opposes at RfA - it rarely benefits anyone). MaterialsPsych (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
85. Weak Support - the incident with Tamzin does raise a red flag or two, but overall I'm very satisfied with the answers to questions other than Q9, so I think it's a net positive. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 09:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
86. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
87. Maliner (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
88. Support - Awesome editor with outstanding content creation. Friendly & effective commuication style while colaborating with others to improve articles e.g. as per here. Q9 answer is a little dissapointing, maybe it will be constructive to say why. It's not so much that TWN should have raised the issue with Tamzin less firmly & more discreetly, ideally there was no need to say anything at all. It's correct that scarcasm is typically unhelpful in online discussion, and that Admins ought to be held to higher standards than regular users - but neither of these are Categorical imperitives that need to apply all the time. If you look at the specifics of the conversation, then in context Tamzin handled it gracefully, and didn't need even the mildest reprimand. It was one of those cases where responding as a regular editor rather than as an admin was arguably preferable (due to WP:Involved). Not that there's anything wrong with an admin sometimes intentionally lowering themselves to a regular users level. (Various officials are trained to do this on occaision, even Christ used the tactic - He "stooped to conquer" as the WP:RSs say.) This said , we're only talking about a single blind spot here, and the candidates counter baderging against Tamzin was clearly motivated by the best intentions. No reason not to expect the candidate to be a big net +ve as an admin. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
89. Support. The whole Tamzin affair seems like a tempest in a teapot. Yes, Therapyisgood's personal attack was out of order, and everyone saw it as such, making Tamzin's retributive response uncalled for, especially on an unrelated RfA. TNW's comment does indeed come across as patronizing, but was clearly a bona fide attempt to bring that discussion back on track. No one came out looking good from that exchange, but so what? If TNW were an admin at the time, would we be on AN/I discussing a possible desysoping? Yet here were are, considering withholding the mop from an otherwise great candidate because they used the wrong tone while trying to do the right thing. Owen× ☎ 13:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
90. Support. I disagree that one interaction is indicative of an "attitude problem". Are admins expected to have cooler heads than most? Yes. Does that mean they are expected to never make a mistake? I don't think so. I believe TNW is a good candidate, even moreso because of the endorsements above by many editors I highly respect. Fritzmann (message me) 14:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
91. support One interaction a bad Admin does not make. And I found Q9 to be heartfelt. They were hurt by a comment (likely because they didn't fully understand the situation) and handled it in a non-ideal (but not horrid) way. If there were a trail of such issues or a sense that they were blowing this off I'd have a larger concern. Seems otherwise fine. Hobit (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
92. Per Hobit, PhotogenicScientist, and FAC. Vaticidalprophet 15:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
93. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
94. Support: A lot has been said already, doesn't change the fact that TNW is going to be a net-positive addition to the sysop team. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
95. Support. I don't see Q9 as the problem that others do; that's probably a matter of taste. TNW is surely right that sarcasm is a risky choice when de-escalating a dispute. My own view is that admins shouldn't be trying to win conversations, only lower the temperature. Mackensen (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
96. Support per Tamzin. It's time we put an end to the thin-skinned microparsing of solid Admin candidates. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
97. Yes. Lots of positives and no negatives. I've looked into the Tamzin incident, and nobody comes out good from that, though opinions will vary on who looks worse. SilkTork (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
98. Support (maybe only weak) I'm not too worried about a one-off incident, though Q9's answer isn't ideal. Overall seems like a good candidate. My only reservation is has only had an account for just over 2 years, but that's not a big deal. Net positive. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
99. Support. TNW has been a good editor in what I remember on discussion boards, so you get a thumbs up for me. Tamzin's oppose gives me pause: she is right that tone policing has been a weapon; one against women and minorities during Gamergate. So, be forewarned I guess. SWinxy (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
100. Support. The opposes seem to be all about a single marginally ill-judged comment - if that's the sole ground for opposition, then the candidate must be among the best we can hope for. W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
101. More so than a lot of people in this discussion, I can speak to how difficult it is to say – in the spotlight and pressure of an RfA, of all places – "I hear your pain, I understand your criticisms, and I need time to think about it so I can do better next time." But that's exactly what The Night Watch did. For that, you have my wholehearted support. That is mature, vulnerable, and incredibly impressive. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC) (No apology needed for me, my second RfA was a pretty good time. I should write my debrief one of these days. And as long as we're talking Shakespeare comedies, I'm a big Much Ado About Nothing fan myself /gen.)

     Make that a very strong support per Lightburst's oppose :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

102. Support from me. Clearly experienced enough for the tools. I do get the opposes, but the issue appears to be one comment that they have acknowledged as a mistake. If incivility was a long theme, sure I would oppose. But I don't find myself being able to oppose over this one comment only. We all make mistakes, and unfortunately they sometimes involve civility. It's about moving on from those mistakes which the candidate has shown they can do. --Ferien (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

     Per theleekycauldron above, I too find the response to Q9 impressive, and would strongly encourage other voters to read it. --Ferien (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

103. Support I am satisfied by the answer to Q9, and have no other concerns. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

     Yes, the second paragraph is excessive grovelling. I don't think it's indicative of anything. Lots of politely-put, well-meaning opposes is like torture—you'll do anything to make the torture stop. TNW hasn't broken down like this before, so why is there reason to believe it's likely to happen again? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 13:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

104. Support (moved from Neutral) The follow-up answer to Q9 calms my nerves about this. I thank the candidate for recognizing their error and a heart-warming follow-up. Best of luck with the RfA! Brat Forelli🦊 23:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
105. Sure. — Fox 00:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
106. Support! In light of their follow-up to their answer to Q9. I am unconvinced by the opposes. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 00:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
107. Support. Looks like a strong contributor to the project. While the response to Tamzin was clearly out of line, we all make mistakes, and my impression is they will seek to learn from them and from the responses to this RFA. Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
108. Support – Their heart's in the right place and nobody's perfect. I generally trust their judgement and I've had positive interactions. Good luck. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
109. Support Rcsprinter123 (drawl) 01:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
110. Support overall net positive. I don't see a pattern of poor behavior, despite the blemish in the edit history. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 02:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
111. Support mostly per theleekycauldron. –FlyingAce^✈hello 02:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
112. Support I do understand the opposes but I still believe that at the end of the day, giving TNW the admin bit is likely to be a net positive, especially if he listens to the criticism below. Pichpich (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
113. Support Not a big deal. I went back and forth over what Tamzin pointed out, but given the breadth of contributions I'm willing to AGF that behavior like that is in the past, especially with two co-noms that I respect. Good luck! —Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
114. Support. This took me some time to decide. First of all, I've seen some good things from TNW. Second, I've taken a look at the incident that Tamzin mentioned and to be honest, the comment did sound concerning, but it was a misunderstanding and they have realized their mistake and have heartfully apologized (per Q9). We are not 100% perfect and we all make mistakes sometimes. I have faith that TNW will not abuse the mop and will become a good admin. Good luck! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
115. Per everyone else, really. NotAGenious (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
116. Support per above. Will do a great job with the mop. Gizza (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
117. Support don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Lightoil (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
118. Support – net positive. Nobody's perfect, and someone who's willing to learn from a one-off, isolated peccadillo is someone we should be giving the mop to. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
119. Support Fully qualified candidate. The opposes are a complete and utter tempest in a teapot, per the nominator's explanation. All that's happened here is a bunch of people have talked at cross purposes and got carried away. Everyone should calm down a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
120. Support Although past actions raises some concerns, after watching the RfA progress a bit I've decided that they shouldn't be an issue of TNW gaining admin. Some opposes clearly are dragging this beyond the statements of Tamzin, and isn't convincing for me to oppose the RfA at all. Besides, nobody is perfect. In internet, everyone's had their bad days. I don't like the idea of limiting someone's potential by their past, and thus I move to support. AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
121. Support Not convinced by the opposes. Intothatdarkness 12:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
122. Support: Net positive. QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 13:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
123. Support Overall a very good editor and I don’t think that one bad incident should overshadow the net positive that this editor provides. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
124. Support Seems to be an ideal candidate as far as I can see. Proper CSD mechanic and content creator par excellence, who will make a fine addition to the corps. I've examined the comments on the oppose side and Q9 and it seems to be a bit of storm in a teacup. Some of the responses seems to be verging on the absurd and stretching the original single event. It seems to be perfectly fine to call out an administrator when you think they are straying from the path, i.e. question of behavioural standards. Behaviour is the gold standard in Rfa, the core, which isn't being followed in the oppose section here, which is curious, because of all places you expect it to followed here, is here in RFA, not to be thrown up as a complaint. I find it absolutely weird both from Tamzin, who I know is an excellent admin and the weird follow on, essentially for a single comment. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
125. Support Competent, likely to use the tools well. While I put a lot of stock in Tamzin's !vote, I am confident that TNW has learned from their mistakes. One minor incident does not a monster make, and this really does strike me as a minor incident. I would enourage TNW not to be disheartened by the volume of oppose !votes; I have the utmost confidence in them. Lkb335 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
126. Support - if the worst thing you can say about someone is that they tried to tone-police a discussion, then ... ??? ... I don't see a reason to oppose. --B (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
127. Support Good, competent content creator and makes good contributions in other areas. Not persuaded by the opposes because, as others have said above, they're ultimately all centred around a single edit which some people see as unwise and which the candidate obviously now regrets. No-one is perfect and if we're saying that admin candidates must never have made a single unwise or controversial edit, we're going to be very short of admins. Neiltonks (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
128. Tamzin has shown that TNW is not perfect. If all admins were perfect, I guess I'd agree that we shouldn't spoil our record. However ... you see where I'm going with this, I assume ... If other potential candidates see that one single mistake, and one stressed out response to criticism of that mistake, are all that is needed to tank an RFA, no one will apply. I've seen no evidence that TNW cannot learn from their mistakes, no evidence that this is a pattern of behavior instead of a one-off, and no evidence that all that content creation was just a ruse so they could become an admin and tone police everyone. I'd wager that TNW will never criticize anyone's tone ever again. Hang in there, TNW, I don't know you but I empathize. RFA is rough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
129. The reply to Tamzin on the other RfA and the subsequent answer aren't great, but two mistakes shouldn't preclude one from a mop.

Oppose

1. 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 replied with links to similar personal attacks by the same user, TNW saw fit 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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

   I too was pretty grossed out by this comment of TNW's. Replying about it here in the spirit of the answer to Q8. -- asilvering (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

   Looking at the original comment I wonder if TNW did not see a connection between the sock making the RfA comment that you linked and the sockmaster account that you were responding to. It's possible that the sarcasm would have left a different impression on TNW if TNW did not know that the two accounts are the same user. At least to me I did not know immediately and had to check the user talk history to confirm the connection. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

2. Agreeing with Tamzin. The part that stands out for me is, "You could have formally warned (user's name) for using personal attacks without resorting to petty sarcasm, but you chose to stoop to their level by doing so." The "fighting a bully with the bully's tactics makes you as bad as them" and approaches / attitudes similar to that sentiment are a regular put-down in the real world against those who stand up to bullies or those who otherwise engage in bad behavior. These leads to excusing and resolving of any accountability for such people, and isn't something I want to encourage here. Acalamari 08:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Tamzin. I've had some experiences with such editors and admins with such attitudes on here in the past, and I don't care to remember any of them ... because dang, throwing fuel at a fire can result in good editors leaving Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. When confronted with a serious behavioral issue for such a highly important part of adminship, it's a no-brainer to oppose. Noah, AA^Talk 13:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose because of the answer to question 9. It is positive that TNW apologized however it is apparent they are still disapproving of Tamzin's comments which I believe were fair or at least not worth much attention. We are humans and can snap from time to time, and Tamzin's response to that PA was not too over the line. I believe the view of users including admins having to stick to an impeccable behaviour at all times even when insulted is more counterproductive than the use of sarcasm. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

   Strong oppose following the second answer to Q9. I was considering to move to a weak support based on many editors' argument that this is an isolated event and that they would still represent a net positive, which I found undeniable. However the second reply at Q9 uses such a strange and excessive language that feels dishonest even if well-intentioned and feels like it really misses the point. An ideal follow-up to the question for me would have shown some understanding from TNW as to why did editors find their behaviour during the interaction with Tamzin as inappropriate, this could have pulled me into the support band. Instead we got an I am really, really, really, really sorry, and I will never, ever, ever, ever do it again mixed with some (sarcastic?) self-deprecation, which is something nobody wanted to see. I cannot imagine being hypothethically at ANI and having my continued participation in Wikipedia pending by an admin doing comments like this [2].

   May I add though that it is important as Sirdog said not to make this end up in TNW feeling unwanted from the project. Their content-writing skills are greatly appreciated. Personally I think it should be fine with them reapplying in some years provided they don't experience any similar incident like the one with Tamzin again. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

6. equally per Tamzin and their answer to Q9. An admin is going to see a lot worse than sarcasm at the boards, and feeling disappointed and betrayed by 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)
7. Oppose Temperament issues highlighted by the first oppose. Unfortunately, while the candidate's content work is second to none, as is their devotion to it, it is not in the areas they most like that their demeanour should be tested. Likewise, it is not in the areas of the project they most enjoy working on, nor the words of those who consider themselves friends. Ironically, RfA and the FAC process are not dissimilar in their philosophies: they are both about weeding out faults before going live. The former—paraphrased—notes that all candidates are assumed to have good qualities. Therefore, it is the criticisms that are more important to address. Most RfAs are like this. Good faith tells us that the majority of candidates are already halfway there (at least), so it is in areas of conflict and stress that their approach should be judged, not where they are happiest. Not that they need be an Aunt Sally, merely that to be an effective admin, they will need to show a thick enough skin and a sufficiently robust response to vandals, POV-pushers, spammers and controversial topics, etc without resorting to personalising, mansplaining or sarcasm (for example). I am not at all reassured this will not reoccur, but this time backed by a toolset. ——Serial 14:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

   Also, per Spicy, whose analysis of A9 as Melodramatic self-pity is a soundly succinct superlative summation. ——Serial 14:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

8. Oppose. The answer to question 9 doesn't convince me. Desertarun (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Tamzin and Acalamari, nothing else to add. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Tamzin, have concerns regarding previous behavior. Let'srun (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Tamzin. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Partly per Tamzin, but also because the vibe I’m getting from the candidate’s answers to questions, mistakes subpage and other stuff I found links to doesn’t feel consistent with the high expectations required of en-WP in 2024. From what I’ve seen, I don’t believe the candidate can be trusted with the tools at this time. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC) Addendum: in particular, what I see is that some of the answers just don’t jive with the additional competences expected and required of admins. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
13. Q9 really misses the mark for me. It’s one thing if a workaday editor expresses concern about admin conduct, even if not in a helpful way; I wouldn’t necessarily find that disqualifying. It’s more concerning though not to grasp that the issue here is whether as an admin they will be able to see the forest for the trees in contentious moments. Continuing to focus on the "proper" way to admonish a person in Tamzin’s position instead of grasping that the main concern here is about what needs to be prioritized in adjudicating such an interaction doesn’t fill me with confidence. And I agree very much with Tamzin about the cultural change over the course of my WP tenure and not wishing to see a return to the bad old days of abandoning or even piling on subjects of mistreatment if they aren’t perfect victims. I’m sorry, I don’t relish opposing an RFA, but admins’ role in upholding constructive discussion is a high priority for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Tamzin. WWGB (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
15. Oppose based on my previous Neutral comment, and Q9 just grating on me, the more I read it. There is a serious lack of clue regarding how to deal with disruptive editors with TNW, and Q9 was strike two. I don't think we need (or can afford) a third strike here. This doesn't make them a bad person or bad editor, but I fear they will be a net negative with the bit, particularly when they were given the opportunity to address the initial comment, and they missed the mark so terribly. We've already seen too much of this with other admins, past and present. Dennis Brown 2¢ 03:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    @Dennis Brown: Your words "We've already seen too much of this with other admins, past and present" have me concerned. They indicate that there are many admins, including active ones, whose tone policing, which hews closely to what The Night Watch did, has done clear harm to this project. If that's the case, it would probably be enough to convince me to switch out of the support section. It's a big ask but would you please, here or somewhere else, lay out the actual evidence you have that this is a widespread problem? City of Silver 03:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    I've filed at Arb on a couple of admins and have participated in a more than a few other cases, and have been fairly involved with the subject since I first became an admin in 2012 (even penned a proposed policy to make it easier to desysop admin, which didn't get consensus). The "24 hour waiting period" policy for admin asking to get their admin bit back was put in place due to a case I initiated. So the topic of "problem admins" is something I care about, and get involved with. I wouldn't say it's a "widespread" problem, but it is common enough we don't need to add to it. As tough as RFA is, it is still easier (and faster) to become an admin than it is to get the bit stripped from a bad one. Dennis Brown 2¢ 04:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    @Dennis Brown: It's funny: I'm disappointed that you didn't provide one single specific but I didn't specifically ask you for specifics so I guess it's my fault. Although really, I did question the idea that there were and are enough admins whose tone policing was and is so problematic that The Night Watch's one display of that behavior was enough to bring you here to oppose. I didn't ask about "problem admins" (why is that in quotation marks?) in general; I absolutely agree that this website has plenty of unworthy administrators and the lack of a working process to remove their tools is an outrage. City of Silver 05:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    It probably isn't the best idea to provide examples of current admins in a poor fashion within an RFA. If there are dismissed admins, maybe those could be provided. Conyo14 (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    I don't name names outside of an Arb case, regardless. That isn't kosher. I gave one example. And it was in quotes meaning it encompasses all kinds of "problems", not just this type. More importantly, I'm not here to pursued you (or anyone), that isn't my job. !Vote as you see fit. What I won't do is going into the history of bad admins in the middle of an RfA. Dennis Brown 2¢ 11:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

16. Oppose - I too am concerned about the attitude the nominee is projecting, so I'm opposing per Tamzin and Dennis Brown. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
17. Oppose per above. Concerns with judgement and answer to Q9 -Fastily 08:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Tamzin and Serial. Admins need to have courtesy and respect, not attitude problems. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
19. Oppose per Dennis Brown and Leeky's first paragraph. Q9 was a free chance to course correct for the future. Instead, the answer leaves enough to be desired, making this not a 'single' incident. Unconvinced by OwenX and Generalrelative's arguments on support. The fact that a current admin's conduct cannot be resolved as easily.. is a failing of the current system, not an invitation to skip said standards for upcoming admins. I'm not convinced they'll be a net negative to the admin corps, but have enough uncertainty to make this an oppose for now. Soni (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Tamzin. Rawsar6 (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
21. Oppose....maybe in a year With barely two years since their first edit, there's not enough history to reassure that the incidents which raised concerns were just anomalies or a long past learning experience. Suggest getting another year of experience and track record. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
22. Oppose - I have some concerns about experience and maturity. One for the future. GiantSnowman 20:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    @GiantSnowman: could you explain these concerns and how the candidate can address them so you'd support them in future? — Bilorv (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    It is largely the same concerns shared and expressed by others. GiantSnowman 21:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

23. Oppose The answer to Question 9 and the terms in which the nominee describers the situation do not inspire confidence. If they're made an admin, they'll have to exercise sound judgement in circumstances more difficult than the run-of-the-mill incivility discussed in Q9. I applaud the candidate's content contribution, but such questions of temperament are in my view crucial when using the tools. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
24. Oppose based on the cringy groveling in 9. Let's recap, Tamzin was sarcastic. TNW rightly called them on it. Then when faced with this landslide of Gretta-like "how dare you" opposes in the RFA, TNW does an about face. I expect admins to do better and that applies to Tamzin and TNW. But for the purpose of this RFA I expect the candidate to be honest; groveling to get the bit shows that they are not right for the job. Shame. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    Sad to see that Leeky behaves in an unadminlike manner in this RFA with WP:POINTY remarks, Tsk tsk. Lightburst (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    Lightburst, you have every right to oppose, but that is a frankly shocking assumption of bad faith on your part. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    Calibrating based on feedback could also be viewed as a good trait. It is kind of the opposite of WP:IDHT. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    I made a mistake not supporting your RFA. But this one was going to pass because the opposes have little merit; you can see that based on how many editors dismissed the concerns. But I see TNW answering honestly in the first part of question nine, and then seeing it did not appease, they groveled (second part of question 9) and it made me cringe. Lightburst (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    I think it is unfair to judge TNW for folding under what has been an unusually direct and persistent social pressure in an RfA. It's like Hard cases make bad law. You acknowledged TNW's great contributions and interactions with others in your original vote - you and I agree these are great concepts to measure another by. I would encourage you to strike both votes if you feel that you can't reconcile them. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

25. Oppose per Tamzin and Dennis Brown, and the fact that I am not satisfied by TNW's answer to question 9. I have serious concerns as to their temperament and how they will deal with conflict going forward as an admin, especially given that the personal attack on Tamzin was quite recent. Patient Zero^talk 23:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
26. Oppose per Tamzin, although I believe that the question by leeky should not have been asked in the first place. Disheartening to see a large amount of bad faith rhetoric on this RFA over interactions not relevant to the candidate on hand. Keep your drama to yourselves people. Tooncool64 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    huh? ltbdl (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    Also i believe it would be best for TNW to withdraw their request, especially after the second part of the answer to question 9. Tooncool64 (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    huh? City of Silver 05:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    Please, for the love of God, don't do this. I believe that even if this ends up at bureaucrat chat, it will be a clear promote whatsoever. NotAGenious (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, suggesting that someone withdraw while over 75% is a kind of backdoor "super-oppose" that I hope the candidate knows to disregard. I recall in my RfA those were some of the toughest comments. If TNW chooses to withdraw, that's their prerogative, but no one should be pressuring them to do so. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 12:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

27. Oppose - The initial response to Q9 and the extended response to Q9 both strongly indicate to me that TNW does not possess anything approaching the temperament necessary for an admin. I'll highlight example fragments that I find concerning, but refrain from expounding upon them.

    I do remember seeing the sarcasm in Tamzin’s comment and disapproving of that in the moment ... [left] me feeling a little disappointed and betrayed after seeing that remark ... my abrupt bluntness probably stemmed from my belief that sysops should not engage in that type of language ... my intent was never to hurt you ... that I looked up [to] would be doing something like that

    I only care that I can get to you the words that both of you need. What I did [was] a truly inexcusable wrong, and I doubt I will ever forgive myself for acting like a rude, patronizing parent. I truly am Malvolio, a blind, vain fool that did not show compassion to the harmed ...

    I'll leave only this brief comment about the posts: this is not apologizing for an error with dignity. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
28. Oppose. Yikes yikes yikes yikes. I've been mulling over what I would say on this RFA, or whether I should !vote at all. But after this addendum to the answer to Q9, what can I possibly add? Absolutely stark evidence of "not the right temperament for an admin". I am certain that TNW is a net positive to the encyclopedia. But someone who collapses into self abnegation over being called out for tone policing, who thinks this exchange with tamzin was a "truly inexcusable wrong", cannot be allowed anywhere near the block button. -- asilvering (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Anyone who's ever been attacked or bullied is familiar with this kind of victim blaming. The focus on the victim's response, rather than what led to it. Being told not to "lower yourself to the same level". As if you asked for it in the first place. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
30. Oppose: I am sure that TNW is a good editor and valuable to the encyclopaedia, but the response and subsequent addition to Q9 are concerning. Both temperament and communication skills are vital qualifications for adminship, and it is difficult to explain what has been written here except as a problem with at least one of those two. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
31. Oppose I don't think I've ever opposed an RFA before, but the addendum to Q9 is, in my mind, disqualifying. Whether I read it as sarcastic or serious or somewhere in between, this is nowhere near the mature temperament that I'd like to see. Leijurv (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
32. Oppose The addendum to Q9 does not demonstrate the judgment and temperament that I would expect from an admin. Melodramatic self-pity isn't an appropriate or mature response to criticism. Spicy (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    Yeah, except it wasn't "Melodramatic self-pity". It's was the soul searching of an exceptionally conscientious individual who's realised they made a mistake which caused unwarranted distress to someone they look up to. A few more years experience in this wicked world, and the candidate should learn to be more defensive in how they express such things. Still really impressive, hence why editors with a more realistic & generous interpretation, like Leaky, moved to support per the addendum. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

33. Oppose, per Spicy. The second part of the answer to Q9 does not convince me of the candidate's ability to handle criticism in the way we expect admins to. Giraffer (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
34. Oppose, primarily per Super Dromaeosaurus, and the follow-up to his vote. I don’t often comment on RfAs, but feel the need to do so here. Yoblyblob (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
35. Oppose. The incident at Leeky's RfA was unfortunate and the behaviour displayed suboptimal, but that is one incident and definitely shouldn't be disqualifying on its own. The initial response to Q9 was fair - I agree that it didn't seem to solidly demonstrate that it was the content vs the venue and timing that was the problem, but it seemed a reasonable enough response and we should not expect perfection from admin candidates. The follow up however appears to be self-flagellation rather than the result of a serious reconsideration of the matter, which along with the original incident, sums to a sense that The Night Watch doesn't (yet?) have the kind of temperament we're looking for in administrators.
    We also have User:The Night Watch/Mistakes were made - which on the face of it demonstrates a willingness to own mistakes and learn from them, which can only be a good thing. However, a few of the incidents there seem to be blown somewhat out of proportion and described in a melodramatic fashion, which is less good - it again gives an impression of self-flagellation rather than a calm attempt to learn.
    0xDEADBEEF makes a fair argument above: here TNW apologizes and says that they were wrong, and the response to that, is.. more tone policing?? How ironic that TNW got opposes for expressing their disapproval at a sarcastic comment, and got more opposes because people think the tone of the followup could be sarcastic?. My opposition is not based around the fact that TNW apologised (which they did in the original response), nor do I believe that their followup is sarcastic. The rapid move toward "never forgiving oneself" and talk of soul searching over what was (in the grand scheme of things) a minor issue, when viewed in conjunction with the strong response to Tamzin in at Leeky's RfA and the way some incidents are characterised in their "mistakes" page, is what bothers me. Administrators often deal with emotive issues and need to de-escalate / remove passion from a situation, and I'm not yet convinced that TNW demonstrates good judgment when handling such things. firefly ( t · c ) 16:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
36. Oppose I doubt I will ever forgive myself Yikes! That's either poorly-veiled sarcasm or inappropriate melodrama. No way. Not temperamentally suited. -- Veggies (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Moved to oppose. Tamzin raises an interesting point. It was only one comment (there may be others) but it doesn't look good. Honestly, I can see myself making the exact same comment that Tamzin did, in the exact same tone. Policy doesn't require we treat disruptive people with kid gloves, only that we are responsible about it. Not sure I will oppose, but that attitude of blaming the person that was being attacked wasn't helpful. They scolded Tamzin, without even addressing the fact that the OP made a fairly harsh personal attack. They only described the initial !vote as "ridiculous". It almost looked like gaslighting. I'm not sure where I will land by the time it closes. Dennis Brown 2¢ 06:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Support. # Neutral for now. Tamzin's Oppose gives me a pause re. candidate's attitude, however I need some time to better judge the gravity, because as it appears now, a single instance of impertinence should hardly be a valid reason for blocking a worthy candidate from the tools. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Neutral. On the one hand, it is tempting to support since they seem to be unafraid to criticize a member of the lord/lady class, which could lead to lots of drama. On the other hand, it is very tempting to oppose as their use of the word "tenure" in I have made a few edits to ANI over my tenure strikes me as having a decidedly feudalistic flavour. (I will also remain neutral as I incline towards "oppose" because I hold a minority opinion that writing articles about video games should not really be considered content creation.) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

   moved to support in light of the follow-up to A9 I think that the supporters who argue that "the candidate has learned their lesson", or that they've apologized, didn't read the answer to my Q9 closely enough. TNW's answer boils down to "I'm sorry for saying this out loud", which is very different from "in the future, I will approach conduct disputes with compassion for people who, in the heat of the moment, mildly vent at no one in particular, and will instead focus on those who intentionally choose their words to hurt others." The "it was just one incident" comments similarly ring hollow: The Night Watch says in this RfA that they agree with the principle of what they said then, which presumably means that they'll apply it as a sysop. If the candidate does reflect on fact that the opposition is to the content of what they said – not the time, place, and manner of it – and follows up A9 with a statement to that effect, I would be happy to move into the support column. (Not now. Take a day or two to think about it.)

   That said, I've never opposed an RfA before, and I wouldn't like to start now. I think the opposes fail to demonstrate that the candidate will be a net negative in the areas they wish to work in. Their point is valid – but I don't think it's everything. Whether or not you receive the tools, The Night Watch, I wish you lots of luck, happiness, and strength of mind :) I remain neutral. by the way, you can absolutely call me "leeky" :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

   Moved to Support. Neutral due to the statements by Tamzin. However I'm stopping at neutral as I do not have a clear view of the full incident. Also besides that I see no significant issues of TNW gaining admin rights, as in the same way as the statement above claims, I don't see how TNW would be a "bad" admin overall- although they do have a point. AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

2. While I liked the answers to my questions, I am a little unsure of the answer to Q9 in the same way that Theleekycauldron is unsure. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

   Moved to Support. # Neutral. I do not feel comfortable opposing this candidate at all, and while I would never oppose a candidate over a single concerning interaction either, the answer to Q9 is quite bad and misses the mark for me, and I share the opinion of theleekycauldron on it. As such, I will be neutral on this. Brat Forelli🦊 02:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

3. I've been umming and ahhing about this one, torn between whether it's fair to judge someone based on what is (to my knowledge, at least; I've not had m-/any dealings with this user) a single, isolated incident; or whether one should, in the words of Maya Angelou, "when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time". I think I was leaning towards the former, until I read the answer to Leeky's Q9, which I'm uncomfortable with, and hence am now probably tending the other way. I hope to fall off the fence before this closes, otherwise I'm stuck here. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
4. This is my fourth time writing something for this RfA. I wrote an oppose, a neutral, and a support. I've been struggling with this for about an hour now. Even as I am writing this, I have swung between neutral and support. This is tearing me apart at the moment and I really hope someone says something damning in favor or opposition of the candidate before the RfA ends so I can make my mind up. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 16:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Neutral - I would like to thank The Night Watch both for their contributions to the project and for running for adminship. I have had much the same trouble as Dialmayo, so I shall Neutral for now. My strongest Support opinions come from their admittance of wrong in Q9 in such a public and stressful venue, their content creation, their nominators, and some of their optional question replies. My strongest Oppose opinions come from their interaction with Tamzin, TNW focusing solely on their own phrasing to Tamzin in Q9 - but not addressing the opposing view at all even if it were to disagree with it - and their self beat up in the Q9 addendum. Some editors interpret the addendum as a heartfelt apology, which isn't wrong per say, but I find myself agreeing with asilvering's assessment (Oppose #28) of it more - to the point it almost made me Oppose. I wish to express quite strongly that I do not want this RfA experience to result in TNW feeling unwanted on the English Wikipedia. —Sirdog (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
6. Moved from support. Neutral unfortunately per Spicy's oppose, which I don't think is enough to oppose, but I cannot continue my support. ^Queenof_Hearts 13:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• So, today at RFA, we have a new candidate with:
  1. Co-nominations from two current admins, both in good standing (and generally well-liked, I'd wager)
  2. Solid AFD participation, and a >90% consensus-match rate
  3. Good participation in AIV and UAA
  4. Great content creation, with >10 GAs and a handful of FAs

And 24 hours in we've got 12 Opposes notched, based solely on a single interaction (at RFA, of all places).

Golly gee, if only we could figure out what was wrong with RFA, so more people would run for admin... PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with most of your statement, I would dispute that all 13 opposes are based solely on a single interaction considering that some of the oppose votes mention the answer to Q9 as another reason to oppose (which is in itself separate to the comments at that RfA, even if it discusses that interaction). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm supporting TNG, but TBH I don't see a "solid AFD participation" in this candidate. I'd say their participation was OK and leave it at that. 83 !votes at AFD, and only 26 in the last 12 months, mostly in the video games field, is pretty unremarkable, though I'll credit them writing full rationales for their !votes. TNG has a good content-creation record and that's their strength. FOARP (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Shaka, when the walls fell! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

83 votes isn't enough to merit a relatively unboastful adjective like "solid"? How many votes would you like to see from an RFA candidate? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

To close contentious/complex AFDs, I’d prefer 200+ for an editor who has been around for more than a few years, and ~100 in the past 12 months. Additionally, they should be spread over a range of topic areas.

I think TNG is a good candidate, but I wouldn’t have chosen this as a selling point for them given that the number of AFDs they’ve voted in total in a number of years as an editor is not so different to the number of AFDs that can be opened in a particularly busy 24 hour period on here. FOARP (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

PS - In case anyone's wondering, please also add my vote to the count for "seriously, what happened in this RFA? Like, a single incident? That's it? And then you land on their attempt to damage-control because it's either too grovelling or not grovelling enough?". I mean people can !vote the way they !vote, but to me this is just an issue with the community engaging in what is effectively a witch-hunt against someone who has been singled out. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I do feel that TNW's answers are undercooked, and that the voters have behaved inappropriately in this RfA. Some voters have essentially offered TNW their vote in exchange for a change in behaviour during the RfA, which is perverse. Doubly perverse when the issue has become "are you compassionate enough". There's no way for TNW to prove that in an RfA except in a way that is coerced. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

---

@The Night Watch: I don't want to turn this into a "gotcha" kind of thing, but your answer to Q13, while not wrong, is missing what I consider the most important thing, which is that the user in question is unlikely to ever see the message. If they're on a dynamic IP (as most IPs are), they'll never see it unless they happen to get reassigned the same IP again. And on mobile (i.e. most of our users), my understanding is that there's no alerting at all. Just something to be aware of when issuing warnings to IPs. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth it's obvious to me that this was the intent of the question now you've said it but when I read A13 I didn't notice the omission. It's worth linking WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU and saying that we've also had issues with logged-in editors appearing to never notice or be shown a talk page message or notification, up to the point where they're indefinitely blocked (from mainspace or completely) as a last attempt to force communication. The sad truth is that most messages go unread. — Bilorv (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

---

I certainly understand why people are concerned about the comment made to Tamzin - I too think it showed a lack of grace and respect to someone who had been targeted. I get - though don't agree with - the concerns about the reply at Question 9. For me this falls in the "everyone can have a bad day category". Are there examples, outside of Q9, of this candidate having a bad day that suggest a real pattern rather than the current evidence of a (mind you I don't agree with this interoperation) a bad day + a doubling down of a mistake here? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

As someone who had previously requested Tamzin to be my mentor at SPI and was trusted by them with advanced permission, I can personally attest to Tamzin’s kind and merciful nature. And based on the RFA candidate’s response, I sincerely believe that they will forgive their junior editor for any past mistakes and enthusiastically accept them into the admin corps. Maliner (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I think User:The Night Watch/Mistakes were made is a good yardstick. Some have brought it up in support !votes, but this is what initially put me on the fence. I see a clear line from this to both the comment at Tamzin and the increasingly over the top responses to Q9: these are the words of someone who makes mountains of molehills, and doesn't learn from mistakes so much as wear them as hair shirts. -- asilvering (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I rarely spend much time on RFA and I haven't interacted much (or at all) with TNW, but I find this nomination and most of the opposition to it perplexing. This project needs more admins, but who would want to go through this process if one poor interaction is worthy of a dogpile? Also, how many of these opposers who have objected to Q9 have applied the type of good faith to the answer we're supposed to apply to all editors? Nemov (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)