Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cwmhiraeth 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Cwmhiraeth 2[edit]

Final (177/14/2); Closed as successful by Maxim(talk) at 14:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]


Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) – I’ve worked with Cwmhiraeth extensively at DYK, where she is a tireless contributor both of content and to the process. She’s one of a very few experienced prep setters, a pillar of the project who sets two or three preps a week, a job which requires expertise, attention to detail, and a willingness to work in an area so visible that it inevitably draws heavy criticism. I’ve found her invariably helpful, low-key and dedicated there, with a history of civil interaction with other contributors. I’m aware there are a couple of editors she hasn’t gotten on with in the past, but she’s since disengaged, and I’m not at all concerned she’d suddenly re-engage just because she had the tools she needs to be able to help at DYK. Primarily Cwmhiraeth is a content creator who just wants to get on with the work; she’s uploaded hundreds of photos and written thousands of articles, bringing many to GA or FA. She will be a good admin, and as one of only a few admins working at DYK I look forward to her contributions in an area chronically short on admin help and to which she has already proven she is committed. —valereee (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It is my privilege to recommend Cwmhiraeth as a candidate for adminship.  Many of you may know this editor from their running of the WikiCup. There's a show business expression, "What a trouper!" that defines someone who keeps doing their part regardless of the unexpected.  Cwmhiraeth is a veteran trouper on several of our inter-connected sites, and who would also be a great administrator trouper.  LIke ... for instance ... at WP:ERRORS.

Cwmhiraeth has been active at Wikipedia since 2010 as an article creator, and through DYK, GA and FA. GA is a process dependent upon only the nominator(s) and one reviewer, and FA has an excellent cadre of some of Wikipedia's best talent for honing articles to Wikipedia's top rating.  It is at DYK, arguably the training boot camp of the encyclopedia, where Cwmhiraeth has submitted over 1000 nominations.  Any DYK editor with more than 5 prior nominations, must review somebody else's nomination when they submit their own. You do the math on how many nominations Cwmhiraeth has reviewed for other editors. They have been invaluable as one of the few editors regularly promoting the approved nominations of others to the Prep area, and as an admin they would be able to help promote preps to Queue. (NOTE: A "Prep" area at DYK is the first step in assembling the group of hooks to appear on the Main Page. They are then moved to a Queue by an Admin where they sit until moved to the Main Page by a bot.)

They have additionally contributed several hundred edits to Wikidata, the knowledge database of Wikimedia.  I've also been impressed with the 150 images they uploaded to Commons. Not usually mentioned as a requirement for adminship, uploading images on Commons necessitates adhering to copyright laws of various countries. Such knowledge is vital for images that appear on the English Wikipedia Main Page, and a definite asset for any admin assisting with same.  Overall, seeing Cwmhiraeth go through the same DYK-GA-FA training ground as I have, extending their contributions to Commons and Wikidata, I know they will be a good addition to the admin ranks. What a trouper! — Maile (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your kind words. I accept this nomination, but mention in passing that my contributions to Wikidata have really been rather minimal. I have never edited for pay, nor have I edited under any other name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I have considerable experience at DYK of building prep sets. I would hope to be involved in moving prep sets into the queue (but not any I had prepared), and making alterations to hooks when they are in the queue and, if they are clear errors or after there’s some level of consensus, on the main page. There is often a shortage of admins to do these tasks. Similarly, I have been helping out at POTD, selecting pictures and writing the captions. These are protected before they appear on the main page and adjustments sometimes have to be made which only admins can do. I would be cautious about moving into other areas of Wikipedia with which I am unfamiliar.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Article creation and expansion is what I chiefly enjoy on Wikipedia. I have been involved in a number of featured articles and good articles, and probably the most memorable was bringing Sea to featured status. I mostly concentrate nowadays on bringing, to at least start class, articles on organisms that previously had no article or were merely short stubs.
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: I have no difficulty in avoiding conflict about article content. If I disagree with other editors, I normally move on to something else. This happened in Decline in insect populations, where instead of continuing to argue my viewpoint, I researched and wrote some articles on related aspects to get more insight into the topic. In 2016, I observed a series of interactions that ended with the retirement of a long-term editor. I found it disappointing that nobody had intervened and felt that I had also let the editor down. Taking the matter to ArbCom was a bad idea. That was 3.5 years ago. I have also had some friction with another respected editor. That was 18 months ago, and I settled it by successfully making a new year’s resolution at the start of 2019 to avoid engaging at their talk page. In general, I get on well with other editors. If in the future I find myself in conflict with others, I will not engage in an ongoing argument, but remove myself from the area of dispute. I’ve learned this lesson well.

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.

Additional questions from King of Hearts
4. The admin toolkit is a bundled permission set that requires us to trust the candidate's judgment with respect to all aspects of it. How will you give us confidence that you will make prudent use of the delete, block, and protect functionality? That is, can you describe any relevant experience or provide an explanation of how you plan to acquaint yourself with each of those areas before jumping in?
A: I don't plan to be jumping in to any of these areas of administrative work. The only occasion I can envisage blocking anybody would be in connection with a rampant vandal intent on maximum disruption. As a creator of content, I have empathy with a new editor who finds their article deleted. So I am basically not a deletionist, and looking back over the last six weeks, the only deletions of parts of articles that I could find were this removal of spam, this and this removal of uncited material, and this removal of copyvio material that has since been revdelled. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR, and when is it appropriate to invoke it?
A: Wikipedia doesn't really have rules, it has policies and guidelines. The policies are paramount and the guidelines are arrived at by consensus as best practice and are subject to change as Wikipedia evolves. IAR is not a means by which editors can do just what they like, it is instead an invitation to editors to interpret the rules with common sense. The objective is to improve Wikipedia rather than adhere to a mass of restrictive rules. IAR is sometimes used at DYK where, for example, non-regulars have submitted a nomination that is outside the permitted time period of 7 days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional questions from Ahecht
6. Tomorrow will be the three-year anniversary of your first RFA. How have you evolved as an editor since then?
A: Looking back at my previous RfA is a bit embarrassing. How could I have thought that, having done an ORCP whose result I did not accept, I could undertake an RfA shortly afterwards in which the wider community would support me? I now think it is better to get on with the job on hand and that personalities do not matter. Another thing I have learnt is that rather than being defensive when criticised, for introducing errors for example, it is better to try to improve the accuracy rate in the first place. I hope I have improved as an editor since my first RfA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional questions from Sir Joseph
7.Would you ever block an admin, when necessary, and would your process for doing so be the same process as blocking a non-admin? If not, what would you do differently?
A: I doubt that I will ever block anyone, the only exception being in a situation where Wikipedia was suffering from an ongoing spate of vandalism, in order to prevent further damage. I would not expect an admin to behave in a way that I thought warranted an immediate block, with reporting at the appropriate noticeboard being a better option in a non-urgent situation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the hypothetical situation where an admin and a non-admin were edit warring, both were equally at fault and I was required to act, I would treat them in an identical manner when blocking them (subject to their previous block records being similar). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Naypta
8. Most admin work is generally fairly unseen by the general public, hence "taking up the mop". In your area, though, that's a bit different; as someone working on DYK and POTD, your work is immediately visible to potentially millions of people every day, and is effectively the face of Wikipedia as a whole. no pressure(!) Could you talk a little bit about how you handle this challenge, not just in terms of policy but in terms of preventing errors or security issues?
A: I think the most important thing is that a DYK hook appearing on the main page should be accurate. The creator or expander of the article knows the article best, and the reviewer should check that the hook fact is supported by the source. Two further checks should occur as the hook is promoted to a prep set, and when the set is moved into the queue (after which it is protected). The sets are usually prepared several days prior to their appearance on the main page, so there is plenty of opportunity for other people to comment or amend, and it's really a multi-person process. With regard to POTD, the process is less formal and there seem to be few guidelines. The featured picture has to be used in and linked to an article; stubs and tagged articles are undesirable and I sometimes need to spend some time finding sources, expanding and generally improving the linked articles. I find this challenging but interesting. Other people routinely check the caption before it gets protected, 24 hours before the picture is due to appear on the main page. I need to be particularly careful with POTD because it is not as well-scrutinised as DYK, but I do find it rather satisfying. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Girth Summit
9. As a bit of a change from the 'what does your username mean' classic question - would you be willing to tell an ignorant Scotsman how to pronounce your username? I have a little voice in my head that reads words out loud as I look at text on the screen. When I come across your username, it makes an embarrassed cough and hopes my eyes will move on. (Feel free to ignore this if you want - you already have my support.)
A: Well, the "Cwm" is equivalent to "coomb" or "combe" in English place names, it is pronounced "koom" and means a steep sided valley. I see we have an article on hiraeth, a Welsh word for a feeling of nostalgia, a longing to be back in the Welsh homeland. The whole is a small village in West Wales, part of the history of the Welsh woollen industry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional questions from Can I Log In
10. I found something from the ANI archives from about 13 months ago. Here you appeared to be in a content dispute over your content being reverted. You cite an ESSAY as a POLICY. Not only that, in the reply of your ANI report and the article's talk page, you were DEMANDING it to be restored, and DID NOT EXPLAIN the reasoning for restoring your reverted content (well at least there were no legal threats). You have not addressed this in Q3 or anywhere in this RfA. Will you please address that?
A: You may have misunderstood the incident. I was responding at the time to a request for help from the original creator of the article and I attempted to restore the content that had been removed. This was unsuccessful, the matter was discussed on the talk page and I took it to ANI, hoping they could figure out a solution. That didn't end up working, but I'm not sure how I could have better dealt with the situation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
11 . If you do become admin, will you open to recall?
A: Yes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional questions from Robert McClenon
12. This question is about conflict of interest and in particular about paid editing. In cases where an editor states that they do not have a conflict of interest, but questions are raised, how do you think that administrators should balance the assumption of good faith against appearances, or against a duck test?
A: I have come across quite a few possible CoI and paid editing situations when new page patrolling. Typically, a new editor's contributions will be limited to creating an article on a single individual or a company; in this instance, I left a message on the talk page of the editor concerned. If they deny that they have a CoI, admins should assume good faith. If they continue editing without responding, they should be given further warnings, reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard and ultimately blocked if necessary, especially if they are adding promotional material. An article suspected of having been written by a CoI editor should be judged on its merit; if it meets notability guidelines, with particular regard to such policies as verifiability, and neutral point of view, it can be retained. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
13. What experience can you cite in the general area of dispute resolution?
A: If you mean resolving disputes between other people, the answer is "None". As regards disputes over content, the subject matter I cover is mostly uncontroversial. When new page patrolling, if I find copyvios I remove them, ask for a revdel and post message explaining Wikipedia's copyright policy on the talk page of the editor concerned. In other areas, I try to resolve the matter by removing unsourced additions to articles or attempting to find a source; in more complex situations I discuss the matter on the article talk page, the editor's talk page or somewhere else. A discussion that I had about a page move that was disputed can be found here. If I have misunderstood your question, please point me in the right direction. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

  1. Support - Per my statement above, I whole-heartedly support Cwmhiraeth for administrator. — Maile (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support as nom —valereee (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support per noms. --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 14:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Have seen Cwmhiraeth around many times doing good on the project. All the best. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 14:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Seems good, no problems that I recall, has clue. SemiHypercube 14:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support. I supported the candidate in her previous RFA, saying I think Cwmhireath can be trusted with the tools, if only for the sole purpose of helping DYK, and will add that she is a trusted content creator. I think that any problems raised in that RFA have been resolved, mainly the Arbcom disputes. My support from the previous RFA still applies here. epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support - No question. SethWhales talk 14:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support - I see no issue. Their vigilant work at DYK is sufficient enough to warrant the tools, in my view. Anarchyte (talkwork) 14:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Trusted content editor with experience with main page issues who is devoted to the encyclopedia and can absolutely be trusted with the tools. Cwmhiraeth is a user who has been devoted to this project long term, and with that comes having some disputes. None of the issues raised in the past RfA trouble me, and I think they more then pass my standard criteria of has a clue, not a jerk What we would be gaining if this RfA passes is a dedicated administrator who cares about the best interests of this project and would be willing to put the community above themselves in serving it. I see no reason why we shouldn’t take them up on that offer. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support Prolific content creator with much work in the main space. i will forgive the high delete !votes at AfD because this candidate is a content creator. I also respect the DYK work. As an editor who has worked on articles which were accepted, I know a little about the process. I also appreciate the candidate's ability to reflect on situational conflict, and modify their own behavior. Two thumbs up for this candidate. Lightburst (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Weak support Excellent and collegial editor in my experience. Just over a year back they made points on Insect Decline which seemed a little bold at the time, but which have been proved valid by rigorous research published last month. I recall they thanked me for some of my talk page comments even though I was arguing a partially opposed point of view, which was most appreciated. 15:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Edit: downgrading support due to the Wilde hook, which had considerable potential to cause distress. In fairness though, words like 'fag' are increasingly used in a playful & harmless way in the UK, and everyone has a few blind spots. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support clear net positive the previous RFA was in 2017 .See no concerns at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support Happy to support.--v/r - TP 15:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support Nothing but positive interactions. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support. Brilliant, tireless work. - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support for meeting my minimums, no big deal, and no concerns raised from time elapsed from last RFA - which has been three years, plenty of time. Ifnord (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support. I've seen them around in a few places and been impressed. Cwmhiraeth has a clue and have the best interests of the encyclopaedia at heart. Apositive benefit. - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Firm support. Clear need for the tools, and enormous experience in the area she plans to use them. I've worked with her for years now, and always found her polite and collegial, even when we disagree. I don't see past conflicts becoming an issue. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support. Having seen Cwmhiraeth and the excellent work they do, especially at DYK and managing the WikiCup, I feel confident supporting them. While I'm not a strong believer in the "has need for the tools" approach to RFA (anyone who needs to move pages over redirects with non-trivial history has need for them), Cwmhiraeth is active in DYK, where admin tools are needed to promote hooks. Guettarda (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support I've been concerned about nominating Cwmhiraeth myself, but personally I think they'll make a fine admin now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support I think Cwmhiraeth will use the tools conscientiously. It's obvious she really cares about Wikipedia, particularly DYK. Enwebb (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support Trustworthy, reliable candidate who will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 16:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. I thought you were already an administrator! Thanks for everything you do, especially in DYK Zingarese talk · contribs 17:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support - Definitley has the skill to handle the tools and the mentality an admin needs. Clearly a fine addition to our admin lineup. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 17:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support Net positive. Lot of excellent work, especially on DYK. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support I have known Cwmhiraeth since my early days here, and she was among the first few editors I got to know and respect, who tolerated me and my mistakes at the beginning so I could become a much better editor after all these years. A polite, supportive editor tirelessly dedicated to the project. I have no doubt about her proficiency in areas such as DYK since years, and she surely deserves the tools at least for this field at the start. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Yes to this excellent candidate. El_C 18:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support: clear need for the tools—in an area where we really need more admins—thorough experience and exceptional skill, and a demonstrated ability to calmly respond to hostile and uncivil feedback. — Bilorv (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support per nom and Vanamonde93's response to the opposing comment. --MrClog (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support Trusted editor and has done a great job on DYK. - FitIndia Talk Commons 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support Cwmhiraeth is a major cog in the DYK process and the admin toolset will only enhance their work there. The user is also vastly experienced and I have no concerns over their temperament. Kosack (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support. Very helpful at DYK and were a joy to work with at Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Uganda. –MJLTalk 18:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support based on witnessing work at DYK. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support: Tireless contributor, experienced, and good attitude. Best of luck Pagliaccious (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support Good work, level headed. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Obvious choice. Wug·a·po·des 18:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support – I have a good impression of Cwmhiraeth as a denizen of the DYK process, one of only a handful of active coordinators. In that role, I believe she will be a net positive to the project with the toolset. Mz7 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support - Seems to be a thoughtful, polite, and extremely dedicated editor. I'm happy to trust her with more tools. Ajpolino (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support --Killarnee (T12) 19:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support -- Strong content creator. 10 years of diligent volunteer service. Works hard in thankless areas. Not a jerk. This is a no-brainer. Cbl62 (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Juliancolton | Talk 19:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support: Judging by Wikipedia talk:Did you know I hope they get all the help they need! - Astrophobe (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support enthusiastically. Although I opposed in the first go-around, I have seen great growth as an editor in the candidate and I think the earlier issues are justifiably buried. The two opposes at this time are coatracking broader issues onto the candidate and not germane to the evaluation of this RFA. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 19:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support. I have every confidence in Cwmhiraeth's abilities and judgment. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Clear net positive. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support Very good candidate. Many AFD contribs, edits, and contribs to the site. Give her the Mop! Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 21:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support. Definitely. Full technical competency and solid temperment. I'm sure they will take note of the Mainpage concerns in the oppose. Britishfinance (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support precious wildlife, and constantly good interactions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Strong support—I have been a long time admirer of the candidate's diligent work at DYK. Admin privileges will allow her to do the work more effectively. buidhe 21:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support As it looks like we won't get consensus for a Main page editor, there is a clear need for the tools and I don't think she will abuse them. I opposed last time but I think the ill-advised ArbCom request is far enough in the past now.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support: a trusted contributor who would not abuse the tools. Thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support. My complete support. 'Cheers Loopy30 (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support Has done excellent work, time to receive the mop. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support does great work in a high profile area with relatively little conflict since previous RfA. --Find bruce (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support Cwmhiraeth is a great editor and would make a good admin, we have all seen them mature over time and I think having them as an active admin will benefit our encyclopaedia. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support A committed editor who has no doubt learned from earlier feedback, and they're welcome here now. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support I'm mildly concerned that Cwmhiraeth may find it harder to avoid blocking and/or stressful situations as an admin, but I don't think that's a reason to oppose. signed, Rosguill talk 00:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Oh hell yes! - knows what goes into creating, reviewing, promoting articles. Atsme Talk 📧 00:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support Although I didn't vote in her first RfA, I support wholeheartedly now. Miniapolis 01:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support I've seen the good work Cwmhiraeth has done for DYK. No concerns. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support great content creation and image uploads and article expansion and reviewing, also we definitely need more female admins in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support no doubt will make a great admin 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support I'm not going to say anything that hasn't already been said, so suffice to to say that they meet all of my criteria, and as per all above. Hopefully I didn't accidentally remove anything this time! Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 03:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support. Excellent candidate! This is a no-brainer. Joy to all! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support. Seems to be a net positive and unlikely to abuse the tools. -- King of ♥ 05:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support Why not? -FASTILY 05:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support No concerns. – Teratix 06:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support Long tenured editor with demonstrated use case and no obvious red flags. As an aside, I'm glad that a user that can state - explicitly - that they intend to use the tools in a very narrow area, and is able to have [what looks now to be] a successful RfA. I remember when that was not the case. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support Great candidate. Thank you for taking this next step. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Strong support – POTD needs a coordinator, desperately. Cwmhiraeth has been serving that role for months with one hand tied behind their back. They would be much more effective in this role as an admin. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support I started the article decline in insect populations which the candidate mentions above. Their avoidance of conflict by approaching the topic from a different direction was commendable and I have no complaints on that score. I also started another article about their namesake which was used in a personalised DYK as a Christmas present: "Did you know ... that Cwmhiraeth is known for its industrious weaving?" This was a tribute to their indefatigable industry and admin tools would give more power to their elbow. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support – Experienced and trustworthy. Kurtis (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support: Needed to re-read answer to Q7 a couple of times as it might of swayed me the other way. Good Luck! Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support great editor, will make a good admin. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 09:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support Looks well-qualified with long-term dedication. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Da iawn, happy days, LindsayHello 09:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support Outstanding editor who ticks all the boxes. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support - Definitely seems to have the community's support. SKay (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support. I have no idea what a "prep set" is (the nominators seem to be speaking an insider lingo of some corner of the project where I don't spend time), but what I see of the candidate's work is solidly in WP:ENC territory, focused on content. I'm hard-pressed to find any recent incidents or behavior patterns that give me pause. The DYK, POTM, and other front-page stuff looks like a lot of hard work, and of considerable public-interface importance to the project. The GA work is also key, and generally comes down to a lot of personal volunteer involvement and judgement (since it doesn't depend a shared-workload "committee" approach). FA I'm less impressed with, as I think it's "polishing the chrome" and is also kind of running off the rails, but the candidate is not among the problem-causing number in the FA-regulars contingent. Anyway, Cwmhiraeth is clueful and a will be a net positive as an admin from what I can see. I find the answers to the questions so far generally satisfactory (though I might quibble a bit on no. 7; past blocking history matters less than current behavior; the hypothetical admin-turned-editwarrior might be behaving worse than the other party, and should know better). Like The Squirrel Conspiracy, above, I'm glad that this RfA isn't mired in complaints about the candidate having a comparatively narrow intended use for the tools. While we do need more generalist admins, we also have some needs for specialists here and there, and this editor is already highly specialized and competent at what they do, by all accounts, and will be better able to do at least some of it with some additional tools.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    SMcCandlish and anyone else -- sorry for the jargon. I forget that even regular nominators and reviewers at DYK might not know what a prep is unless they're working in that area. A prep is 8 hooks that have been chosen by an editor to appear on the MP together as a set. It's fun work, sort of solving a puzzle, but it's time-consuming and requires the editor "building" or "setting" the prep to basically do a re-review of all eight hooks to make sure the nominator and reviewer did their jobs correctly. Once a prep set is ready, an admin moves it to the queue, which tells a bot it can be transcluded to the main page on schedule. —valereee (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support Good editor, had assumed that she was already an admin. Deserves the nomination. Hzh (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support No concerns here. Number 57 12:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support. Graham Beards (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support Don't see any problems --Shrike (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Happily One of the ones I thought was an admin before I learned to tell. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 14:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Seems to be a net positive. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 15:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    Moved to oppose. --Ahecht (TALKReply[reply]
    PAGE) 00:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support as no concerns here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 15:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support per the above. No concerns and has clue. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support We need more hands at the DYK pump; here is an experienced editor who knows how it works wants to get extra buttons to do more work for the project. Thanks for offering. GirthSummit (blether) 15:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Strong support because she can be trusted with the sysop tools. (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support candidate seems good, but mainly to counter the 3rd oppose vote. L293D ( • ) 17:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support a prolific editor doing valuable work for the project. I am not swayed by any of the oppose votes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support Iridescent's oppose is not entirely without merit and I'm not sure that according adminship almost solely for such a narrow band of work is really urgent - see my comment at Cwmhiraeth's ORCP, hence my views on DYK have not changed (although I got one myself more by accident than by design). Notwithstanding, SMcCandlish makes some good points for supporting and anyone as prolific as this candidate will probably come across some occasional need for the tools in areas outside their comfort zone where admins really are needed, so it's a 'yes' from me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Dismayed I didn't approach her myself, would be a great benefit to the project. I think there's a bit of a downplay regarding the frequency in which Cwmhiraeth ends up in heated situation (see e.g. Iri's oppose (currently #1)), even with the caveat that her favored areas can get heated, but it's import to note that what's important is how a user handles being there. I've been pleased with what I've seen, and think Cwmhiraeth will make fine use of the tools in her work here. Past experience will likely only help! ~ Amory (utc) 19:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support in the strongest possible terms. Cwmhiraeth is already doing the work of an admin and of a quantity and quality better than many who actually are (myself included). This is probably the most enthusiastic I've ever been to support an RfA. Chetsford (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Strong support. A fairly rare instance of an editor with no obvious red flags whatsoever. — kashmīrī TALK 19:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support. Absolutely. We should have given her a mop years ago. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support - looks good to me! Now if only I knew the word for mop in Welsh... Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support Checks most of my boxes with no red or yellow flags. I anticipate they will be a significant positive for the admin corps. The opposes (three at the moment) are unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support. Excellent content contributions. Ample participation in DYK, an area in need of additional administrator attention. — Newslinger talk 21:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support. Long record of constructive contributions in an area where the admin tools would help; no problems or concerns; opposition thus far raises no areas of concern to me. AGK ■ 23:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support. - I know of few as dedicated to this project as the candidate. Works long and hard in a difficult area, and drama-free since the last run. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Wizardman 02:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 02:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support per above. Crossroads -talk- 03:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support no concerns, net positive. Iseult Δx parlez moi 03:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support, would be glad to have them. BD2412 T 04:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support one of the best editors on Wikipedia. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 05:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support per my criteria: a solid content creator and plenty of Main Page experience. While she does not appear to be experienced (or interested) in some core areas of admin activity, such as blocking, I do not think there is anything wrong with admins who specialize in certain tasks or functions. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support. No issues at all. Deb (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support - clear use for the tools - very hard working editor. A lot of issues that were raised at the prior RfAs are either no longer relevent, or far too long ago to be taken on now. From work at DYK and WikiCup, I have no issues at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support Dedicated to the task, so deserve the tools to do it better. Dream Focus 12:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Strong support - obviously qualified. 'Nuff said. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support per 78.26. Opposers' rationale are unconvincing. StonyBrook (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Long track record of positive work. Clear need for the tools. Has grown as a person in a way that suggests they can be trusted to use them wisely. Happy to support this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support. I am unconvinced by opposition's arguments. Candidate has demonstrated themselves to be a strong positive benefit to the encyclopedia. Daask (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support. I know the candidate from DYK and I have very favourable impressions of them. Dr. K. 21:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Has grown considerably, Stephen 00:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support both as a fellow longtime DYKer and "You mean she wasn't an admin already?" Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support From another DYK regular and prep area builder. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Support Some of the history gives me pause, but not enough to warrant an oppose. Nihlus 02:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Support, will be an asset. Cavalryman (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  128. Support, your work at DYK is making Wikipedia more interesting. Thank you. Go for it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Support - like Kudpung above, and as someone involved quite a bit with the main page content, I do think there has historically been some merit in what Iridescent says below, and as someone who likes Cwmhiraeth a lot, I would urge them to please take Iri's point seriously, if they have not done so already. Being a hard worker, while commendable, is not a valid reason for sloppiness, particularly when it comes to content that is presented on our most viewed page. If the volume of work being undertaken is leading to errors, then that's a sign that you need to slow down and take more care over each entry. This is particularly true for those who want to work in promoting DYKs from prep to queue, as the checking involved is often an arduous and time-consuming task and can't be rushed. Having said all that though,the benefits of having Cwmhiraeth as an admin would greatly outweigh this concern. My basic RFA conditions are "not a jerk, has a clue, and has good content creation", and they are met. So good luck to you, I look forward to working with you on the main page and elsewhere, and welcome to the admin corps. Smiley.png  — Amakuru (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support lgtm, can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support no issues. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support, looks great. There are valid concerns regarding some behaviour in the past, but it very much seems to be distant at this point, and there's some really great work in areas that need more admins. ~ mazca talk 13:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Support after review. No issues here. DYK could definitely use the extra admin hand. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support very likely net positive :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support From what I've read here, will be good for the encyclopedia. Obhf (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Support, bydd yn iawn. Any concerns I may have about DYK content are not relevant to Cwmhiraeth's capability to wield the mop. Fish+Karate 14:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Support There are some valid concerns raised in the opposes, but I feel that Cwmhiraeth's adminship will be far more than net positive. GrammarDamner how are things? 15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support Hard worker, gives a lot to the encyclopedia, open to recall. Even looking at the alleged examples of bad behaviour shows her being civil. I'd love if more admins were like this. --GRuban (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support - no concerns; opposes not convincing. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 17:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support per nom. Rlendog (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support I supported this user's original RfA, and am happy to support this one. --rogerd (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Support sane and trustworthy. Guy (help!) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support - good candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Support - trusted user, clear need for the tools, net positive. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support Her work around the WikiCup is excellent, and her content creation is very good. Seeing as she has a very clear area that she wants to work in (main page stuff) and has much experience there, this is an easy support. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support - Strongly support this nomination having gone through the candidate's edit and contribution history. Appears to be a quality member of the community that consistently exceeds the standard. BasicsOnly (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support I am very familiar with Cwmhiraeth's work over the years at DYK. I trust her completely with the tools. 97198 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support Per everybody above! Certainly clueful and trusted with intentions for their work to only be enhanced by the tools. Rcsprinter123 (visit) 12:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Symbol confirmed.svg Passing ALT0. Recent enough, long enough, neutral enough, no copyvios (except V. BALD facts). This hook is within character limit, accurate, sourced, and possibly interesting to a broad audience; even this one. No image. No QPQ possible...Good to go. serial # 12:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support - no concerns. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Support Plainly a net positive. In regards to the opposes, the candidate has written and promoted thousands of DYKs of which a whooping three are currently being criticized. I do not believe that the Wilde hook should have been promoted, but I'm not going to oppose due to a single bad decision that occurred years ago. As for Cwmhiraeth’s reluctance to use the block feature, I have been in plenty of off-Wikipedia community where mods see blocking as a competition and don’t let important things like mitigating factors, the interests of the community, or actual guilt sway their judgement. I would much rather see a candidate that is a bit too reluctant to block than a candidate who is overly eager. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support - This user, Cwmhiraeth has destubbed and expanded so many articles and created many important ones, and deserves to be an administrator. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 20:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support. Experienced and prolific editor. I'm unconvinced by the opposition's rationales - either referring to events before the candidate's previous RfA 3 years ago, or simply issues that I don't think are important for adminship. Deryck C. 22:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. Support An excellent editor with the judgment and experience needed to be a solid admin. I read through the opposition rationales but I don’t think they are issues that should block this RFA. Michepman (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Support Outstanding editor; prodigious contributor at DYK where much work and good judgment is needed. I trust that this excellent contributor will be careful and sensitive in future work and interactions. I would not be surprised eventually to see contributions in other areas as well, as some admins have noted in this RfA. Donner60 (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support For her work at DYK where admins are needed. Comte0 (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support. Oppose #1 (Iri) is well founded and should be borne in mind going forward. I suggest you take even more time and care as an admin at DYK than you do currently when building preps; both because the promoting admin is the final check before a mistake hits the main page and because the angry mob will only be larger and angrier when you're an admin. Note that adminning DYK is not a job for someone who likes the quiet life (part of the reason I rarely admin there these days), and I was going to abstain because of those concerns. But the remaining opposes are precisely the sort of bollocks that gives RfA a bad name (a non-admin lecturing the candidate on "what goes on throughout the entire gamut of adminship", accusations of racism for a common English joke, unspecified "concerns", and incoherent rubbish). Cwm's track record shows she clearly understands the content policies that admins are expected to uphold and enforce and she has ample experience in the areas she wants to work in. As long as she takes it slow and careful, she'll be a significant net positive as an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Support have occasionally seen her around at DYK, should be able to handle the job fine.--Staberinde (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Support does solid work at DYK and in article space. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. Support, will add a needed mop to the work. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Support don't remember any specific interactions with them but no red flags whatsoever. SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  163. Support. Why not? Will make a good admin. JavaHurricane 06:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  164. Support I've reviewed plenty of requests by Cwmhiraeth at CAT:RD1, and I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that she is one of the most frequent requesters there. They are consistently well judged and I would be happy with her carrying these out herself. No other concerns. Hut 8.5 06:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. Did you know ...

    ::...that Cwmhiraeth is going to be a very good administrator and is trustworthy with the admin toolkit? Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 09:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. Support. Great content creator whose actions demonstrate trustworthiness. I don't see anything that I consider a red flag. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  167. Support per nom.{{u|wylie39}} {Talk} 13:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. Support per nom :) FlalfTalk 14:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support been a great asset to DYK, and I'm sure they'll be able to contribute much more with the admin tools in hand. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  170. Support, have had only good interactions. A DYK stalwart over many years who has had to put up with a lot of grief for their good faith efforts. Also, being Welsh, of course, am a big fan of sheep. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. Support Greetings from Duff's Hill to the valley of longing.[citation needed] I note with dismay that some of the relatively small number of opposes have been lodged by editors that I greatly admire. I hope therefore that will bear their comments in mind, whatever the outcome here. Ben MacDui 16:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC) PS “The Welsh say the Scots do.” I don't believe it!Reply[reply]
  172. Support per nom Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  173. Support. Kablammo (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  174. While Cwm is well known for her prolific content creation and DYK contributions, it's less well appreciated that she has a pretty darned tough hide. The flack she's taken from some quarters at times at DYK would I think have been sufficient to drive many people from the project, if not the encyclopedia, but through it all she's continued to contribute without missing a beat - that is something I have always particularly admired about her. In any case, she has well and truly earned the extra stripe. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  175. Support - the DYK issues brought up by the opposition do give me a pause, but to me at least it seems that this user has enough exipirence and the record to hold the adminship effectivly. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  176. Support - Some of the issues raised by the editors who oppose are valid concerns, and I hope that the candidate takes them seriously. As an aside, I wish that Wikipedia's main page and the project as a whole 99% ignored April Fool's Day, but consensus seems to be against me. My decision to support this editor is because 99+% of her contributions are positive and she clearly understands our policies and guidelines, and because she has the best interests of this encyclopedia at heart. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  177. Support - Trusted and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. This will no doubt pass, but I can't let this go through without registering my concerns. At the time I was deliberately avoiding naming names to avoid personalising the issue, but Cwmhiraeth was one of the two editors I had in mind when articulating my opposition to the creation of the "main page editor" userright. (See this thread on my talk from last year, or Fram's evidence at the TRM arb case for some illustration, but those are just small snapshots in time and you can find similar patterns of problematic behaviour with regards to the Main Page and related processes whenever you look.) If there were some kind of reverse unbundling in which someone was an admin in every respect except the ability to edit the Main Page I'd have no problem with that as I don't foresee any issues in the traditional admin areas of blocking and protection, but I assume the traditional admin areas of blocking and protection aren't what Cwmhiraeth wants the admin bit for. ‑ Iridescent 2 16:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With all due respect, as addressed in Q3 the arb case was nearly four years ago and is regretted, and the candidate, between reviewing and promoting, touches more DYK hooks and articles than any other editor. She almost certainly touches at least half of all DYKs. It should surprise no one that in such a case even an error rate lower than average is going to generate a sheer number of errors much higher than anyone else's. —valereee (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What Valereee said. I feel like a broken record, having made this argument repeatedly for several years now, but anyone looking at Cwmhiraeth's track record (or DYK's track record) needs to look at the proportion of errors, not the number. Cwmhiraeth's dectractors, and DYK's detractors more broadly, consistently fail to do this. For the record, when I say errors, I mean real errors, i.e. factual inaccuracies or failures of core policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose per question 7. I was really going for a support pending a basic answer to my new question I decided to ask at RFA. However two things with the answer struck me as odd. 1)The fact that Cwmhiraeth says she doubts she will ever block anyone. I think that just shows a lack of awareness of what goes on throughout the entire gamut of adminship and also where admin backlog is often needed. Also, 2)the expectation that an admin would not behave in such a way that would warrant an immediate block but instead going to a noticeboard being a better option. Those two options together, unless the answers can be clarified make me feel hesitant to support at this time. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I kinda took that to mean that Cwmhiraeth knew they'd be working in an admin area were instant blocks are relatively few and far between. Maile66, for instance, who is a regular on Main Page business, will be able to tell us how many times they have blocked someone for MP-related disruption. serial # 18:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My stats as an admin are public: Adminstats/Maile66. This month marks my 4th year as admin, and it looks like I blocked 1715 editors in that time. How many were because of Main Page stuff? Probably none. Most of them were either because they were reported at AIV or ANI. And I recently reverted a block of mine, as I thought I erred. Most blocks are for a given time period, from hours to days or weeks. Permanent blocks usually require a community discussion, or they are for vandalism only accounts. Depends on the why of the block. Blocking is a learning experience, and each one depends on the circumstances, and all blocks have an appeals process for the blockee. The fact that Cwmhiraeth says right now that they won't block, is their honest opinion. Who knows what any of us will do in the future. — Maile (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed, Maile66 and I thank you for that: rest assured, I wasn't picking on you, but as an admin who worked on MP business, you knew (know) better than me how few blocks come about as a result. Thanks for the reply! serial # 19:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I took it exactly as you meant it - just asking for my perspective. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment - just some insight from an admin here. I ran on the idea of going after vandalism. That was my #1 priority, and anything else with the tools was way in the rear of my thinking, if at all. And little by little, one situation at a time, I've learned there are so many other good things I can do with the tools to help the encyclopedia. I still deal with the vandalism issues, but actually being an admin is a whole different perspective than your vision when you stand at RFA. — Maile (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Cwmhiraeth, I think Maile is right about the likelihood of you eventually expanding the scope of the admin activity which you are now preparing for. That evolution —regardless of the varying degrees of frequency with respect to you stepping outside that comfort zone— is something to be expected. El_C 19:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose for promoting misleading and racist DYK hooks.--Catlemur (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not offended by "sheep shagger", this is an encyclopedia after all. We cannot (and will not) remove terms that are not politically correct. I am Welsh, the editor (Cwmhiraeth ) is Welsh. What's the problem? SethWhales talk 14:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The hook uses a slur to describe an ethnic group without specifying that its a slur. Whether you are cool with it or not is irrelevant.--Catlemur (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The hook you link as "misleading" was run for April Fools Day 2018. Not only is it 2 years old, but ALL April Fools Day hooks are meant to tweak the reader's nose. — Maile (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The day it appeared on the front page the article was named Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism, a blatantly misleading title. So my point stands.--Catlemur (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Years back, I recall driving along the A5 through Snowdonia and seeing a sign near Betws-y-Coed advertising a "sheep shearing contest" with the "shearing" scrubbed out and replaced with .... another word. Given that Gwynedd is the most patriotically Welsh of pretty much all of Wales, I doubt it would have survived if anyone had taken offence. If you think that's bad, heaven knows what you'll make of Ed shouting "whassup niggas?" in Shaun of the Dead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with Ritchie333. Also, it's very harsh to oppose a RfA on (maybe) two DYK hooks that you disagree with.SethWhales talk 15:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I always thought that sheep shagger was an affectionate term of abuse for Aberdonians. You live and learn... GirthSummit (blether) 16:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If I'd had to guess I'd have figured Australians. Why is it always sheep? —valereee (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All the jokes I know in this vein are actually about Scotsmen. I think it's just a generalized anti-Celtic conspiracy and smear campaign! Heh.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Reminds of a joke that goes something like this: "The English say the Welsh shag their sheep. The Welsh say the Scots do. The Scots say it's the Aussies. And the Aussies say it's the Kiwis. ... I'm starting to think the sheep are slags." -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Acknowledging the existence of a prejudice, insult, or other thing is not the same as accepting or championing it. Also, when did "Welsh" become a race? -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    When the Saxons invaded. But yes, I would certainly agree that the DYK in question was racist had it not been for the fact that it was clearly intended as an April Fool's Day prank and a joke against herself. Deb (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was promoted on 14 April, so must have been an April Fool's Day prank with a very long lead-in time. The self-joking isn't relevant when most readers would be unaware of who promoted it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In that case, I withdraw what I just said. I was assuming that the person who said it was had actually checked. That'll teach me. Yes, it's certainly racist. Deb (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Deb, it was the other referenced hook that was an April Fool's Day hook. FTR, though, DYK (and MP projects in general) almost never reject entries for being offensive. It's been discussed at length multiple times, and the outcome is almost without exception NOTCENSORED. —valereee (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry if that sounded rude. Deb (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Deb, not at all. The hook is, um, not one I would have written. :) —valereee (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In what way is the descriptive and factual statement, "Welshmen are sometimes called sheep shaggers", racist? That only works if we ignore the distinction between "Some people say X." and "X!" -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think that the term is exclusively used of Welshmen - in that I think the article is misleading. I also don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. It's not the statement that's racist, it's the inclusion of a racist epithet and the idea that mentioning it is somehow interesting and amusing.Deb (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Deb, we include many. —valereee (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Regretful Oppose - Sorry, I got close to supporting, but some of the concerns raised by the other opposers are worrying to me. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose: Per Keith (Neutral No. 1) and Q10, it does appear that this canidate is avoidant of dispute resolution. If an admin is going to work at content creation, they better pursue dispute resolution when neccessary. You gotta explain and not say I'm right. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose- Not the best fit. CLCStudent (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    CLCStudent, I'm sure other have pointed this out to you (given your RfA voting history), but an oppose with a rationale "not the best fit" does nothing in terms of helping build consensus as it provides the closing bureaucrat no reasons or context as to why a candidate may be "not the best fit". While that's a moot point in RfAs where the outcome is obvious, in cases where the determination of consensus is complex, your contribution to the consensus-building process is unlikely to be considered on the grounds that you have given no reason(s) or context as to why a candidate should not be promoted. Maxim(talk) 21:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose. I share Iridescent 2 and Catlemur's concerns about Cwmhiraeth's poor judgement in promoting DYK hooks. My own experience with this was when she approved a poorly-sourced hook describing Oscar Wilde as a "queer" and a "fag" for the main page. For those not aware, Wilde is probably the most famous British gay man to be persecuted and ultimately die for his sexuality. When I and other editors challenged Cwmhiraeth about this, her response was that she thought it an amusing hook and not in the least derogatory and that I was in a small minority in objecting to it, despite the fact that six other editors, including three admins, previously did so. Together with the examples above, this shows a severe lack of sensitivity, judgement, and ability to take responsibility – the worst possible qualities in someone who wants the tools to directly edit Wikipedia's most visible page. – Joe (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wilde was actually Irish, not British. Just for the record. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]
    Wilde lived and died a British citizen, and spent his adult life before his arrest living in London. You can call him Irish, but not "not British". Just for the record. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose. This (sure to pass) RfA hinges on the good work Cwmhiraeth does at DYK. I have spent years at DYK, and left it in disgust in part because of Cwmhiraeth. The (as far as I remember) last encounter I had was in September 2018, i.e. years after the problems with her editing were spelled out at her editor review, to little or no avail. User:The Rambling Man, who also spent years checking and correcting DYK (and other Main Page sections), corrected an article Cwmhiraeth wrote for DYK in 2018: Exocoetus volitans. The dispute evolved around the sentence " the fish needs to return to the sea before its fins dry out.", which TRM changed to "when its fins dry out"[1]. A very minimal issue, which caused Cwmhiraeth to go to TRM's user talk page and state "You followed the source without having the background knowledge to interpret it correctly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)" and other rather aggressive attacks on TRM. Too bad that the source, provided by Cwmhiraeth, was a book from 1803[2] with completely outdated "science". Not only was TRM's edit a better reading of the source text "It can only remain for a short time suspended in the air, for the instant it fins become dry, it must again dip into the water to moisten them", but anyone with the supposed "background knowledge" Cwmhiraeth here so smugly claims to have, would know that this extremely outdated source is not an acceptable source for the scientific aspects of a biological article, and that much more recent sources describing the current scientific explanation of the phenomenon are available (basically, it glides until it loses too much momentum: no dipping into water to moisten the fins comes into play, duh). Now, this is in itself a minor thing, but it shows the mindset of Cwmhiraeth which I have observed over the years, and which is not a good one for a DYK admin: they seriously overestimate their own knowledge and their ability to analyze and judge sources, failing to make the distinction between outdated sources and modern ones (like here), or between a local study and global conclusions (noted at their editing review and at later DYKs); and they react very badly to what they perceive as challenges to their authority (like in their 2014 editing review, where they reacted to fundamental criticism of some nonsense they wrote in a supposedly GA with "Tell me, Fram, do you have a Wikipediocracy account, and if so, what is your username (or whatever they call it there)? ") . Their few attempts at dispute resolution were a disaster, and an admin who can't be trusted to look at evidence, facts, sources competently should not be an admin. Fram (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose per Iri and Joe. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose While people do change and can improve, I think that there is a high risk that some core behaviors related to the Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth have not changed. I also think that the "I doubt that I will ever block anyone..." comment shows a disconnect with some important administrative areas, some of which are backlogged. --Pudeo (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Dragging up the now six years out of date results of a horribly-broken and justly-deprecated process is hardly relevant to a current RfA. Edirot Review was a vicious cesspool of score-settling and whatever was said there should be rightly ignored. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Eggishorn, did you mean Editor review or are you emphasizing the rottenness of Editor Review? Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 08:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed, Pudeo if editor review—or any opinions given therein—was to be considered a reliable source, it likely would not now be tagged {{historical}} :) serial # 09:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose per Joe Roe. This editor has shown a startling lack of judgement in promoting offensive slurs for display on the main page of the project. While WP:CENSOR is an important policy for an encyclopedia, the Main Page is literally the face of the organization. What we choose to display there reflects upon the project as a whole. Marnevell (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose (moved from support) per Joe Roe. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a suicide pact, nor is it an excuse to be WP:GRATUITOUS. Cwmhiraeth has been a valuable contributor to Wikipedia and especially to DYK, but I feel that they will do better in a position where another administrator is in the loop to approve their work. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 00:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose, per Joe Roe. Anyone who approves such homophobic and insulting drivel for DYK is utterly unsuited to be an administrator. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose per Joe Roe. I think the outcome of this seems pretty well set, but I echo the concerns of the above editors re: DYK. I hope that this admin-to-be takes these grievances into consideration.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. The candidate's avoidance of WP:DR and settling disputes through avoidance (mentioned in A3) is a concern, as admins will tend to be involved in DR, and avoidance of conflict can lead to unsatisfactory outcomes in the name of making everyone happy. Also, A1 indicates that the candidate is only familiar with a few areas of WP, and an admin may be expected to be involved in more areas than just the ones they prefer; point being, I'd like an admin to have broader experience and not just specific areas like pushing content to high visibility areas. However, I do appreciate the candidate's partial rejection of deletionism. - Keith D. Tyler 23:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moved to OpposeNeutral: I'm on the edge here. Per Keith and Q10, it does appear that this canidate is avoidant of dispute resolution. If an admin is going to work at content creation, they better pursue dispute resolution when neccessary. You gotta explain and not say I'm right. The forecast says that if no uninvolved editors respond and convince me away from oppose, then I'll oppose. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC) I fell off the edge. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I am in the middle because both oppose and support have good arguments. please try to convince me to either side. Clone commando sev (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • For the record, in a recent case, the arbitration committee felt that looking at the number of errors was more useful to them than the proportion. FYI; I say that as—ahem—not an endorsement of the committee's decision. serial # 17:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I know how to make zero mistakes. —valereee (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't make a single mistake when I don't edit. Atsme Talk 📧 01:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]
    Funny how that works. —valereee (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: I take your point, but I think it's a bit of an apples-oranges situation; Cwm makes a lot of promotions, but we're still talking about something of the order of a 100 a month, rather than tens (hundreds?) of thousands of speedy deletions. Admittedly, tracking proportions are hard; I tried, for a couple of months. Those stats are probably off-topic here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]
    I interpreted SN's comments as sardonic rather than as an indication that that's what should happen here. —valereee (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    He may have meant it that way, but I figured it was a fair point that needed answering nonetheless :) Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]
    With the exception of errors which are especially egregious, Serial Number 54129 is right that proportion should be paramount. His point is a good one, even if it is a bit of a non sequitur. El_C 18:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    why are we whispering? :D—valereee (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I didn't want to disturb anyone I didn't want to disturb anyone. But yes, my—very general— point was meant to be that, however we approach a particular issue one day can very much be reinterpreted by anyone else on another. @Valereee, Vanamonde93, and El C:, thanks for your characer refs  :) and apologies for any opacity. serial # 18:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Dang it, valereee! That was going to be my joke!! –MJLTalk 18:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why are we all whispering? (edit conflict)MJLTalk 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Vanamonde93, those stats are eye-opening. I had no idea. —valereee (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:ERRORS is quite ephemeral as there's no archiving and little long-term analysis or discussion. So, I've been keeping my own personal archive of discussions there. Browsing this for mentions of the candidate's username, I'm not finding much. I'm inclined to think that this is a good thing as it is somewhat of a drama board. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's good to know that the Arbitrary Committee continues to live up to my epithet for it. - Keith D. Tyler
  • Re: blocking people -- fwiw, I doubted I'd be blocking people much when I stood for RfA, and in fact I've averaged fewer than 2 blocks per month. I block when I stumble across an active vandal, usually because a page is on my watch list. I don't see many vandals in MP areas, where I do nearly 100% of my (therefore nearly invisible) admin work. Vandalism on MP talk is generally dealt with by someone else before I can even get there, I don't think I've ever even arrived in time to revert. —valereee (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Girth Summit - I'll let Cwmhiraeth answer the question herself, but I'd personally pronounce her username something like "coombe-hirrath". "Cwm" is what Scotsmen would call "Corrie", a hollow on a mountainside. "Hiraeth" means homesick. So the username strikes me as someone who misses their Welsh origins or homeland. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ritchie333, thanks for the lovely phonetics and etymology. (I've just added it to my non-existent list of coolest usernames.) GirthSummit (blether) 16:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 10 sucks. The last time someone was accused of "digging dirt" on an editor, it went the way of all things. The question should be recast, or, preferably, withdrawn. serial # 18:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If my motivation is to dig up dirt, I think I'd probably try to hide that. I'm sure I could come up with a nobler ostensible purpose. Protecting the encyclopedia, maybe? Points for honesty, though. :D —valereee (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Can I Log In: I realize that you are fairly new to Wikipedia (as of March 2018). And the nominee can answer that question for themselves. However, ANI exists specifically to air differences between editors. IMO, Cwmhiraeth did exactly what they were supposed to, by setting the issue before uninvolved editors at ANI. — Maile (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally, I don't think amount of content is a sufficient metric for adminship (I'm sure I'm far late to the party on this opinion); the two tasks aren't the same at all. It's akin to a horse event organizer running an emergency services agency, or a brain surgeon running a housing authority. Of course, I'm not one for handing out authority as an achievement award, but humans gonna human. - Keith D. Tyler 23:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KeithTyler, most editors who consider content creation important for admins are looking for some minimum quantity; one I've seen is at least 2 GAs or 1 FA. It's not that someone who has created 100 articles is more qualified than someone who has created 5, it more that there's some bare minimum that is preferred. The concern is that if an admin has almost no content creation experience, they can't understand the issues content creators face. A better analogy would be that while an organizer of horse events doesn't need to be an expert horsewoman, it's probably best if she at least knows how to ride. —valereee (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More to the point, given that adminship is the "mop and bucket" maintenance bunch ... would you entrust your automobile to a mechanic who has never driven an automobile? — Maile (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree with both of you as to quality of content, rather than quantity. NOE is as bad a metric as LOC, and the same principle applies. - Keith D. Tyler 22:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joe Roe, I share your antipathy for such MP entries, and I'm totally up for creating some policy for the MP that prevents offensive entries, but every time anyone has tried, we always end up with the strong consensus arguing for NOTCENSORED. I'll note that both that hook and the one referenced in the other oppose were written by the same editor. —valereee (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there's a fine line between documenting unpleasant, even horrific, stuff and using something unpleasant for shock value, that some of our nominators at DYK have struggled to see. The former is a critical part of our purpose as an encyclopedia, and is the real motivation behind NOTCENSORED as a policy; and the latter is thoroughly inappropriate. Drawing that line isn't always easy, and codifying it in a guideline is even harder. So I disapproved of both those hooks, but I don't necessarily hold that against Cwmhiraeth's general sense of judgement (I'd hold it against those writing them in the first place, but that's a discussion for another time). Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Valereee and Vanamonde93: For sure the root of the problem is a certain editor whose appalling excuse for a sense of humour has made DYK an embarrassment for years. But the buck has to stop somewhere, and I think it's with those approving the content. We shouldn't need a policy to explicitly forbid putting blatantly offensive material on the main page. You need an admin to actually do it, and I would hope that all our admins have the common sense to see what is and isn't appropriate for themselves. With Cwmhiraeth, what moves me to oppose so strongly is less the original action and more the response to criticism, where she stated that she did not consider the statement derogatory, and disclaimed all responsibility because "nobody objected". Frankly it's frightening to think that someone with that attitude will seemingly now have the final say on the image of Wikipedia that is portrayed on its most visible page. I only hope that she will take the opposes on board and use much, much more caution if trusted with the bit. – Joe (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the best. (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.