Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Night Watch

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

The Night Watch

Final (215/63/13); closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 00:03, 11 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: I would particularly consider Editor B's block log and its emphasis on edit warring and incivility, and also observe the contributions of the newer Editor A to see whether there are any edits of concern in their short history. Interestingly, Editor A is adding information contrary to the more reliable Oxford sources, and they should be clearly told what they are doing is wrong. On the other hand, Editor B is not improving the situation with their edit warring and PAs. My goal would be to make sure that both editors are treated fairly: I have seen situations where the content creation and tenure of an experienced editor causes others to support said editor over a newer one, or the older editor could have had a notably difficult record and caused other users to support the new user over the older one. First and foremost, I would consider the multiple potential reasons why Editor B could be acting like this: maybe they deal with a lot of socks or nationalist edit warriors and have become jaded over the years. There is a chance this is their consistent behavior across topic areas. I would also consider the behavior of Editor A; they may be a nationalist edit warrior, or maybe they are a confused and eager newbie. Depending on the severity of the edit warring, I might fully protect the page, or I may wait to see if the two editors can solve their issues without admin involvement. Editor A may also be a previously blocked editor and might be detected as a sock. Depending on the sanctions history I find in both editors, it may be a good idea to propose a revert restriction or topic ban of some sort. If the either editor is on a "last warning" for this behavior, a block is unfortunately necessary. If the topic area is a Contentious topic, this could be moved to AE which might be a better venue than ANI. I wouldn't plan on acting on these situations early as it takes time to learn about these editors and discretion to know when a dispute has escalated enough to place a sanction or protect a page. I would have to lurk and observe for some time before acting on these situations.

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.

Optional question from JPxG

16. Is there any additional thing you'd like to address, or something you felt like you weren't able to go in proper detail on with a previous question? Feel free to answer this at any time, or leave it blank, or whatever.

A:

Optional question from Brat Forelli

17. Out of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, which one would be the most personally important one to you and why?

A: Admittedly, this has been an unexpectedly difficult question because all of the pillars are vitally important in their own ways. The one that I find the most important is the second pillar, "neutral point of view". When people come to Wikipedia, they want a good, unbiased source of information unlike any other reference work on the internet. If Wikipedia had no neutral point of view, readers would have no reason to come here because they first and foremost want facts and not advocacy. Although I also particularly value pillar one because it is the foundation of our entire mission, without the second pillar we would not be able to truly be an encyclopedia.

Optional questions from 79.185.134.102

18. Imagine that one day you became insane and started vandalizing Wikipedia. You then get blocked (temporarily), but somehow retain your administrator permissions. What would you do?

• Appeal the block.
• Evade the block.
• Unblock myself.
• Wait for the block to expire.

A:

19. Suppose that a long-term abuser takes a wikibreak for at least 10 years. After that they create a new account (like a clean start), but without appealing any of their indefinite blocks. They turn out to be a constructive and trusted contributor, and eventually receive administrator permissions. However, you ultimately gather evidence that the administrator in question is actually that long-term abuser mentioned earlier (the account is not yet blocked). What would you do?

• Block the user.
• Report the incident to the appropriate noticeboard.
• Revoke the user's administrator permissions, but let them continue editing.
• Take no action.

A:

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)

   I would like to reitrate my support. From my vantage point, the candidate made a factually correct but mildly tactless statement several months ago, had an excellent initial response to it, and then caved to the opposition. So what? They're a admin, not a member of ArbCom. We don't need a Bold, Independent mind, we just need someone commited to the project and unlikely to cause trouble. It's disheartening to see people refuse themselves a partial reduction in a few of the admin maintenance backlogs, due to issues with the candidate which could only apply to areas they have already self-selected out of. Mach61 (talk) 02:26, 7 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)

   Wow, this RfA is tough. Just popping back in to say that I've read some extremely thoughtful and persuasive opposes, e.g. by asilvering and firefly. While I'm not swayed out of my net positive position, I will say I'm somewhat wobbled. No matter what happens, I hope that TNW will take those thoughtful comments to heart. Adminship is not for everyone, but neither is it meant to be a big deal. Generalrelative (talk) 19:09, 6 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)

    Future future comment: Nevermind I don't know where this debate is going. I'm too stupid to understand it :/ TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:32, 6 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)

    For what it's worth, I had over over 20,000 / 9% of my edits deleted when I passed at RfA in September (22k+ and still over 9% now). There are good reasons for it sometimes, such as CSD tagging (14.6k edits in my CSD log), AfC, NPP, AfD, or working in sandbox and requesting them to be deleted (~500 edits for me). Context is key and it can be tough to evaluate the context if you can't see the deleted edits. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:19, 10 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)

    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) -moved to neutral at 22:23 UTC February 7, 2024

24. Support LGTM ^^ Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
25. Heck yeah! Great user! Panini! • 🥪 06:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    Obligatory "my response to Q9": Really? One comment? Per Ingenuity and WP:DUEWEIGHT I guess, it was one time! One! I have more FAs than they have mistakes throughout the entirety of 2023. Those take me months; you can screw up in seconds. Is that not a solid record?

    I won't beat around the bush, I'll just say this is a wildly unnecessary, hyper-specific judgement over one moment in the blip of one's career of hard work for the better of an encyclopedia. I get that people are concerned for the future, but all of this discussion will be more than enough for this behavior to not happen again. Really, this was ~6 months ago. If this was a bad mentality that The Night Watch "struggled to hold back" they would have stumbled many times. I get mad too and might say things I regret later. We all do! That's why it's a level five vital article!

    And speaking of the opposes regarding the melodramatic-ness of Q9: this usually happens with famous people when the masses bring up something as small as a throwaway comment from their past (I think of that one time Jimmy Fallon had to apologize for something he said over 15 years ago). If an apology is really detailed and dramatic, like those crying and sighing ones, people will call them fake or selfish. If they say just a simple "I'm sorry", people will call them dismissive or selfish. It's a lose-lose. What you say in a publicized apology is a lose-lose and we all know that; that's why they're so hard to watch.

    The Night Watch is a storyteller; this is evident in their works, seeing that The Night Watch writes about those artsy indie video games that are silently lauded and have a cult following. Heck, they're even named after a painting; I'm named after a sandwich! I can understand the angle they approach the world; with a passion for art and narratives. That doesn't mean they're not logical and all that obviously—there's a reason why they're shooting for admin tools—but it's just a mindset they lean towards. I'm a similar way (but quite frankly I have a terrible balance of it, one of my articles was just tagged for not having an encyclopedic tone...). To me this is a perfectly understandable approach to an apology for a person like The Night Watch. It's a well-thought out means of expressing regret through thoughtful examples and carefully-placed linguistics. They mean every word they say and all of it is there with intention. That's what a storyteller does. This is especially clear because this is literally how The Night Watch talks: see this and this, examples of thoughtful (and beautiful) messages that were made to literally just answer questions. When over 7000 people are watching (that's this many people), of course a storyteller will construct something narratively brilliant to tell the masses. Like I said, those apologies are a lose-lose, it's not The Night Watch's fault. Panini! • 🥪 01:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

26. 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)

27. Support per the reasons already given by other editors. Professor Penguino (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
28. 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)
29. Support. Will be a positive for the encyclopedia if given a mop. Endwise (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
30. 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)
31. 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)
32. 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)
33. 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)

34. 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)
35. 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)
36. smallchief swung me over. ltbdl (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
37. 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)
38. 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)
39. 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)
40. Has a clue, not a jerk, happy to support. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    Upon reflection, changing mine to a weak support. While TNW's credentials remain impeccable as highlighted by the nominators, the addendum to Question 9 did not sit right with me. Though in weighing this up, one would need to decide whether potential temperament issues and an overly self-flagellating apology are enough to neutralise or outweigh an undeniably impressive reporting record at the boards they would use the tools at, and in my eyes, the answer is just about no. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

41. 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)
42. 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)
43. 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)
44. Support Good editor... should be good admin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
45. 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)
46. support don't see question 9 as an issue, IMO --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
47. 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)

    Reaffirming support – I've done the same thing as TNW by offering long, wordy defenses in stressful scenarios and I don't think it's a sign of bad character. If it comes across as overblown given the original issue, that's because the original issue has become overblown here (my opinion). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

48. 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)
49. 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)

    Popping in to reaffirm my support. I've read through all the opposes, which include some editors that I hold in high regard. And that list has gotten longer since I last looked in. However, I remain unconvinced. The totality of TNW's record is overwhelmingly positive and I have confidence that they will be fine. On an anecdotal note; I have cast a few oppose votes at RfA over the years, and yes, some passed despite my opposition. Oddly, if there has ever been a case where an admin I opposed in RfA later went on to give me grounds to say "I told you so;" I'm not aware of it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

50. 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)
51. 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)
52. Support - not a jerk, has a clue. And please take note of what AryKun said above... SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
53. 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)
54. 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)
55. 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)
56. Support A very good candidate. Bruxton (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
57. 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)
58. Slightly weak support. Changing to Strong support per the rationale in Lightburst's now-struck oppose vote and similarly antagonistic messages. Shushugah, currently support voter #31 #30 #29 #28, 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)

59. 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)
60. 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)
61. 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)
62. 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)

63. 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)
64. 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)
65. 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)

    Strong support - Frankly the amount of pushback here is kind of embarrassing for the community and discouraging to anyone who could be nominated for adminship in the future. One would think we're tasked with electing a supreme executive authority and not someone who is volunteering their time when they've proved to be a net positive to the community. Nemov (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

66. 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)
67. 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)
68. 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)

    Reaffirming Support These opposes are absolutely ridiculous. Can anyone find any other instances where TNW demonstrated a lack of judgment? I agree that the reply to Tamzin was absolutely unnecessary and unhelpful, it is not enough to disqualify TNW from adminship. In fact, I think this incident is so minor that they didn't need to apologize at all. Scorpions1325 (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    Changing to Strong Support While I still think the timing was inappropriate, there is nothing wrong with telling someone to empathize with people who hurt you. The answer to Q9 was a bit melodramatic, but I have come to the conclusion that TNW is exactly the type of administrator we need. Scorpions1325 (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

69. 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)

    Reaffirming my support. Snowmanonahoe said it well: if dozens of people unexpectedly pile on you, ostensibly for not being humble enough, this feels like torture, and you'll do everything to stop it.

    Moreover, I can't fathom how an instance of a minor impertinence is being made into a disqualifying vice, for someone with an otherwise excellent track record of 15,000+ constructive edits. My strongest support to TNW, hope you'll see through this absurd storm in a teapot. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

70. 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)

    Support – Has clue/strong candidate. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    Just not interested in !voting anymore. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

71. 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)
72. 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)

73. 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)

74. 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.

75. Support, well-qualified candidate. DanCherek (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
76. 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)
77. Stephen 04:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
78. 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)
79. Support TNW may not be perfect, but will make a great admin. Llwyld (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
80. 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)
81. 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)
82. 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)

    I'm popping by to reaffirm my support. Being asked to address one of the opposing votes directly in one of the "optional" questions creates a catch-22 situation for the candidate. Refusing to answer the question would likely generate more opposition, as would any possible answer to the question. Q9 put TNW between a rock and a hard place, and I cannot fault them for responding in the way they did. MaterialsPsych (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

83. 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)
84. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
85. Maliner (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
86. 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)
87. 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)
88. 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)
89. 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)
90. Per Hobit, PhotogenicScientist, and FAC. Vaticidalprophet 15:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
91. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
92. 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)
93. 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)
94. 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)
95. 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)
96. 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)
97. 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)
98. 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)
99. 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) Lightburst has struck the text I was reacting to. As a token of appreciation, I am happy to be conciliatory in kind. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

100. 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)

101. 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)

102. 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)
103. Sure. — Fox 00:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
104. 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)
105. 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)

     Just to add that I agree with others that the second response to Q9 is a bit OTT, but I think that's understandable in the context of the RfA environment and I don't see it as a disqualifier. Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

106. 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)
     • I want to say that I respect the people in the oppose section and I think that like anyone, their perspectives are worth considering. I think it's because of that respect that I've hesitated to say this before now. But I have my own opinion and I wanted to share it. I think it's unfair to the candidate to be so harsh on their responses to question 9, particularly the opposes about how they're supposedly overreacting or acting cringeworthy for having feelings. I think that's comparable to the problem people can have with tone policing... in my opinion that's basically two sides of the same coin. But I don't think it's a problem to genuinely care about how other people perceive your actions. It's human nature. I think it's also a good sign that someone's responsive to feedback and wants to do the right thing, even if they occasionally mess up like we all do. It shows they care and sympathize with others. Part of why I didn't want to run at RfA for so long was the fear that people I respected would find some irredeemable flaw and given how important the community is to me, that potential situation was a heartbreaking prospect. When my answer to the UUA question ended up being a point of contention, I ended up feeling genuinely awful, y'know? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
107. Support Rcsprinter123 (drawl) 01:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
108. 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)
109. Support mostly per theleekycauldron. –FlyingAce^✈hello 02:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
110. 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)
111. 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)
112. 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)
113. Per everyone else, really. NotAGenious (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
114. Support per above. Will do a great job with the mop. Gizza (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
115. Support don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Lightoil (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
116. 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)
117. 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)
118. 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)
119. Support Not convinced by the opposes. Intothatdarkness 12:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
120. Support: Net positive. QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 13:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
121. 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)
122. 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 quite thin. It seems to be perfectly fine to call out an administrator when you think they are straying from the path, i.e. the 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 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 that has developed, essentially for a single comment. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
123. 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)

     Reaffirming my support. Many !votes in the oppose section have criticized for being excessively self-critical, for "making a mountain out of a molehill." And yet, if I were in TNW's shoes, I would view everything the same way. This "molehill" has led to a cascade of oppose !votes against a candidate with no other issues on their record. If it's something that so clearly offended and hurt, I too, would be contrite, and do everything I could to make amends. The scale of the infraction, from TNW's perspective, or from the perspective of anyone in the hotseat, would be massive. TNW seeks to demonstrate a capacity for self-reflection and self-improvement, and, in my opinion, has clearly done so. Lkb335 (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

124. 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)
125. 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)
126. 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)
127. 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. Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 16:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
128. Support - I am extremely fond of Tamzin, but one comment about being upset with sarcasm shouldn't be sufficient to block someone from receiving the mop. If this is the worst this user ever did, they will make a fine admin. --GRuban (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)\
129. Support Good content creator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
130. Support. Clean block log, nearly half of their edits in article-space, my standard drama search found no instances of their being "taken to task" – just good comments with plenty of clue. Move log shows well over a hundred page-swaps, and I can't recall ever needing to clean up after any of them. Time for this editor to have the tools they need to be able to move pages the preferred way. As to this stinky section, I concur with User:0xDeadbeef's assessment of that (see above). I view the section as essentially empty, meaning "gone, aborted, flushed from memory"; just as the essentially empty section of that other RfA should have been viewed. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
131. Support, and despite my hesitation, quite firmly in the end. I like TNW's record of content creation, and I see a clear use-case for the tools. I was concerned by Tamzin's diff, and the initial response to Q9, because it implied TNW might focus on superficialities in a dispute, which is the opposite of what I want to see. The answer to my question reassures me that they're capable of looking beyond the bad words someone might have used. I'm also not wholly impressed by the second response to Q9 - as some opposes say, they're abasing themselves to an unnecessary degree. I don't doubt TNW's sincerity, but people are going to scream at you a lot as an admin, and you do need to have the courage of your conviction even while being open to criticism. That said, TNW wrote that response when they were in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation, which is what this RFA has become to some extent. I suspect TNW is feeling rather stressed at this point, and if the worst their doing is apologizing too profusely, they'll be a net positive with the mop. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
132. Support: If there were many incidents like the one with Tamzin, or if that incident had led to a compounding of the error, I'd not support, but I see no serious pattern of bad behavior. I'm not looking for perfection in an administrator, but here I see someone who has clue and will try to do a good job. That's sufficient for me. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
133. Support TNW seems competent, and unlikely to abuse the tools. The Oppose section gave me pause, but after thinking on it I'm not convinced by those arguments. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
134. Support. Good editor, and the Tamzin issue doesn't bother me, I mean if we disqualified everyone who Tamzin rubbed the wrong way or vice versa we'd have nobody left on the site. That being said, that addendum almost makes me think you want to self-torpedo the RfA because that was bad. Luckily I don't disqualify someone for a couple questionable edits out of many thousands like so many do. Wizardman 22:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
135. Support From what I have seen of this editor, he is reasonable at decision-making and skilled as an article creator. If a single point of Wiki-drama is a disqualifier for adminship, then we will likely have zero admins left at some point in the future due to impossibly stringent criteria, overall contributions should come first. I agree that the question response is really not a good look; it comes off as heavily sarcastic whether or not it was intended to be, but torpedoing the entire thing is a bit much. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
136. Support The melodrama in Q9 is amusing, I should thank this guy for providing comic relief. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
137. Support largely per Vanamonde93. Candidate has done excellent work, and shows tons of CLUE and, except for a glaring instance, isn't a jerk. Usually when a persuasively presented oppose is given, more evidence presents itself. That the candidate has received such large opposition, and yet there's been no evidence this is a pattern, it appears to be merely an aberration. The candidate has since been whacked for not going far enough, and whacked for going too far. Welcome to adminship. (but most admins don't spend their "careers" accompanied by anywhere near the levels of stress and scrutiny of an RfA). So the candidate made an error of judgement, and is now finding it difficult, if not impossible, to find precisely the right words to make it right. But guess what, I've goofed too. And so have you. And I'll bet we've all found ourselves in the position where there really isn't anything we can do to truly "make it right" afterwards. Honest discussion about a candidate is healthy, and some opposition to a good candidate can make a great candidate. But I hope we can all show each other a little more grace. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
138. Support per Wordsmith Geardona (talk to me?) 01:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
139. Support I have gone back and forth over this. I was leaning neutral after seeing Tamzin's oppose, then seriously considered opposing after seeing the answer to Q9, which I thought rather missed the mark. But ultimately I am in the Support column, as I have not seen any evidence of this being a pattern or indicative of their temperament in general. Having reflected on it I am confident that as a sysop they will do good work and will not be tone-policing anyone else. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
140. Support - I default to supporting unless there's a reason to oppose, and right now, I don't see a strong reason to oppose. The comment to Tamzin was not ideal, but I chalk it up as something most people have done before. You see something go wrong and feel obliged to intervene, then quickly realize/discover that there's no realistic scenario where your intervention results in a positive outcome, so you withdraw from it and never do it again. The answer to Q9 is a bit cringe-worthy (and I suspect TNW will realize it if they reread it in six months' time when emotions have cooled), but it's also understandable, because it's made in the very hostile context of an RfA. Since there's no strong reason to oppose, I am supporting. Banedon (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
141. Support - I would like to judge people by the same standard I want to be judged. With that stadard, I can't see any reason to oppose this nomination. Most of us have done far worse. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
142. Support The single issue misbehaviour brought up that causes all this stir is just that – a single issue. If it were part of a pattern, I'd be concerned. That the second answer to Q9 can be seen as melodramatic may well be an indication of extreme stress. Going through an RfA is no small thing; I shall assume good faith. I trust the editor will make a good admin. Schwede66 03:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
143. To be clear, I think that the comment the candidate made, which is the current gravamen of the oppose voters, was quite stupid and ill-advised, and I expect them not to do something like that again. During this RfA they were tossed a softball "say you're sorry so we can forgive you" question, which they responded to with an utterly bizarre display of over-the-top self-effacement ("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"). If this is a troll post clacked out in a fit of pique, well, that's worth opposing over. But I can't imagine why someone would do something like that, when so much is on the line, and the thing they're being asked to do is so small. So I will instead assume the best of the candidate, and that this was meant to be a serious response. In this case: come on, man, have some respect for yourself! No grown adult should write something like that unless they're responsible for dead bodies on the floor, and to be totally frank, neither should a teenager or a kid. I want you to develop some respect for yourself. I think a good way to do this is to assume the office of an administrator, take responsibility for having done something really dumb a while ago, and never grovel like this again. I support you doing this.
     I'll also note, for the record, that I am all in favor of Tamzin having opposed over this, since people should feel free to voice their opposition to a candidate based on conduct issues; if this causes an adminship request to become a toxic HAZMAT area, well, that is a fault with the vetting process, not a reason to refrain from vetting people during it. jp×g🗯️ 04:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
144. While I don't agree with the tone policing incident, I don't think it was that big of a deal, not big enough to oppose over, and definitely not worth the wikiseppuku in Q9. But I agree that two mistakes aren't disqualifying, even if the second one is really funny. The difference between a hyperbolic writing style and a drama queen is whether you see them making trouble at the noticeboards or not. This is a hyperbolic writing style, not a drama queen. And I'm impressed with the answers in Q14 and Q15. I'm usually wrong about these things but I think they'll be fine as an admin. Levivich (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

     Reaffirming. I don't see one bad answer (Q9) as outweighing like 20 other good answers, and I don't see opposes bringing up anything besides the Q9 issue. Levivich (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

145. Support - I'm struggling to see a civility infraction so egregious that it completely outweighs all other elements of this candidate's record and potential. A good, considered reply to the question from Vanamonde93. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
146. Support per Schwede66; I also found jxpg and Tamzin's comments (wrt stress of an RfA) persuasive. Must an admin candidate be perfect (i.e. incident-less), and is this (as far as I can tell) sole issue of substance so great as to be a disqualifying bright line? I find not. Bilorv puts the other, excellent work of TNW well above. TNW, thanks for standing! —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 06:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
147. Support. The Night Watch is well-qualified, and I have no reason to make generalized negative inferences about "temperament". Nothing more needs to be said about this drama. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
148. Support - TNW is a good candidate. Riposte97 (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
149. Support – From what I have seen of TNW he is reasonable at decision-making and skilled as an article creator. I like TNWs record of content creation, and I see a clear use-case for the tools, they will make a fine admin. --Pimpinellus (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
150. Support. Are these the worst things one may say about this candidate? An editor here since 2010? I read an editor who has largely kept themselves out of trouble. Any editor who passes theleekycauldron's close evaluation is on my radar. This candidate seems fully qualified and has IMHO demonstrated they are here for the long haul. We shouldn't allow the perfect to prevent a positive outcome. Finally, they have conducted themselves honorably while being subjected to this gauntlet. Give this trusted person a mop. BusterD (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
151. Support. The basics are there - has a clue, not a jerk, great content contributions, all the rest of it. On the specific issue that people are opposing over, I personally think being receptive to criticism and understanding and taking stock of what you're being told and correcting yourself on it is absolutely what should be happening, whether you're a seasoned admin or a noob. None of us are exempt from learning and improving. So per Leeky's updated support, I have few concerns on this one. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
152. Support - Trust that if this is the biggest issue in all their years of editing they'll be fine as an admin. I think the opposes are perfectly valid with how ill-advised and somewhat confusing the response and addendum to Q9 are, but in the balance of all things it doesn't tip the scale for me. If this RfA fails, I hope the candidate does some productive reflection and tries again a year or two down the line.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 18:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
153. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
154. Support per BusterD. Mccapra (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
155. Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
156. Support We need more administrators.JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
157. Support. I knew of this editor from their writing of FNAF which I thought had some very high quality writing. I don't see the Q9 response as a deal breaker. It's a bit oddly worded (sure, a bit melodramatic), but it wouldn't be a big deal if this was said anywhere besides RFA. Everyone needs to step back and chill for a second because this is all being blown out of proportion. The Night Watch was clearly trying to express empathy and introspection with that comment, and their intent should matter more than execution in this case.
     Do you or do you not want admins willing to take on board criticism? Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
158. Support. I don't think the criticism in the oppose section outweighs the good they have done, and will likely continue to do. Q9 response is a little silly and melodramatic, it's not a dealbreaker for me. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
159. Support The admins most concerning to me are the ones with an unshakably high opinion of their own correctness and the ones who go silent when they take fire; TNW is the opposite of those things. Vadder (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
160. Support. When this RfA was first transcluded, I was pretty sure I was going to support. Then I saw Tamzin's oppose, which I take seriously, and I decided to wait a few days, to see what develops. We have a candidate who checks a lot of boxes for the things that make for an excellent admin: strong content work, a strong track record of being helpful to new editors, and a strong track record of making the right decisions on things where admins have tools to act. That's a lot, and it's very good. So, like quite a few other editors, I wanted to see whether the comment directed at Tamzin was a one-off, a bad day that should not discredit a long record of valued work – or part of a pattern of being a scold, which might well be disqualifying. That's a big deal, either way. I don't want admins who will be the Tone Police, but I also don't want to contribute to the tendency of RfA to be a toxic place, where the only way to pass is to have the blandest of histories, because any isolated fault will be jumped on like this were an online social media site. So I think I've given this enough days to see if anyone would come up with more examples, indicating a pattern. As for the original event, an editor behaved poorly, Tamzin correctly called that out, but did indeed do so in a sarcastic way, and the candidate here pointed out the sarcasm in a way that was scoldy, but hardly the worst thing I have seen on Wikipedia. Then there's the user subpage about mistakes were made, which on the plus side is self-aware, and on the minus side is a little agrandizing. And then we have the reply to leeky's question above. Except for one sentence, I'm good with both parts of the reply: a genuine recognition and acknowledgment of a mistake, and the honesty of admitting being caught up in the emotion of the RfA and not wanting to make an apology that would be forced in the moment. But it's still an apology, as leeky's own support comment makes me feel confident. But that one sentence, the one that mentions Malvolio and then lapses into self-flagellation, is too theatrical for my tastes, and has clearly put off some other editors too. But that's how far the pattern goes: one bad day, and some pattern of being too theatrical. For me, to oppose on that basis would be to treat RfA as a toxic gotcha. So I'm confidently supporting on the basis of strong content work, clear evidence of kindness to new editors, and clear clue about how admins should do things – along with me giving the advice (superfluous by now) to steer clear of the theatrics when speaking as an admin. Because affect is difficult to get right, online. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
161. Support, per WP:NOBIGDEAL and no reason not to; I don't see the reasons expressed by the opposers as sufficient reason to not grant adminship - admin's don't need to be perfect, and I have no doubt that this editor will make a better admin than many of our current cohort. BilledMammal (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
162. Support. Try less Malvolio and more Judge Dredd and you'll be fine.—Alalch E. 13:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
163. Support, their response to A9 is enough to alleviate the only major concern anyone's raised. Has a clue. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
164. Support I had an overall positive impression before this RfA. Between the noms, weighing supports and opposes, and doing a bit of trawling through the edit history, landing here but understand some of the hesitancy. Hopefully will grow and understand an admin doesn't have to do all admin-y things right away, or at all, just what they're capable and comfortable doing (other than WP:ADMINCOND and other basic minimums). Skynxnex (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
165. Support I rarely comment on RfAs where I have not come across the candidate, but after reading through this I decided to give some moral support to TNW. While the follow-up response to Q9 was not great, a well-attended but marginal RfA is a very stressful situation and I can understand lapses of judgement in this context. I see several comments saying that TNW will have to handle similar stressful situations as an admin – I'm not sure that is the case, as I can't remember any admin-related stuff that I've done over the past decade and a half that was anywhere near as stressful as my RfA. It seems that nearly all the opposes are linked in some way to this incident and the response to it, which seems to suggest they haven't really done a lot wrong in their time on Wikipedia apart from this. I look back at some of my past interactions with others – both before and after I became an admin – and cringe; however, I don't feel any of that affected my ability to do admin-type stuff. Dealing with others is a learning process and nearly all of us make mistakes along the way. It's also worth remembering that adminship is not for life – if this does turn into a problematic pattern, then desysoping is a possibility. Number 57 14:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
166. Support I've come across the candidate and do not have anything to say about my interactions. While I initially abstained from commenting based on the opposes, TNW's responses (accounting for the stress they must be under) have addressed my concerns. Sohom (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
167. Support, despite the Tamzin incident. We need more good admins, and I don't doubt that TNW would be one. Maproom (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
168. Support. I am not concerned by this Tamzin incident, nor very much by the response. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
169. Support I see no cause for concern and I feel they will make a good admin. Meanderingbartender (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
170. Support. I wavered over this, and I appreciate the concerns below. Overall however the candidate is a net positive though I do request them to consider the concerns expressed and learn from them. ResonantDis_tortion 23:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
171. Overall, I am convinced that The Night Watch will make a good admin. The particular thread that Tamzin brought up was over six months ago. I have no dobut that TNW has learnt from it. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 23:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
172. Support. Clearly a net-positive, and clueful. One example of a momentary bit of "tone policing" isn't sufficient evidence of any kind of problem. Frankly, almost all the admins I'm aware of engage in tone-policing from time to time, mostly in efforts to stop poor discussions from worsening. Anyway, candidate seems to understand what they are doing, and we do need more admins, and "candidate is not inhumanly perfect" isn't an opposition rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
173. Support per Levivich. TNW will probably do just fine. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
174. Support TNW is a good content creator and seems like a nice/good person. His response to Question 9 makes me support TNW even more. It shows that TNW is concerned about fairness and civility. TNW might have acted too fast in the moment, but it is not a big deal. We need admins and i think that TNW will be a good one. Tradedia^talk 00:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
175. Support - I originally went Neutral, centrally, due to the incident Tamzin described, the Q9 answer, and the Q9 addendum. At the time of my vote I felt that through the melodrama of the addendum the candidate had shown lack of capacity to maintain composure under stress, which is fairly important for administrators. However... those were basically the only things holding me back. Despite the plurality of other data points which show that The Night Watch will otherwise be a good administrator. In other words, my feelings were primarily responsible for holding me back (for me personally, I make no judgment on other opposers). I am also not an administrator myself, so I have no real justification to argue against Tamzin's own addendum stating "nothing I've done as an admin, including trips to ArbCom on both sides of the equation, has come close to the stress of [RfA]". Ultimately, per WP:ADMINCOND: "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship". If the worst that will happen is that The Night Watch will make mistakes and, upon review, view them in a worse light than may be objectively reasonable, then I believe we are just fine. It's not as if I can't relate with that myself. With these things in mind, I find myself shifting to support. I will reiterate, since it has now been striken, that I do not wish this RfA experience to result in The Night Watch feeling unwanted on the English Wikipedia. —Sirdog (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
176. Support - One snippy comment doesn't concern me. If one out-of-line response in several years is enough to keep people from trusting that person as an admin, y'all had better revoke my admin and probably 95% of the other admins too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
177. Support – My God, we've been going along so well there for a while. We've had a nice run of RfAs, not all of them successful, but all featuring strong candidates and very little drama.

     Sigh. All streaks must eventually end.

     I should start by saying about TNW that while I have seen their name around, I really don't have much knowledge of them to say anything one way or the other (well, if it was the other, I wouldn't be in this column, now, would I?) So my !vote here is not based on any personal experience.

     Despite not having !voted in their RfA I have the greatest respect for Tamzin, whom I had the pleasure of meeting F2F at WCNA in Toronto a couple of months ago. When they support, I often find it a strong endorsement of the candidate, and it feels not in the least awkward to be myself supporting when they have opposed (something we rarely see). I do not in any way dispute the legitimacy of their emotional reaction to TNW's response to her, and its affirmation by some of the other opposers. I do not in any way make this as an "I oppose the opposes" support !vote. We have far too many of those in some of our more, uh, memorable RfAs, and I cannot say there aren't some here. (I do get the feeling Tamzin is having some reservations and second thoughts about having started something they couldn't finish, which did bend me in this direction).

     But, as for me ... First I'm not too bothered by TNW's comments. I wish I could say that I've always been the very model of moderate administrative temperament, but while I certainly never stop striving to be I haven't always measured up. And on some occasions, when I haven't, I have gotten similarly dressed down by other users without the bit, once badly enough that I acceded to their suggestion and redacted the comments I had made (the fact that the blocked user I made them to, once they got unblocked, managed to sort of prove my point by getting blocked indef again within a month, is neither here nor there to this story). And IMO they had the right. We should not want to deter non-admin users from calling out admins over things like this with an implicit threat that if they do they should never expect to get the mop.

     Second, as for Q9, yes, it was wordy and melodramatic, but all that it convicts TNW of is verbosity. Again, the larger implications of this leave me dumbstruck ... "Wikipedians Reject Administrative Candidate For Being Too Willing to Take Responsibility and Accept Blame". Stop the presses! Seriously! I have already seen enough pigs not only airborne near Battersea Power Station but I think, when I look outside, I see a large group of monkeys at the door with a hand-typed copy of Hamlet.

     My mind was settled on not only whether I would !vote in this RfA but how a few days ago after I read the candidate's answer to my own question, Q15, and along with it Q14. For all the criticism and handwringing flung at TNW here they still managed to outline the proper thinking and procedure behind an administrative response, even coming up with some things I might not have put in my own response to such a question (but certainly should have). I cannot find any fault with that.

     I thought that at least, if the candidate did not or had not withdrawn by the time I got to !voting, my !vote should at the very least be a moral support. Now that it seems that both columns continue to grow enough to keep this at a level where it is certain that a 'crat chat will be necessary to decide it (and good for TNW for sticking in), it seems this vote will be as meaningful as it has been long-winded. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

178. Support per oppose comments. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 06:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
179. Support. Has a clue, has put in the work, and is both thoughtful and willing to take a second look at situations from the past. TNW's interaction with Tamzin was less than ideal, sure — and A9 is a bit baffling — but none of that comes close to making me think they would be a net negative as an admin. Retswerb (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
180. I don't see any issues, that the admin tools addition would go in the wrong direction. Also, I'm defo not convinced either that the incident with Tamzin is an indication of a general pattern. The reflection in A9, before the addendum, explains their insides and what goes thru their minds, and TNW explains it is not their intention to hurt and acknowledges "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." I will not see this incident as an impediment for this RfA — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
181. Support. Admins don't have to be perfect. Lectonar (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
182. Support Should be a useful admin and I am not concerned about one sarcastic statement in the past. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
183. Support As per nom. Not concerned about only one bad comment in the past. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
184. Support Per nom and above. The incident nor the apology bother me. Ceoil (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
185. Support - people aren't perfect. WP:NOBIGDEAL. Project won't implode if TNW is given the tools. We need more admins. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
186. Support Only been there for two years :O Killarnee (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
187. Support 14 novembre (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
188. Support This is my first time voting on a request for adminship. Based on the nominating statements and answers to questions 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 15, I believe The Night Watch would be a capable admin. Rocfan275 (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
189. Support I've come across The Night Watch in the past while doing recent changes patrol, and they're quick and precise when identifying and reverting vandalism. We need more admins to stop AIV clogs, and I think TNW can certainly help with that.--Panian513 20:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
190. Support Read answers to questions above and skimmed the oppose section. Can't see anything substantial enough to oppose about. Good luck. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
191. Support There may be some concerns, but I think they may be one off and can be managed. – robertsky (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
192. Support Solid history and a look through their contributions don’t indicate a pattern of what occurred with question nine. I chalk it down to a hasty response due to the forum. RFAs can be stressful in the best of situations. I can understand why this happened under these unique conditions. I have no doubt they will take the feedback from this and ultimately be a positive with the additional tools. Calmer Waters 22:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
193. Support. The Night Watch is a good editor who I believe can be trusted with the tools. I don't like the idea of opposing over a single negative interaction in the past and I’m not going to. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
194. Support. I have full faith in The Night Watch. Would do crucial anti-vandalism work. The comment mentioned by Tamzin seems distasteful but not disqualifying to me, and the remorseful apology doesn't bother me. Perhaps I'm just more emotional than the rest of you, but I'm surprised (and a little nervous) to see someone being penalized so much for displaying an intense but understandable level of guilt for a mistake. As it has been written in the great texts, everybody has those days. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
195. Ondersteuning – satisfied with their answers and their contributions. Would be a net positive to have them on the team, ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 05:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
196. Support. The issues surrounding Q9 are real and do concern me quite a bit, generally along the lines of Asilvering, Spicy, and Firefly. But the question in an RfA like this is always "are the problems enough to tip the scales?", and for me the answer this time is no. My review of talk-page contributions and the like doesn't suggest that there are generalized issues with communication, and the specific problem here just isn't quite enough to outweigh the positives TNW brings to the table, at least from my perspective. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
197. Support Why not? Okoslavia (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
198. Support Support per Floquenbeam. Jasphetamine (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
199. Support per opposes and WP:NOBIGDEAL. Never met the candidate, but it seems to me they are willing to admit and correct their mistakes. I see the answer to Q9 as sincere and genuine, so I don't believe that one interaction is worth opposing over. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 10:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
200. Support as an overall positive to the project. I like their answers and attitude overall. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 12:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
201. Support per Floquenbeam, who once more represents the voice of reason. Favonian (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
202. Support. I see no reason to believe that the candidate will be anything other than a net positive. ✗plicit 13:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
203. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
204. Support After reading through the Opposes and Neutrals, and looking through the various conversations cited here, I believe that the concerns do not disqualify the candidate from adminship. However, I would like to advise all involved in leeky's RfA, including TNW, that my favourite ArbCom FoF is "Being right isn't enough". Another editor's tone or policy violation does not permit sarcastic comments, reactionary posts or nastiness. Being an admin requires professionalism in the tone of their comments, one that I hope all admin, including myself, strive to obtain. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
205. Support. Many opposes here are based off the response to a question that was more of a prompt to apologize. Also, some questions here take the format of "In the hypothetical scenario that you are making this error that I have proposed, how would you ...". Are these helpful in evaluating admin noms? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
206. Support. Their track record has me more confident than their successive apologies have me worried. I hope they consider moving forward that overwrought language in high-pressure situations is taken as either sarcasm or melodrama,. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
207. Support SVcode(Talk) 20:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
208. Support – A well-experienced editor who has wonderful content contributions and is quite helpful in administrative areas. The incident listed below by Tamzin was an isolated incident, and their use of language in Q9, as mentioned by a few other voters, may have been caused by serious RFA stress. Additionally, as Firefangledfeathers said, they could learn from it and improve, as they've demonstrated that they're open to. Therefore, I'm changing my vote to support. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 20:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
209. Support. After reading Q9, I looked up Malvolio and am reminded that he was a steward. I'm not yet ready to support The Night Watch for stewardship—but for adminship, yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

     @Newyorkbrad: You might also be amused by WP:MALVOLIO. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

210. Per Daniel Case, not a jerk has a clue. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 21:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
211. Support bordering on Neutral. If all RfA candidates were judged on their most careless moments, we wouldn't have any administrators at all. But my concerns are that the candidate is still what I would consider a relatively newish editor despite their impressive content accomplishments. RfAs are very stressful experiences for some of us and I wanted to add some moral support since it looks like this will go to a bureaucrat chat. Although it is less common now for candidates to have multiple RfAs than it used to be years ago, if this one isn't successful, I'd encourage the candidate to consider the comments made here and think about a second RfA in the future. The main criticism seems to rest on maturity which can be acquired through more experience in interpersonal disputes which can happen over time. I know when I first started editing, I was a little glib and cocky and it took a while for me to drop the sarcasm I had acquired through online interactions on discussion boards. 21:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz (talk • contribs) .

     Thanks Liz, though Id find it most concerning if this went to a crat chat. RfA has for years been orders of magnitude more stressful than most non-military real world recruitment processes. Out in the real world, many orgs have adapted their selection methods in response to the increasing stress modern life subjects young people to. For example, even for mid rank positions like PMs for 8 figure projects, emailing them all the questions in advance of the video interview, which we find puts candidates much more at their ease. Sadly, we seem to moving in the opposite direction on Wikipedia. Despite eloquent testimonies on this page about little comparing to stress caused by the digitally aggregated judgment of ones peers at RfA, opposers have responded with innovative tactics to ratchet up the pressure even more. Very few crat chats happen even when the candidate is in the top half of the discretionary zone. Initiating a chat when the candidate is two points clear of the zone would be worse than innovative. It would be an unprecedented way to prolong the already exceptional stress the community likes to heap on admin candidates. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

212. Support per all sorts of reasonings above, including WP:NOBIGDEAL (and maybe thinking of Poe's law a bit too). Found nothing really worrying here, personally. The candidate did go over the top in showing contrition, but there is no shortage of editors (including admins) who won’t acknowledge having made a mistake (e.g. by going silent when facing growing peer-consensus that they’ve done something stupid). Neither hyperbolic display of remorse, nor too-proud-to-admit-fault reactions are ideal. The ability to recognise one’s own mistakes is not a bad thing, however. Nor is learning from one’s mistakes. I hope the candidate will stick to adminning fields they mentioned and not jump into dispute resolution in controversial topics, for example, at least initially, until their choice of tone is a bit more apt. Anyway, good luck! —-Sluzzelin talk 22:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
213. Support per the above and per trusted noms. Hats off to editor Tamzin; however, the bottom line is can this candidate be trusted to help the project with the tools and not intentionally use the bit to hurt editors or the project. Have confidence that this candidate can be trusted with the mop. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
214. Support, while the handling of question 9 is a bit squicky to me, it's not enough to make me think they'll abuse the tools or make a shit show of discussions. I would recommend that if they plan on taking part in Arbitration enforcement in the future that they take it slowly, because that is where judgement and temperament are foremost. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
215. Support - It looks like The Night Watch has done a lot of good content work here on Wikipedia, and they also have a fairly decent amount of experience in the administrative areas that they want to work in. Some very valid points and concerns have been raised by many editors in the opposing section, which I think The Night Watch should take properly into consideration and make sure that they learn from their mistakes and make sure to follow all the rules and procedures, especially when doing administrative work and dealing with other people. Overall, a net positive editor. TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

   I have conflicting feelings about the way this RfA is going. I appreciate the apology in A9, but on the other hand, as much as I take both parts of it as sincere, it's really not the kind of approach admins can afford to take when criticized. But on the third hand, as someone who is, you know, a bit on the emotional side at times, and who (barely) got away with some pretty emotional statements at xyr own RfA, it hurts to read some opposes that boil down to criticism for getting emotional in a high-stress situation—as much as it's a meme that "RfA is a taste of the pressure you'll be under as an admin", nothing I've done as an admin, including trips to ArbCom on both sides of the equation, has come close to the stress of a few hundred of my peers sitting in judgment over me and dissecting things I'd never given much thought to.

   I guess what I'm saying is, if A9 is an indicator of poor disposition to be an admin, it is so in the most flattering possible way, the way in which the candidate is too idealistic and too conciliatory. Which sucks. I remember how pissed off I was over getting 25% opposition for being an asshole, so I can't imagine how pissed off I'd be over being in a comparable situation for being too nice. I don't think it says anything good about Wikipedia that that can be a problem, but I'm not sure if the underlying fault there is with this community or the world we live in or human nature itself. So I don't know. I'd like to say "I hope to support in the future once they've had more time to grow", but that seems to be basically wishing upon them some negative experience that will make them more jaded and cynical. Or maybe this is that experience. If it is, I'm sorry—hollow as it may seem to be sorry while staying in this column. However this RfA goes, TNW, please keep up the good work you've been doing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

   I agree with Tamzin's comment that I have never experienced the same level of stress in my work as an admin that I experienced at my RfA, and mine was not contentious. The only time I felt the same level of stress was when I was waiting for the results of my ArbCom election. As for Tamzin's other thoughts, I am still evaluating. Z1720 (talk) 17:35, 10 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)

    My !vote was before the 2nd addition to Q9, and the 2nd response only steels my opposition. I'm not saying "never", but I am saying TNW needs more maturity and experience handling difficult situations (like this RfA) before I could support. Dennis Brown 2¢ 07:48, 9 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 (from neutral). 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)

    Per firefly and asilvering, an unfortunate reaffirm to my oppose. I sympathise with how stressful this RFA feels for TNW, and I respect Support votes who see this as no big deal. I'd also push against comments that paint all Opposes as 'single incident witch hunt' or similar. RFAs are an ultimate vibecheck in the main question of "Does this give me enough/not-enough confidence in TNW as admin". To many, seeing 'just' candidates replying to concerns can be sufficient indicators.

    My read of this doesn't care about their tone, but the substance. Q9's 1st answer had me concerned they were giving generic answers without sufficiently engaging with concerns, and the 2nd answer confirmed it. To me, both answers give off the same 'path of least resistence' vibes, where the tone shifts (not a negative) but the central question is not discussed. I personally would not mind any candidate who changes their opinion/sticks their ground/is apologetic/is steadfast; I just prefer candidates who demonstrate 'getting the question' even when they disagree. The 2nd answer basically doubles down on this - Drastic tone shift, but is just 'I am sorry' without anything the 1st answer missed. I think that misses the mark enough to confirm my vote, per Innisfree987. Soni (talk) 06:36, 7 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 answers to questions 8, 9, the request to remove their own NPP perm and the candidate's out of proportion self reflections like in 9 and User:The Night Watch/Mistakes were made. Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC) I am backing out and striking after reading JPxG and Levivich commentsOppose 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)

    Noting for the record that I have no issues with the rationale of the reinstated oppose !vote. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:20, 9 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)

    We have not had a successful bid for adminship under 80% since august of last year. Anyways, I think right now is not the right time for TNW, and it would show maturity to reflect and reevaluate their response to criticism and withdraw. Tooncool64 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    We have only had ten RFAs in that time at all. Of the unsuccessful ones, one was on track to pass if they had not withdrawn; all of the others were below 50% support at the time of withdrawal. Concluding anything at all about what TNW "should" do from that data is problematic at best. Before TailsWx at the end of last year, you have to go back to 2017 to find a withdrawal from a passing level of support, and that was on day 1 of the RfA when they had only racked up 48 supports. As best I can tell no candidate with TNW's level of support has ever withdrawn from RfA. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

    I have a general principle against badgering opposes, but this is an outrageous comment and I would greatly appreciate if you struck it. jp×g🗯️ 15:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

    Outrageous in what way? Its the truth. Tooncool64 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

    We have not had a successful bid for adminship under 80% since august of last year. may literally be true, but that is still not a huge amount of data to go on. And the rest of your comment Anyways, I think right now is not the right time... is opinion. I don't think it rises to the level of being outrageous/requiring striking, but I equally don't think that recommending candidates withdraw in anything other than obvious cases is helpful. firefly ( t · c ) 18:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

    Fair enough. Tooncool64 (talk) 18:51, 7 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)

    Given some of the supports above, I want to be extremely clear that I do not believe the second response to Q9 is sarcastic. I believe it is completely sincere. Moreover, I think it is unfair to categorize the bulk of these opposes as "based on a single incident". They're about the candidate's temperament. In my case, I'll bring this up from the comments below: 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. I don't think I've ever opposed an RFA. I certainly don't plan to make a habit out of it. And I'm never much impressed by what looks like "single reason" opposes. But I strongly believe that TNW has told us who they are, and we should believe them. Who they are is a deeply conscientious editor who is extremely helpful in admin-adjacent roles, yes, but also someone with a poor sense of proportion and a tendency for melodrama. I don't believe that any amount of technical skill can overcome the latter. Sorry, TNW. I really do think you're doing good work, and I expect this RFA experience is horrifically stressful. But I think you'd come to be in many more stressful situations as an admin, and you'd end up in big trouble. -- asilvering (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    @Asilvering: In defense of TNW, I also used to have a similar subpage called the "Wall of Shame" for some self-deprecating humour. I didn't see a problem with it because I saw it as a visual reminder of things I had to watch out for. It was only until other people explained their view it seemed like I was making light of serious concerns that I had it deleted. If I was a nominator, I'd have recommended TNW do the same. I just doubt any of that feedback was given until this very RFA, though. That's why I wouldn't read too much into it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

    @MJL I don't think it's making light of serious concerns at all, quite the opposite. -- asilvering (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

    @asilvering: Same difference. Though, it can't be said TNW takes them that seriously if the title of the page is "Mistakes were made".
    Either way, my point still stands. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:59, 8 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)

    Something can be both the soul-searching of a conscientious individual who has realized they've made a mistake and melodramatic self-pity. I truly am Malvolio, a blind, vain fool that did not show compassion to the harmed is about as melodramatic as it gets. -- asilvering (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    All the 'pedia's a stage, and all the admins and editors merely players... ——Serial 18:03, 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)
37. Oppose. The melodrama in the Q9 addendum is troubling. Per Firefly, I would expect an admin to have a response to a mistake that is proportional to that mistake. BBQboffin^{grill me} 22:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
38. Oppose Pretty damning concerns about judgement. Seems to lack conflict resolution skills without a "both sides bad" approach.--v/r - TP 09:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
39. Oppose Per Tamzin and Veggies. Agree that response to Q9 reads as sarcastic or melodramatic. Horarum (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
40. Oppose per Firefly's rationale. The ability to de-escalate is essential for an admin. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
41. Oppose. Just read Q9; 'nuff said. Bon courage (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
42. Oppose. Admins should be capable to speak plainly and clearly during difficult interactions, without much superfluous emotion. I totally miss it here. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
43. Oppose. The melodrama is just too much to trust this person is level-headed enough to be an admin without causing needless drama.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
44. Weak Oppose. This one's tough. Their content contributions are exemplary and a peek on their talk page suggests they handle most interactions without issue. Their answers to substantive policy questions seem largely fine too. I honestly found myself flipping both ways as I read through the discussion so far. That said, I'm ultimately not convinced they have the right temperament to be trusted with the mop given Q9, and there seems to be a real risk of them "rush[ing] into into areas" they don't fully understand (Q3) and creating unnecessary drama. They seem like a perfectly decent contributor, but for me, this is definitely a case where I think there's reason to worry they don't possess the maturity for the added tools. I'd be open to seeing them back in 6-12 months' time. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
45. Oppose I'll keep it brief and just say I can't support after those responses to question 9, sorry. – Teratix ₵ 04:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
46. Weak Oppose - lots and lots of good qualities but... I couldn't care less about what they said to Tamzin half a year ago, and I thought the first apology at Q9 was absolutely fine, but Q9 part 2 rings alarm bells - whether it was a sincere grovel or deep sarcasm (and I'd prefer it to be the latter), it shows up a problem in dealing with pressure / criticism, which an admin absolutely has to be able to do for their own self-preservation. Nevertheless, if this RfA is successful, I hope I'm wrong and wish them well. Ingratis (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

    I find it unfortunate that the candidate would have all their achievements, hard-work and also impressive answers to other questions (Q14 and Q15 specifically) dismissed just for the answer for Q9.

    The stress argument is not only very harsh, but appears uncalled for. I think Tamzin's appendix to their oppose is very important:

    As much as it's a meme that "RfA is a taste of the pressure you'll be under as an admin", nothing I've done as an admin, including trips to ArbCom on both sides of the equation, has come close to the stress of a few hundred of my peers sitting in judgment over me and dissecting things I'd never given much thought to.

    What this has come to is that a portion of the community is ready to oppose candidate because they have feelings, and because they were affected by their close friend, namely Tamzin, opposing them over a hurtful interaction that they have had. We do need an administrator like The Night Watch, namely someone who does have a human side and who is ready to recognize their mistakes. Brat Forelli🦊 07:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

47. Oppose. Insufficient emotional maturity for an admin. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC).
48. Oppose - the extended part of the answer to Q9 and the incident in Q8 leave me uncomfortable about the candidate. starship.paint (RUN) 15:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
49. Oppose per the incident pointed out by Tamzin, but especially by the second response above from TNW regarding the incident. I don't find that response grovelly or whatever--I find it very deliberately oddly written, in a way that feels intended to highlight its insincerity. Grandpallama (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

    @Grandpallama: I want to be clear, when I saw the reply, the thought didn't even cross my mind that it could be less than sincere. Some people write that way in intense situations. TNW has in the past, in contexts that also rang sincere. I wrote that way, when I was younger (oh my gosh, the thousand-character apology texts typed out to friends on my Samsung Blackjack, full of flowery language and self-deprecation). I think that the concerns raised by Spicy and Firefly, among others, about what that kind of reaction implies about suitability for adminship, are reasonable; but I think it is neither fair, logical, nor consistent with Wikiquette to assume insincerity here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

    You're entitled to your opinion. I stand behind mine and my statement, which is well within the boundaries of WP policy, and hardly the only response in the Opposes to raise such a concern. Grandpallama (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

50. Oppose per Firefly, 0xDeadbeef, Spicy and others. The unconvincing addendum to the answer to Q9 makes it difficult for me to see in the candidate the temperament I would expect in a sysop. Regret about a past mistake is good, of course, but carrying so much mental baggage about your errors is only going to lead to burnout and less-than-ideal usage of the mop. Holding adminship on Wikipedia is invariably going to lead to lots of stress, and the occasional mistakes, and I don't think that the candidate's temperament is currently suited to handle these pressures. A somewhat tough skin is, I'd argue, necessary for the job, and I simply don't see this in NTW at the moment. JavaHurricane 19:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

    But I am not opposing. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

    Yikes, pretty sure I mixed up someone else with you; and I can't remember who I was thinking of. Striking... JavaHurricane 06:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

    It appears that this RfA will be passing. TNW, I wish you the best for your adminship, and I hope that you will take the advice to heart: to not stress yourself out too much over mistskes. We do not want to see an asset to the community like you to get burnt out in the course of using the mop, and keeping the mental baggage light will go a long way in ensuring that severe burnouts don't happen. JavaHurricane 15:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

51. Oppose per Tamzin. Gamaliel (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
52. Oppose basically per asilvering. I'm quite worried about the second answer to Q9. I don't agree at all with the people who consider it insincere or sarcastic; on the contrary; I think it's extremely sincere, and excessive in a way that indicates a labile temperament ("I only care that I can get to you the words that both of you need", "truly inexcusable wrong", "I doubt I will ever forgive myself"). I'm sure TNW is an asset to the encyclopedia, but I don't see the best temperament for adminship — giving them the responsibility of admin tools wouldn't be good for the project and even less good for the individual, IMO. Bishonen | tålk 18:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC). Though I'll add a PS: SashiRolls makes a very good point when they say "it is tempting to support since they seem to be unafraid to criticize a member of the lord/lady class". Seconded! Bishonen | tålk 18:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC).
53. Oppose with regret, per asilvering and Bishonen. Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
54. Oppose after considering the temperament of the responses to Q9. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
55. Oppose per Acalamari and Q9. The mop will require dealing with disputes in a productive manner, and decades of education and parenting research, at least, show that the "I don't care who started it" attitude is unproductive. If the second reply in Q9 is sarcasm, that would be deeply ironic considering the point of the initial disagreement. If it is genuine, I worry about the ability to make judgment calls on other issues. In either case, I think the temperament issues need to be resolved. — GhostRiver 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

    As an addendum, The "Mistakes were made" userpage (writing this with a cat on one arm, so I can't pull it up right now, but it's linked somewhere in here) combined with Q9 gives me pause that the candidate engages in excessive self-flagellation. Whether as a personal mea culpa or to gain favor with the general public, I think it's important that a sysop have a short memory – accept their errors, pledge to do better, and move on rather than ruminating. — GhostRiver 23:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

56. Oppose - Moved from Neutral. The apology in Q9 does not read as a sincere simple apology, and an apology was required. The apology gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the applicant is ridiculing the criticism. In my opinion, by the way, any criticism of what User:Tamzin wrote on the previous RFA was out of line, because their sarcasm was an entirely appropriate response to an insult. I don't like to hold a six-month-old mistake against someone, but the mistake has been repeated, and seems to indicate that they still don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
57. Oppose. User takes themselves way too seriously, and does not understand the fine art of chilling and relaxing and letting things be, especially things in the rear-view mirror. This is a very poor attitude for admins. Also, I don't think they are experienced enough on Wikipedia or mature enough in general to be given the tools. I personally suggest that they simply continue the kinds of contributions that they are best at, instead of trying to police themselves or others or collect an admin hat. I wish them well and thank them for their contributions. RFAs are hell, and come at you like a speeding bullet. Take it easy. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC); edited 07:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
58. Oppose. Serious temperament concerns, and agree with Tamzin. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
59. Oppose. Per Dennis Brown and Q9. Marcus Markup (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
60. Oppose per Tamzin. --Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
61. Oppose per Tamzin. This community has sanctioned and placed indefinite blocks on editors who've demonstrated such negative behavior. I am simply dumbfounded by this RfA, by those who chose the "blind-eye". The excuse of needing more admins is not an excuse, we can do better. Jerium (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

    Jerium, Could you give some examples of people who have had an indefinite block placed on them for asking someone not to be rude or sarcastic? I've seen people blocked for many things, but I think I may have missed that. - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

    No, I don’t have any examples on specific individuals, only that I can recall enforcing sanctions for such behavior (long-term though) at the drama board (ANI). It’s been along time since I interacted there. Jerium (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

    I suspect no-one has ever been sanctioned or had an indefinite block put on them for ever leaving a message that was neither rude or abusive that was asking asking someone else not to be rude. I doubt it's happened for people who have done it on multiple times, let alone just once. Your call on whether to oppose or not, but this rationale feels hollow. - SchroCat (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

    What's dumbfounding to me is that anyone would take such a craven cheapshot at a candidate that has already been subjected to one of the toughest RfAs in memory. Please spare us the patronizing we can do better. You clearly lack familiarity with community norms, but ignorance is not an acceptable excuse for spitting in the candidate's face by suggesting that their behavior (a single instance of mild tone-policing) is somehow worthy of an indef block. While there is generally no point in engaging with frivolous opposes, you need a good shouting down lest future candidates conclude that there are absolutely no standards for what an RfA !voter can say. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

    Yeah, you’re right, that was over-the-top, my apologies. Jerium (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

62. Oppose, with regret. I'm not upset by the initial interaction with Tamzin, though it may have been less than ideal at the time, nor by the first answer to Q9; what has tipped me to land here is the addendum to that question: Others may see it as sarcastic, or melodramatic, or overly flowery language in an intense situation (and, by golly, submitting to RfA must be intense, if nothing else), but however it is interpreted i'm afraid that to me it just shows judgement a bit poorer than i would hope for in an admin. I truly did not expect to end up here when i first started looking at this RfA, and am disappointed that i have. If, as seems likely, it passes, i encourage the candidate to set the oppose criticisms aside for a small amount of time, then return to them, refreshed away from the fray, and take an honest look at them and their own actions and habits, see what might be adapted: Learn from the critiques, in other words, rather than block them away. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 21:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
63. Oppose. I share many of the concerns above regarding the Q9 answer and the addendum to it in particular. As this is going pass, it seems, I also hope that TNW is going to take the comments above as very honest/direct feedback that provides an opportunity to maybe self-reflect (at the very least on how they come across) and grow (and "prove the opposes wrong"). Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 22:44, 10 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)

   Still torn, but in a very different way this time. On one hand, the Q9 addendum is a lot. I feel it is melodramatic, rather than sarcasm. I do feel, however, that it isn't really genuine, and instead comes across as trying to appeal to non-supporters. Expressing sentiments like "I can't forgive myself", "I apologize", "I lack the words to apologize", and the Malvolio thing all at the same time just cannot be genuine in my view.

   On the other hand, is that really going to affect TNW's administrative capabilities? I don't know, but I feel like I will be able to make up my mind before the RfA ends. I also don't know if this can be viewed as a trial run of the stuff TNW will have to deal with as an admin. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

   Moved to Support 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)

5. 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)
6. Neutral -- couldn't care less about one sarcastic statement in the past. Care slightly more about the overly melodramatic response to it today. That being said, I don't think their answers to Q4 are sufficient for me to support. An aversion to ANI is not something I want to see in an admin, so what I'm taking away from this is we've got a non-technical user who doesn't want to engage in the more contentious side of admin work, and intends to just focus on AfD's and uncontroversial AIV blocking. Someone else mentioned that they're probably a net-positive for the project and I agree; however it's less clear that they'd be a net-positive as an admin, so I'm settling on Neutral. FWIW, I don't think any of these problems are unfixable in a future RfA. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
7. Neutral– I'm sorry, I had to do this. "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." is far too melodramatic, but on the other hand this problem would not have been raised in the first place because of a six-month old diff and people change. However, this kind of response should not be expected from an administrator. So, this will stand neutral. 2003 LN6 23:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
8. I struggle between weak support and neutral. On the plus side, the editor is exceptional in content creation and new page patrolling. Essentially, I don't really see the comment by The Night Watch cited by the opposes as a deal-breaker by itself. For that comment, the original RfA opposer engaged in various unhelpful personal attacks, Tamzin wrote a mildly sarcastic comment that wasn't perfectly handled but nowhere near problematic, and then The Night Watch overreacts with a non-constructive comment that exaggerates Tamzin's comment out-of-proportion. By itself, this is a comment six months ago that seems to be isolated, as I could not find any other diffs of this editor engaging in problematic behaviour.

   What is more problematic is the candidate's response to Q9. I don't think that was an attempt at self-deprecating humour (if so the candidate would have surely clarified as so) but as an unhelpfully melodramatic answer. The 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 (Emphasis mine) is unhelpfully melodramatic. I understand that RfA is immensely stressful- for instance, even if I happen to be otherwise qualified for RfA (which I am not), I would likely not attempt it due to the stress). Yet, the issue is that the issue is that being an admin would probably entail even more stressful and demanding situations and conflicts. Accordingly, I am tentative whether The Night Watch would successfully handle such issues and conflicts. VickKiang (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

   Yes! This is exactly my point! Thanks 2003 LN6 04:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

9. Neutral. Significantly on the fence with this one, as the large amount of experience is nice, but the response to Q9 is not. DrowssapSMM 18:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
10. Neutral: Tamzin, who I greatly respect, doesn't prove a substantial pattern of misbehaviour. I have to agree with Panini!'s addendum to their support vote. But I don't feel comfortable voting for weird melodrama. I assume that is a bit of miscommunication that may not have come out right, given RfA is of course an immensely stressful process—BUT administrators need to communicate effectively especially in stressful situations. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
11. Neutral: In general, I agree with WP:NOBIGDEAL and the only real concern in an RFA is the temperament of the candidate. Like others, I don't see a pattern of questionable behavior. Like others, I did not exactly like the response to Q9, but not enough to explicitly oppose the candidate (I also am not exactly enamored by the response to Q12). So, I am left here feeling more ambivalent than anything, not quite able to support a candidate who has done good work for this project. --Enos733 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

    Moved to OpposeNeutral at this time, having come in on the sixth day, and having not yet fully parsed the unpleasant history. I will probably change this !vote within 24 hours. Changing this to Oppose after reading the unpleasant history twice. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

12. Neutral - The RfA comment was about the surprise of seeing an admin argue, which makes me think TNW would try not to do the same as admin. No problem there. I like that the user has a focus on editing and content. I can't get to support due to spelling and grammar errors in the responses. With some maturation and a little time I would support. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
13. Neutral—A good editor who probably wouldn't be a disaster with the tools, but I think some more time to grow would do TNW good. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral – Seems like a well-experienced editor. Has wonderful content contributions and is helpful in administrative areas, but their response to Q9 from a previous incident makes me concerned for how they would handle future disputes or conflicts that they would come across as an admin, especially ones which gain a lot of community attention. I do however get that those can be stressful, and that it was a difficult situation they were dealing with at the time. If they don't become one this time, then I'm sure after several months or a year that they'll be fully suitable for adminship. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 05:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) moved to Support. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 20:57, 10 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)

I think I can agree with most/all of this. FOARP (talk) 13:48, 7 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)

I agree. In addition, most people who vote oppose per Tamzin don't actually realize that the particular diff was six months ago. People change. 2003 LN6 17:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Er, do we agree? My observation is that this is evidence of a pattern, not a single incident. -- asilvering (talk) 02:40, 9 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)

  And people wonder why we have too few admins. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Certainly I have been reminding myself to never, never, never give in to the temptation. People may quote me on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yep. Same here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  I was already well aware that I would never pass RfA (not that I'm interested in the mop), but goodness... I had no idea the bar could be so high. I've no doubt that many of our easily successful candidates have had similar moments; it's just a question of who remembers a negative interaction and chooses to bring it up. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.