Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tamzin

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

Tamzin

• See /Bureaucrat chat. Maxim_(talk) 02:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Final (340/112/16); ended 02:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Maxim_(talk) 02:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

Tamzin (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Tamzin, formerly known as User:PinkAmpersand, for adminship. I've known Tamzin since they were a brand-new recent-changes patroller in 2012, a lifetime ago, and was already impressed with their common sense and intelligence, not to mention their sense of humor. I love it when editors take Wikipedia and its policies seriously but are also able to show their humanity and a spirit of collaboration.

Tamzin is a longtime and seasoned editor here with a variety of skills, many of them very technical, but they are a proven content writer as well. Recently they've been taking care of business over at WP:SPI, being very helpful and doing the important and not always visible work, and that's obviously an area where they can use the tool.

Tamzin is a writer too, as evidenced by the recent front page appearance of List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War, and lest you think that's just a list of names--it is not, it's an actual article that required work and references, including article talk page diplomacy. And as a writer on sometimes controversial topics, Tamzin has also engaged in the conversations necessary to reach consensus and make sure article content meets our standards for NPOV and proper verification. Tamzin has gained a lot of valuable experience in a wide variety of topic areas and parts of Wikipedia, for over ten years, and I have faith that they will put the tools to good use. They have good common sense, a sense of humor, and the maturity we need from an administrator. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I simply can't sing Tamzin's praises enough. I too knew her under her previous name, and in fact didn't make the connection until I began looking into encouraging her to stand for adminship; it was a delight to find out, and only strengthened my conviction. I otherwise echo Drmies in praising her depth and breadth of contributions, e.g., I had enthusiastically encouraged her before seeing she was helping out at SPI too.

What initially motivated me was seeing her participation at RFD. It's certainly not glamorous work, but important for understanding how to help readers navigate the encyclopedia. Fitting for the author of NOTGAME—which, hey, came up due to an RFD!—this is a sign to me that she understands the stakes, that this is all ultimately about running this wonderful project, not hat collecting and high scores.

Look over her user page and you'll get a sense of the breadth of her work: articles, wonky stuff like templates and modules, thoughtful guidance, incredible transparency, and yes, the humor. I'd give her a cetacean if I could. Failing that, I just give my enthusiastic, unqualified support. --BDD (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank Drmies and BDD for their nominations and their kindness, and accept those nominations (and forgive the lack of cetaceans). All necessary disclosures can be found at User:Tamzin/Disclosures and commitments. As a subsection of that page's accountability section, I've explained under what circumstances I would submit to a reconfirmation RfA. I thank the community for taking the time to consider my candidacy. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:42, 25 April 2022 (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 would like to give back to a project and community that have become a very important part of my life. Most of my projectspace activity is at RfD, where I am a regular participant and closer, and SPI, where I am a trainee clerk. As an admin I would be able to close RfDs as delete and block identified sockpuppets, and would be better-equipped to respond to SPIs involving deleted evidence or overlapping with other sorts of policy violation. (With four active non-admin clerks at the moment, often such cases sit waiting for attention significantly longer than others, even when all that is needed is "Yep, that's the same draft all right".) I would also like to help out in standard administrative work at AIV, RFPP, CAT:CSD, revdel requests, and AN(I), all of which I have a fair amount of experience with. Once I've had some time to get my sea legs as an admin, I'm also interested in working CAT:UNBLOCK and participating at AE.

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

A: Taking "best" as "highest-quality", I would say my work on the twin articles Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013) and Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018). I'd wanted to write those articles for years, and finally taking the time to sit down with a bunch of court decisions and news articles and law journal articles was a rewarding experience, and one that I hope will benefit readers who want to know about what counts as a vessel in the U.S. or when you can sue for retaliatory arrest.

Taking "best" as "most impactful", in terms of content I would point to the creation of List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War, which gets several hundred views per day, informing readers of an oft-overlooked horror of war. And in terms of projectspace impact I'd highlight my discovery and pursuit of a long-term sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry ring that had successfully skewed all coverage of Swaminarayan Sampradaya, a major Hindu movement, for years, driving away content creators in the process. The most important part of anti-sockpuppetry is making sure that editors are always free to improve articles.

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 don't like conflict. One might say that I've picked a strange line of "work" here, then, and it's true that at SPI I don't shy away from coming down hard on sox, nor from calling out editors who file spurious reports, but I try not to get drawn into arguments, as SPI or elsewhere. If it's a consensus-building discussion, then once I've said my piece all I can do is sit back and see if others see things my way, even if that means having to watch consensus be "wrong". If I warn someone and they don't see that they did something wrong and aren't open to a constructive discussion, then it's a question of if I should report them now or keep an eye on them for later, but not an invitation to argue. And if a good-faith disagreement comes to an impasse, then so it goes; I move on. Even if I think someone is entirely wrong, I like to think of myself as very patient with anyone who I think is here to build an encyclopedia and isn't ignoring constructive criticism. (Conversely, I have little patience for those who disrupt the project in the pursuit of an end against Wikipedia's purpose.)

The main situation where I'll get into a longer back-and-forth is if I think someone has misused their tools or their status. I've had a few such conversations recently—two with admins, a few with rollbackers. I approach such cases constructively, not reproachfully, and usually have been able to come to an understanding with the other editor. As an admin, I would continue to take such approaches.

---

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 Barkeep49

4. On your disclosures page you quote the admin who blocked you saying don't delve too deeply and quickly in the back-office aspects of the project – it's rather seedy back there and you'll end up with a jaundiced view. Not unlike mine, I suppose. To what degree do you feel projectspace participation has made you jaundiced? How will (or won't) you act on this idea with the block tool if made an admin?

A: Coren's advice to me then has stuck with me ever since, and was the only reason I hesitated to join the SPI team. What I've learned in the past 8 months or so as a trainee clerk is that it's important to balance "back-office" work with work more directly related to the encyclopedia we as a community produce—both because it keeps you in touch with why we do this and because it allows you to recalibrate your senses, forestalling that sort of jaundice. If you do nonstop SPI work, working through cases that are at times bone-chilling, at times infuriating, at times both, sooner or later you'll reach the point where a case comes up of someone who has used multiple accounts but without clear intent to deceive, and you'll throw the book at them purely out of habit, chasing off a good-faith contributor who really just needed a {{uw-login}}. That's what I've strived to avoid, primarily by taking breaks from SPI when necessary. I think that, so far, I've done a good job at maintaining my ability to assume good faith despite no small amount of exposure to those seediest parts.

If this RfA succeeds, I don't plan to be a "blocking admin". Due to the prolificity of vandals and LTA sockpuppets, I'm sure I'd make a numerically large number of blocks, but when it comes to users where there's any shred of AGF to be had, I don't anticipate relying on the blocking tool much more than I currently rely on the option to report to admins. If there's a 95% chance that someone is here in bad faith, then that's a 5% chance that blocking them will antagonize someone who might have gone on to be our next power-content-creator. Instead I'd prefer to have a conversation with them; usually you can separate good faith from bad faith pretty quickly based on how someone responds to something like "No, you cannot add links to your blog to random articles". And then, if they're refusing to accept that their actions are disruptive, I'd be willing to block them. And if I did find myself becoming jaundiced, too heavy on the block button, too quick to assume troll or sock, I would follow the same technique I've followed at SPI: Step back and find something to do for a few days or weeks that doesn't have anything to do with user conduct.

Optional question from Volten001

5. Thank you candidate for your contributions and for offering to serve as an admin. My question is, if you are successful and become an admin, would you be open for recall in future?

A: I think that the reconfirmation criteria I set out at User:Tamzin/Disclosures and commitments § Admin version of this, if I am sysopped are tantamount to a set of recall criteria, enough so that I would list myself at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria. To save people the click:

I have no interest in serving as an admin if I do not have the community's enduring support. If anything should happen to make me think that I no longer have the community's support, or if an uninvolved bureaucrat notifies me that they have reached that conclusion, I will promptly stand for a reconfirmation RfA, with the same support threshold as for any other RfA, and will not use the admin tools while that process is pending.

I considered adding some sort of enforcement mechanism—"and if I don't do this, I give permission in advance to desysop me"—but it's "constitutionally" unclear if an admin can make an irrevocable recall commitment, and if an admin can be trusted to not later rescind that enforcement mechanism, then they can be trusted to keep to the underlying commitment in the first place. I know that I would keep my word, and I think that the community making me an admin would mean they believe the same. That said, if the community does ever establish a formal "no take-backs" procedure to make one's recall criteria binding, I would enter into that, because why not.

Optional question from Nosebagbear

6. I see you have some edit filter activity - including EFH. Would you be looking towards EFM in the future? What type of edit filter work do you participate in (please feel free to have a certain degree of breadth/vagueness to avoid ceding private filter details)

A: If sysopped, I plan to self-grant EFM soon enough, although I have no intention to rush into that. (A wiki-lifetime ago—when there were, in my defense, fewer sanity checks in Special:AbuseFilter—I edited a filter on Wikidata such that it briefly matched an empty item description, and suffice it to say that that was a sobering experience.) As an EFH I've been working on a new filter with Firefly to detect mass changes to transgender of nonbinary people's pronouns, currently in log-only at 1190. I anticipate that my EFM would be a mix of that—coming up with creative regex-based solutions to user-conduct problems—and a continuation of what I already do at EFFP fixing subtle errors in existing filters, now without having to ping Suffusion of Yellow 20 times a day (although initially at least I'd probably be pinging them even more often to ask "Am I doing this right???").

Optional question from RoySmith

7. This is your second RfA, the first being wikidata:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/PinkAmpersand. Could you talk about that, and in particular, why you're not anymore?

A: I RfA'd on Wikidata in February 2013, that infant project's first "native" admin. I was an active there for some time, making almost 4,000 deletions, all manual. Dreaded real life things caught up to me, and I became less active across all Wikimedia for a while. While I was less active, Wikidata passed some fairly strict activity enquirements (not that I object to them!) and in June of 2014 I came up short. I got the talkpage message notifying me of impending removal, and resolved to go action a few deletion requests to retain the bit, but it was a sunny day in Manchester and by the time I got back to the hostel I'd been desysopped. I don't really regret that. Sometimes you have to put real life first. (N.B.: When I've told this story in the past, I've said "sunny day in Marseille", but looking at my travelogue I was apparently in Manchester on 1 July 2014, which makes sense because now that I think of it, I recall being in London on July 4th. Not sure how I managed to get those two cities mixed up!) I've thought at times of re-RfAing on Wikidata, where I remain active to a degree, but have not yet had the time to refamiliarize myself with how that project has evolved since 2014.

Optional question from Colin M

8. Could you share one (or more) examples of difficult closes you've performed at RfD? I'd be particularly interested in an example where you found consensus for an outcome other than what would be suggested by a simple head count.

A: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 8 § Mass formation psychosis is a good example of a close somewhat against the numbers. By head count it was a straight keep, but looking at the strength of the policy arguments (or lack thereof) and reading beyond just the boldfaced bits, it was clear to me that there was not a consensus that this is a wholly unobjectionable redirect; thus I closed as "keep for now", even though only two users had explicitly favored that outcome. The most difficult close I've done, though, is probably the triple-close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26 § Kyiv Offensive, Talk:Kyiv offensive (2022) § Requested move 26 February 2022, and Talk:Kiev Offensive § Requested move 27 February 2022. That required judging three separate discussions all with the same core question (is Kiev vs. Kyiv sufficient disambiguation under WP:SMALLDETAILS?). Of them, the third would probably have been a no-consensus judged entirely on its own, but from the arguments presented across all three I saw a general consensus that that disambiguation is insufficient. There have also been other closes that were difficult simply because there was nothing close to a numerical consensus for any one idea—a particular vulnerability at RfD given that it's not a venue for just keep vs. delete—but where there was consensus against the status quo. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 5 § Getting wet is a good example of one, where 11 commenters discussed six different potential outcomes. With help from Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion, I closed that as "no consensus (default to disambiguate)". Sometimes it's just a matter of picking the least worst option.

Optional question from ArsenalGhanaPartey

9. You make a controversial decision that the majority of the community disagrees with. (Closing an AfD, etc.) How would you approach a situation like this?

A: This is already a scenario I might encounter through my work at RfD or SPI (although I haven't yet). I wouldn't make a decision that I know in advance the majority of the community would disagree with. If it becomes clear after an action that my decision does not have the community's support, I will revise it, although it is important to distinguish between "the majority of the community oppose a decision" and "a small group of people are loudly complaining about a decision" (as can happen when, say, closing an XfD where one side has dug in, or blocking a popular user for unambiguous sockpuppetry). We are not governed by the loudest people in the room, and if there's ambiguity as to which of those two things is occurring, I would refer people to the appropriate venue for review. Getting more eyes on something never hurts.

Optional question from PerryPerryD

10 What do you wish for the Wikipedia project as a whole?

A: To be a force for good in the lives of our readers and editors, while respecting the dignity of the subjects we cover.

Optional question from Lkb335

11. Which policy would you say most guides your actions on the site, or is most important to your day-to-day editing?

A: This may sound like a strange answer, but, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. It's not that on a daily basis I'm explicitly or even implicitly invoking IAR, but IAR is an eternal reminder that all policies and guidelines exist in service of our encyclopedic mission, not the other way around. And it is the "parent policy", so to speak, of WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOTBURO, both of which should inform any decision an editor makes. Often at SPI I have to make common-sense decisions based on nuances that aren't explicitly written down in WP:SOCK. And often at RfD I encounter situations that stray slightly outside of that venue's normal jurisdiction, but which it would be pointlessly bureaucratic to refer elsewhere. (At the same time, "Common sense" only gets you so far, and one must always be careful to distinguish between "common sense" and "it makes sense to me"; I've seen editors plead common sense as justification for making statements inconsistent with reliable sources. And if someone brings something to RfD that is just squarely beyond that venue's remit—say, a non-procedural move request in disguise—it's not unduly bureaucratic to close that discussion and point them to the right venue.)

Optional question from Liz

12. First I should say, you have my support. I'm familiar with your good work at RFD and SPI and I look forward to working with you. You gave a very diplomatic answer to question #3 and I like to see specifics and examples with this question because it is so important when you become an admin. Recently, there have been administrators who lost their tools because they didn't respond appropriately or timely to criticism or confrontation and I'd like it if you offered a specific incident (or two) where you found yourself in a conflict and how you sought to resolve it. You don't have to name names (that's not important) but since you say you dislike conflict, the times when it has happened probably stand out in your memory. If you could just describe a couple of scenarios where this occurred and how it was resolved, I'd appreciate it. For me, at least, it doesn't matter whether these situations occurred early in your time on Wikipedia or last week. Many thanks and good luck!

A: One recent example of a conflict arising from someone criticizing me was at Talk:List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Wuerzele charged that the list was "bloated and cluttered" and that I was "exhibit[ing] WP:Ownership-like behavior" because I had reverted them. The first thing I did was look into whether they were right. The last thing I would ever want is to double down in a conflict when clearly on the wrong side. I looked through some featured lists and concluded that the list I'd written was no more prose-heavy than a good number of them. I then replied to lay out my case for why I thought the way I had done it was acceptable, giving examples of other similar lists; I chose to show rather than tell my lack of ownership by soliciting their further input. They never did reply, but a week later, giving the list another read-through, I realized I agreed with one point they'd made (about there being too many section-level hatnotes), and edited the list accordingly.

An example more about administrative actions than content work would be Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 15 § Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria, the incident Huggums referred to in their vote below. I considered the merits of their close challenge, found that I was unpersuaded that my reading of consensus had been incorrect, and responded point-by-point to their concerns. In that kind of interaction I try to be direct and clear, and not to take a defensive tone. There was one point I had erred on (although actually in Huggums' favor), and I acknowledged it. Finally, I never want to come off as telling someone "That's just the way it is," so I made sure to point Huggums toward DRV (analogous to one of the scenarios I describe in A9). They took me up on that; that discussion was resolved in favor of my close.

It would be disingenuous, and not in keeping with the spirit of your question, to only give examples where I was right, so I'll also give one where I was wrong: User talk:Tamzin § Not sure why this is worth the argument (permalink). Elinruby gave a good explanation of the edit they'd made to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I responded by explaining why my revert had made sense to me at the time that I made it, but didn't try to argue that I was in the right and they were in the wrong, because, yeah, they were right. I should not have reverted. I apologized, and we had a constructive discussion about the nuances of CS1's |url-access= parameter. At that point, the question becomes one of mistakes made and lessons learned. One lesson I learned was that |url-access=limited exists, meaning that the better course of action would have been to change subscription to limited and perhaps ping Elinruby in the edit summary. The other lesson learned was a more general reminder to consider alternatives to reverting, a reminder I think many of us need from time to time. The important thing is that, by taking all complaints seriously and being open to the fact that one is wrong, those reminders can take the form of pleasant conversations like Elinruby and I had, rather than getting hauled to ANI or ArbCom.

I hope that answers your question. If not, I'm happy to elaborate further.

This is what I was looking for although I didn't expect so much detail. I think one aspect of being an admin that may be unexpected is the number of times actions you take that seem straight-forward at the time are contested. And sometimes editors can be very upset about actions you've taken. The ability to hear the criticism, consider whether it is accurate or whether it is not valid, seeing when you need to stand up for your decisions and when you might have made erred and be able to correct it and admit to making a mistake, is crucial to being an admin for the long-term. I appreciate your thorough response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from GeoffreyT2000

13. You appear to have a Reddit account with two posts about your name. Would you use Reddit to post Wikipedia-related questions if you became an admin?

A: Since the "QuestionMark" part of that became untrue once I made the post about deciding on my new middle name, after that I made a new account, u/TamzinHadasa. I do post occasionally in r/wikipedia to answer people's questions about how to edit (or correct people who've given bad answers :P ).

Optional question from User:Ad Orientem

14. Could you please elaborate on this comment which you made at another RfA, parts of which concern me. To be clear your objection to true political extremists is not in itself an issue, and would likely be a deal breaker for me as well. But do you believe that disqualifying political extremism exists only on the far right (Fascists), or does this also include Communists (Stalinists and the like)? In particular I am concerned with your statement that anyone whose politics are right of center could not gain your support at RfA and you expressed comfort with desysopping anyone who supported former president Trump. Are these still your views? Thank you in advance for your reply.

A: So, to take that as three sub-questions:

1. Support of oppressive regimes should be disqualifying, period. The most common form of that that we see on enwiki is support of far-right oppressive regimes, and that's what was being discussed in that conversation, but certainly the left has its own problems in that regard, including, yes, apologism for the crimes against humanity committed by Stalin, Mao, and other leftists. That ought to be disqualifying too.
2. I shouldn't have said I would never vote for a right-of-center admin candidate. That was hyperbole during a heated conversation, but that's no excuse. What I was trying to convey is that that is something that would make me tend against supporting. I don't think it's unreasonable to judge someone's fitness for a position of trust based on one's impression of the reasonableness (or lack thereof) of their political views. That's an equal-opportunity thing: If someone concludes that, from their perspective, my political views (to the extent I've ever discussed those publicly) call my judgment into question, then I don't fault them for opposing or declining to support on that basis. Political views are one of the best measures of someone's character, and should not be off-limits in assessing people. At the same time, it should not be the only consideration, definitely not a litmus test, unless someone falls into the groups discussed in Point 1.
3. I think that avowed, continuing support for Donald Trump constitutes support for an oppressive regime, and thus should be disqualifying for the same reasons discussed in Point 1. Without turning this into a polemic, see generally the aftermath of the 2020 election and the events of January 6th, 2021. Of course, that's entirely hypothetical; I do not expect the community or ArbCom to ever actually impose such a test on administrators, and have no intention to propose one myself.

I think that that comment generated more heat than light, and if I could do it over I wouldn't have phrased it the way that I did. That thread is probably the most intense argument I've gotten into since my return to editing in October of 2020, and I'd just as soon not wind up in that position again. I do better when I'm making people happy, not angry.

ADDENDUM: I awoke to a lot of things to think about. I don't really have a problem with the opposes, generally speaking (although I can't say I take kindly to "disgusting" and "despicable"). Given that my whole point in A14.2 is that political views are a reasonable thing to judge a candidate for, I can't very well take exception to being judged for my own views. All I'd like to do is stress a nuance in the above between two very distinct sentiments: [right-of-U.S.-center politics are] something that would make me tend against supporting [an RfA] and avowed, continuing support for Donald Trump constitutes support for an oppressive regime, and thus should be disqualifying [for adminship].

• As to the former... permissions requests, uniquely on Wikipedia, are a place to judge someone's character. And I stand by my take that Political views are one of the best measures of someone's character. We're not judging character at ANI or SPI; we're judging fitness to edit an encyclopedia collaboratively in the former and SOCK violation in the latter. Heavens know that if we were judging on character there'd be plenty of people I'd have requested blocks for at SPI—civil POV-pushers for authoritarian regimes, civil POV-pushers against various groups' rights, and even in one memorable case a user obsessed with showing why all pitbulls should be euthanized (I closed that SPI as "not proven" despite a strong personal desire, as a dog-lover, to see them gone; they were later sockblocked when evidence mounted). But yes, in those rare cases where we're judging character, one thing I look to is someone's views on how the world should be. That tells you a lot about a person. But, I want to emphasize, this is a view about tending not to support. I've never opposed an RfA based on someone being right-of-U.S.-center, and don't intend to. (In fact I don't think I've even, in practice, ever declined to vote on that basis. As a rule I only vote at RfAs where I have preexisting experience with the person, so I sit most out.) And it's certainly not a view about how right-of-U.S.-center users should be treated elsewhere on Wikipedia. Otherwise there's several members of the SPI and steward teams whom I wouldn't be able to work with, while in fact we get along swimmingly.
• As to the latter, let me be clear. This isn't about conservatives. It isn't about Republicans. It isn't about people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. It is about people who continue to support him after he spent months trying to undermine the outcome of a free and fair election and his supporters then invaded the hallowed center of our democracy in an overt attempt to unlawfully overturn that election's result and impose an unelected head of state. An event that saw my cousin and uncle and aunt and octogenarian grandmother shelter in place in their home a few blocks away while tear gas, flashbangs, and bullets were fired in the halls of the Capitol. I think that some people—especially those disconnected from U.S. politics, either from lack of interest or living in another country—see Trump as "just another politician". He isn't. He is an unparalleled threat to our democracy. As a lifelong supporter of liberty and opponent of tyranny, I would be being dishonest with myself if I did not take a stance against him.

Again, I want to clarify those nuances so that there's no misunderstanding of what I've said. But—and I want to stress this for some of my supporters—I don't think it's unreasonable to oppose based on this. My whole point here is that I believe in being honest with yourself and others about what you believe. If that path leads you to a conclusion that you can't support me, then I appreciate your honesty.

In closing, all I would like to add is a reminder that I didn't choose to discuss this topic. It was entirely reasonable for Ad Orientem to ask about it, but it's not something I expected to have to take a stand on at my RfA. I hope people understand that I'm a bit "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" on talking about this: One way I'm politicizing things, the other way I'm failing to hold myself accountable. I've put accountability first.

Optional question from User:Fakescientist8000

15. What is (in your opinion) the most valuable asset to Wikipedia (this could be anything - Bots, gadgets, policies and/or guidelines) and why?

A: The most valuable asset to Wikipedia is quality content on topics that benefit our readers. Which means that by extension you could say the most valuable asset is editor-hours geared toward such work. Those can be editor-hours spent writing or maintaining the articles, or spent working on bots and scripts and tools and templates and modules that make the articles better, or spent making sure our readers find what they're looking for and are able to read it, or spent mitigating the efforts of those who would hinder the foregoing groups. The most important thing is that, whatever work one does, one be able to justify how that work ties back to that core priority of quality content. We always need to make sure we're not just doing work for its own sake.

Optional question from 511KeV

16. Let's take a situation, You come across an unblock request. The user has mentioned that this is an old account that he had used but was blocked due to less knowledge about the policies, The user claims to have used another account as a fresh start. The other account is in good standing with no issue that got previous account blocked. How will you take action? or What will be your opinion?

A: This is the exact kind of scenario I was thinking of when I said in A11 that sometimes common sense must be used when dealing with sockpuppetry policy violations. The strict letter-of-the-law answer here is that you block the "clean start" account and tell them to wait six months with no edits and then request an unblock on the older account. I would not do that. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and if someone has created a block-evading account and gone on to do a lot of good work with it, and the original block wasn't for something really nasty like harassment or serious BLP violations, then no misconduct is prevented by sidelining a competent contributor for six months. That's just making the encyclopedia worse in the name of hypercompliance with policy. Something like this did happen with Hatto, and the community consensus was that he should not be blocked, even if technically he was evading. That event has informed my decisionmaking as an SPI clerk in similar situations, and on one occasion I have, with the Hatto case in mind, declined to request a block for some ancient block evasion. (The user in question proceeded to get himself indeffed for other reasons less than 24 hours later, but hey, I can't control that. :P )

So, the upshot of this is that my course of action would be:

1. Make sure that I fully understand the circumstances of the block, and that no part of it was for one of those "really nasty" things. (If part of it was, then probably block the new account and take the case to AN.)
2. Make sure that the cause of the original block hasn't been recurring. For some things, like personal attacks, that can be checked easily based on if they've been blocked or warned. But for something like misrepresenting sources or copyright violations, a deeper dive may be needed and I may need to talk further with the user to make sure they definitely understand the policies in question. (If there is recurrence, same approach as above.)
3. If the blocking admin is still active, reach out to them.
4. Assuming that there are no issues from the previous three steps, ask the user which of the two accounts they would like to edit under. If they want to stick with the new account, then tell them may continue doing so (and maybe re-indef the old account without autoblock and with an updated explanation). If they want to go back to the original account, then unblock that but block the new account without autoblock. In either case, tell them that as an unblock condition they are subject to a one-account restriction indefinitely. And let them know that they've gotten lucky, and that if they're ever blocked again, please go about things the right way this time, because you probably won't get lucky twice.

Optional question from Andrew D.

17 There's a common feeling that Wikipedia is addictive and there's a current discussion about this at the Village Pump. What's your take on this and what will you do about it as an admin, please?

A: I think that it would be accurate to describe Wikipedia as generally prone to causing addiction, although I don't think that's true for everyone who regularly edits. (Then again, the same caveat could be given for regular users of heroin.) I've addressed the broader concept of mental illness on Wikipedia in User:Tamzin/Guidance for editors with mental illnesses, and I encourage anyone with a mental illness, including addiction, to take a look.

Already in my work I always try to consider the role that mental illness may play in editors' behavior on-wiki. There's a tendency to dismiss that consideration, but I find that at once unrealistic, cold-hearted, and counterproductive. I wanted to get to this in A4, but had already said a fair bit: I think many admins take an approach to blocks of "CAT:UNBLOCK will know its own". One thing I learned from being blocked early on in my editing career is that it's a deeply unpleasant experience if you're invested in this project. And at the time of my block in 2012—16 years old and having just quit high school—there was definitely a layer of addiction that made the block sting much more. And as much as we might wish people not wind up addicted to Wikipedia, the reality is that they do, and it's important to understand that when making decisions about user conduct. It doesn't mean we should let them get away with violating policy, but in terms of how one approaches warnings and blocks, one should understand that for some people a block takes away not just their hobby but their world, and pick one's tone accordingly.

Optional question from Sdrqaz

18. Given your answers to Q1 and Q14, do you intend to work on arbitration enforcement for American politics 2 in an administrative capacity?

A: Keeping in mind that my A14 was in the context of a comment about whom I'd vote for at RfA, not whom I think is fit to edit, I expressed two political views there and in the linked comment: That I am a leftist, and that I am strongly opposed to Donald Trump. The former is not, in my view, disqualifying of any sort of AE action. The community has ruled in the past that admins known to have strong political views may act at AE on political topics as long as they are not involved with respect to the matter at hand. Indeed, one of our best AE admins is a proud Marxist-Leninist. Furthermore, one at one's own peril extrapolates or interpolates any specific political views on my part simply from knowing my general political orientation and my opinions on one politician. Either way, when it comes to administrative matters I pick no favorites. I think over the years I think I've had more angry POV-pushers accuse me of being far-right than far-left.

So, I would not broadly recuse from American politics. But to avoid any appearance of impropriety I would recuse from topics within American politics that I've expressed opinions about on-wiki, which as far as I can recall is a class of one: my opposition to Mr. Trump. Thus I would not take administrative action in disputes that substantially pertain to Donald Trump or users who advertise their support for him, outside of super-blatant disruption like someone spamming an anti- or pro-Trump catchphrase across a bunch of talk pages (which isn't an AE-worthy matter anyways).

With all that said, at AE I'd intend to focus more on topic areas further afield from my own interests. The ARBIPA topic area is constantly in need of attention, something that's becaome quite clear to me in my time working at SPI. There's enough admins focused on AMPOL for the most part; I have more interest in chipping in on cases that often go neglected. And with AMPOL, IPA, other AE topic areas, or other administrative work, I would always have an open mind to any good-faith criticisms of my actions.

Optional question from Homeostasis07 (copied by Tamzin from a reply to TNT's neutral vote)

19. I'm surprised no-one is raising the shared IP address [with TheresNoTime] as an issue, especially when the two accounts have an extensive interaction history, editing several dozen articles within 10 minutes of one another. I would like to see some genuine elaboration on this point.

A: Sammy and I lived together from early November to early February. We were both already members of the SPI team. Factoring in activity levels of the CU and clerk corps, a relatively small cohort does this work at any point in time, and due to the nature of SPI workflows it's very common for two team members to have a large amount of overlap with short periods between edits; you can verify that by plugging other highly-active clerks and CUs into the Editor Interaction Analyzer. Sammy and I felt it would be unfeasible to completely avoid each other at SPI, especially as the majority of our interactions were fairly procedural (Me:  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me.  Clerk endorsed for sleepers. / Her:  Confirmed.  Blocked without tags. / Me:  Tagged. Closing.)

However, for the duration of our living together, we did work to minimize interactions at SPI and elsewhere on Wikipedia where possible, even though I don't think any policy or guideline required this of us. She would run into my endorses working through that queue. I would run into her completeds working through that queue. Sometimes we'd both turn up to a case because we both had worked on previous filings. But as a rule we did not bring SPI matters directly to each other, letting our interactions there be incidental. That trend can be verified by looking through the SPIs at the link you gave; most are from before November. We were open about sharing an IP, both disclosing this on subpaged linked from our userpages; other team members, including multiple arbitrators, were aware of it and saw no issue with it. If there are specific SPIs where you are concerned about our interactions, I am happy to discuss them.

That addresses the SPI overlap, which is the vast majority of the pages in the EIA. The remaining pages are, I think, largely self-explanatory. If there are specific pages you'd like me to discuss, though, again, please let me know.

Optional question from Itcouldbepossible

20. You already have my support. But, I want to know about your views on the WP:NONAZIS essay? Do you agree with it? Yes or no? Why?

A: I don't disagree with that essay, but think it rather misses the point—a view I've expressed in the past on its talkpage. We are a global project, and while Western far-right extremism is something we certainly struggle with, we also struggle with a lot of supremacist attitudes between different ethnic groups or social groups in other countries. Furthermore, I think the reliance on NONAZIS by some admins is strange when we already have a guideline on-point: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If someone is saying "Jews did 9/11" or "Serbians are the master race" or "I hate Dalits", that is per se disruptive editing. Hate is disruptive. If I'm going to take administrative action against a bigot, I would rather it be under a straightforward, well-established guidline than an essay that immediately lends itself to the retort, "Oh, so are you saying you wouldn't have blocked a Stalinist?" Let's not get caught up in the semantics of which kind of oppressive ideas are worse than others. Let's just block those who are disrupting the building of our encyclopedia.

Since Vami's RfA has already come up, I'll reiterate my position there that such views can be rehabilitated, and if I were to block someone for promoting hate and they were to return months or years later and say "Y'know, I was a real idiot back then. I've done a lot of soul-searching, talked to some Jews/non-Serbs/Dalits, and realized how myopic my worldview was. I apologize to anyone in the community I hurt. I'd like to return to editing", then I'd be inclined to unblock, possibly with an unblock-condition TBAN from the topic area in question.

Optional question from CactiStaccingCrane

21. Even though like above I have support you, I really want to know about your path towards pushing Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013) and (2018) towards GA. One, what challenges have you faced while tuning them, and two, what experience would you consider to be the most valuable while using admin tools? I would love to hear your story :)

A: Small correction: I haven't been pushing either toward GA, but they're up for DYK currently. I'd like to get Fane Lozman itself to GA at some point, though; and who knows, maybe one or both of the cases too.

I first became interested in Lozman's cases in 2017, when the were featured quite a bit on a podcast called First Mondays. It's just a fascinating series of events with a colorful cast of characters. That coincided with what I call my "second wiki-life", and I started working on User:Tamzin/Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (referring to the 2018 case) in June of 2018, before letting it go stale when other things drew my attention away from Wikimedia for a while (see SN54129's support + Special:Diff/1084656730). I resolved in January to finally write not just that but also the article on the 2013 case, and was excited to rediscover the draft I'd written (which, while it had sourcing and style issues, was fuller-featured than the existing start-class article on the '18 case). The biggest challenges that faced me... One was a personal one: focus. It's hard for me to stay focused on a task for a long period of time, and that's a big part of why my content work historically has often had more to do with fixing up a section of an existing article than writing a new one from scratch. But it was a rewarding experience to force myself to focus long enough to write the two articles, and extra exciting when I realized I could still merge in a lot of that 2018 draft. The other biggest challenge... This sounds funny, but: The fact that both cases have the same caption! And, not just that, a whole bunch of lower-court caseve has the same caption. The Snyder source quoted in both numbers Lozman I through Lozman V, and that's actually an undercount (I comes after the Florida Sunshine Law suit that set the whole thing into motion, for instance). So it was legitimately a challenge combing through court cases and news articles to figure out which damn Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach they were talking about half of the time!

In terms of how this will affect my outlook as an admin. Well, Iridescent got a bit at this in their support (see also my reply (permalink)), but I think that it's important to understand the attitude content creators have toward their articles, in order to adjudicate any content or mixed conduct/content dispute. It's very easy to say "WP:OWN! WP:OWN! WP:OWN!" when you're not the one writing the articles, but from the Lozman articles, the journalist list, and the shorter but zealously-sourced List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine, I have come to understand much better the emotional bond the writers have with their articles. Part of what I get at in A17 is the importance of admins understanding the psychologies that motivate the users they interact with, and the psychology of someone who's just poured their time and energy and heart into an article is perhaps the most importat one to understand. Factoring in research time I've probably cumulatively spent several full days working on the journalists list, so that in particular, even more than the Lozman articles, evokes that in me. I think I nonetheless do a good job taking on board criticism of the articles I've written, but I can definitely empathize much better with those who react poorly to criticism or bold slash-and-burn edits.

Optional question from Mhawk10

22. On your disclosures and commitments page, you mention that you know a substantial number of individuals that have Wikipedia pages. To what extent have your interactions with notable people shaped your editing philosophy as it pertains to how Wikipedia should treat biographies of living persons?

A: I take a very hard line on BLP, and that's largely borne of my off-wiki interactions with BLP subjects. I discussed this at some length at User talk:Iridescent/Archive 46#Yo. I gave three examples there: my aunt, whose article contained an unsourced, undue claim for years as part of a labor dispute; a former classmate whose article attributes a nationality to him that I'm 99% sure is incorrect; and the boyfriend of a highschool classmate, who was for years deadnamed in his mother's article because a BLPNAME-noncompliant reference couldn't be updated since he hadn't told the press of his transition. Just the other day I saw a case at BLPN involving an old colleague of my father's; someone had turned his article into a coatrack for poorly-sourced criticism, including a patently false statement that he'd been fired for a scandal he was rather praised for handling. (I did email him, and he seemed pretty happy with how BLPN had handled it, so... progress, I guess!)

Cases like these remind me of what Risker once said: There is a deadline for [the living people about whom we write]: it is the moment that Google puts our article about them in their top-5 results. ... Not a day goes by that someone being interviewed on radio or television isn't confronted with a question that starts "I looked up your Wikipedia entry and it says..." The failure of individuals to recognise this collective responsibility to get things right about real people does more to harm the reputation and credibility of this project than any other error that is made. I'm an eventualist on a lot of things—for instance I published Bombing of Borodianka as soon as I was satisfied it met core policies, knowing that putting it in mainspace would attract more eyes. But I think there's a tendency to apply eventualism to BLPs in a way that is actively dangerous to real humans. I've seen so many times someone reverted an unsourced DOB back into an article on the premise that it wasn't that big of a deal. We can't know that. We can't know which unsourced details in a BLP will be significant in someone's life. We don't know if a rival or jealous ex is currently pushing some theory in their friend group or workplace that they've lied about their age. The statement in my aunt's article would seem fairly innocuous if you're not familiar with how union politics works. We need to be strict about these things. Because our hobby is these people's lives.

Optional question from ProcrastinatingReader

23. Do you plan to do any discretionary sanctions enforcement, or any other kind of conduct enforcement in DS-authorised topic areas? (excluding sockpuppetry)

A: As addressed in A1 and A18, yes, once I've built up some experience in regular adminning. I plan to primarily focus on non-Western geopolitical conflicts, since I've become fairly familiar with ARBIPA in particular through my SPI work, and don't have many content contributions to these topic areas that would force me to recuse on cases.

23(b). Thanks for confirming. Follow-up: Can you point to a specific content dispute you've been part of, in any contentious DS-authorised topic area? How did you navigate the dispute?

A: The disagreement mentioned in the first paragraph of A12 would be one (ARBEE topic area), but the best one to highlight, probably, is Talk:James Barry (surgeon)/Archive 2 § Request for comment: Pronouns, a fairly intense RfC in the GENSEX topic area regarding how to refer to someone from the 1800s who was assigned female at birth but lived most of his life as a man. Complicating the RfC all the more was that there had never been a strong consensus for the status quo (avoiding pronouns) to begin with. My approach there was based on the premise that most disruption in talkpage threads in DS areas comes from inappropriate generalization of topics. (For instance, "We should talk about Side X doing a bad thing" → "Oh so you just hate Side X?") For that reason, I framed the RfC from the get-go not around a matter of gender identity, but around the more fact-based question, drawn from MOS:GENDERID, of what gender Barry presented as at the time of his death. Some aspects of the thread nonetheless became sidelined on irrelevant questions such as whether Barry was trans—a string of tangents by both sides that the closer, Chetsford, bemoaned in his "no consensus" close. Nonetheless, some productive discussion was able to happen; I particularly appreciated Mathglot's impassioned argument agaist "he/him" pronouns, which, across all the threads I'd read on that talkpage, was the first such argument that I'd found somewhat compelling (even if I still think the case for "he/him" is even more compelling). I had a brief conversation with Chetsford and Mathglot after the RfC closed, in which Mathglot and I expressed mutual respect for each other's arguments and agreement with Chetsford's close. This exchange left me optimistic that we had set the stage for some future RfC (perhaps more strictly moderated) that might be able to generate a consensus at long last. Either way, I learned something valuable about navigating such a frought topic.

Optional question from Paradise Chronicle

24.A follow up question to Q17 where Wikipedia is described to be addictive in relation that you are presented as an SPI specialist and have voiced a tolerant view regarding WP:IAR. How would you approach a situation in which an SPI is launched against an constructive editor to the project?

A: This is hard to answer generally, because it would depend on the nature of the SPI. A user's history of positive contributions should be considered at SPI, but it is not a "get out of jail free" card. Someone could have 20 FAs, but if they use a sock to send death threats to another user, they're still getting blocked (and referred to Trust and Safety). But with experienced users, more so than with newer users, we might seek to tailor sanctions to what we think is less likely to drive them away. And then a lot of that is based on how cooperative they are. I recently gave an "only warning" to a user for some very blatant, normally blockable meatpuppetry, part because he was an experienced user and an admin on four sister wikis, part because he was very forthcoming about what he'd done and understood he couldn't do it again.

At the same time, we don't want to create an environment where having a certain number of edits, or a certain number of GAs or FAs, or a certain set of permissions, makes you above policy. I think we often discount the silent cost incurred by experienced users who get away with gross incivility, quietly chasing away would-be productive contributors who see that and think "I'll find something else to do with my time", and don't ragequit but rather just stop editing.

If that comes off as a bit vague, again, it's hard to answer in the general case. If you'd like to give some more specific hypotheticals, I'm happy to answer those.

Optional question from 78.26

25. What would your reaction be if you were informed that I, as a current administrator, voted for Trump in 2020?

A: I would take note of that fact and move on with my day.

Optional question from North8000

26.To address the brewing gorilla in the living room, can you give an unfiltered explanation of your thoughts on whether evaluation of non-fringe political views should be allowed to influence what happens in Wikipedia?

A: I think when voting in a permission request or election, you should vote your conscience. That may or may not include consideration of the candidate's political views. And despite all that's been discussed here, to date, I have never voted (nor chosen not to vote) in any permission request or election based on the candidate's political views.

In any other context on Wikipedia, people's political views should be completely ignored, unless, as you allude to, they are so fringe as to be disruptive (see A20). To be clear, I don't think that even vocal giant-font-MAGA-userpage support for Donald Trump counts as "so fringe as to be disruptive" on its own.

Optional question from Ixtal

27. Would you recuse yourself from Requests for permissions?

@Ixtal: Could you elaborate here? If you really just mean this as a yes-or-no question without context, then I can answer it that way, but I'm assuming there's a reason you've asked it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean it as a yes-or-no question, but the context is the community's reaction to your responses of Q14. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

A: To answer the explicit question: No. To answer the implicit question of "Are you going to go around denying permission requests from people with pro-Trump userboxen?": Also no.

ADDENDUM: To be clear, my statement below about permissions requests being an appropriate place to judge character is in the context of permissions we vote on. Granting or declining a permission request at PERM is an administrative action, not an expression of personal preference, and there is no leeway in it for character judgments, other than character judgments based on someone's on-wiki conduct.

Optional question from Rin

28. Following A26 above in which you stated you believe one should vote their conscience; could you, practically, see yourself voting against a RfA candidate based solely on political affiliation (assuming it is not "so fringe as to be disruptive", as you said in the latter half of the answer), such as if one expressed their support for Trump? If yes: even if the candidate otherwise has a need and seems trusted enough to not make mistakes involving neutrality?

There was a concern raised below about baiting/loaded questions. This is one such question. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from theleekycauldron

29. Just about any editor can vote in an RfA or an RfC, voicing a broad spectrum of ideas. Should you pass your RfA, can you foresee any area of conduct, open only to the mop corps, that would be significantly affected by the philosophy you expressed in Q14?

A: No. None. This is not a view I think a lot about. I didn't even remember I'd said it, until Ad Orientam's question. My thoughts on conservatism and Donald Trump are not on my mind while doing basically anything on Wikipedia. Even if I'm editing an article about American politics, I'm not really thinking about my own views, just about what's in the reliable sources.

That said, as noted in A18, I would still avoid administrative actions specifically about Donald Trump or his vocal on-wiki supporters to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

Optional question from Mhawk10

30. In this thread and on other pages, you've mentioned that a large number of your relatives and acquaintances are journalists and media figures. To what extent has your personal experience in interacting with a large number of journalists and media figures affected the manner in which you use news articles as sources on Wikipedia and, in particular, how you evaluate news sources for reliability and weight?

A: Growing up surrounded by journalists, and having briefly worked in journalism, has given me, if nothing else, a pretty good nose for good or bad journalism, and an awareness of the limitations of even reputable sources. One important nuance of journalism that I see a lot of editors fail to understand is the difference between "The New York Times says X" and "The New York Times says that John Politician says X". This comes up a lot in articles about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where often you have Western newspapers repeating claims from the Ukrainian government, which may itself be repeating claims made by private citizens. At List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War, I've worked with Ymblanter to combat situations where partisan claims were being presented as endorsed by news outlets that had simply repeated them. And I don't think that's generally bad faith, just that people don't know the difference.

More broadly, it's important to have an awareness of the limitations of fact-checking at news outlets that are putting out pieces on a daily or hourly timeframe. The Washington Post is a damn good source, but if a Post article mentions in passing "John Doe, the Chief Financial Officer at Acme Corp.", and Acme Corp.'s website says that Doe is the Chief Operating Officer there and has never been anything else, we may have to consider that the Post got it wrong. I ran into an interesting case like this at Unabomber Manifesto. Contemporaneous news sources are 100% clear that The New York Times did not publish the document, only The Washington Post. But because the Times did cover half the cost of the publication, and perhaps because of ambiguities in the term "publish", over the years a number of sources have mistakenly stated that the Times also ran it. The biggest offenders have been more recent news articles mentioning the fact in passing—"Kaczynski, whose manifesto ran in The Washington Post and The New York Times in 1995, wrote in a letter that ..." A good understanding of how the news media works makes one realize that the reliability of such a passing mention is significantly lower than that of a statement in an article squarely covering the topic, even if the publication is broadly a reliable source. With all that in mind, I edited the Manifesto article in July to remove the incorrect claim, with a hidden comment explaining the sourcing issue. (And then, just now, checking back at the article, I realized I'd missed a matching incorrect claim in the lede, so I got that too.)

So to the question of how I evaluate news sources for reliability and weight, it's several considerations: First, of course, the overall reputability of the source. Then, consider the amount of editorial oversight put into the piece. If it's a breaking news piece, there's a much higher risk of there being outright incorrect information in there. Something in the Style section probably isn't fact-checked as thoroughly as something in the Business section. A reliable newspaper's blogs might not be fact-checked at all. Third—and this really only matters if there's a conflict of sources—consider how central the information is to the piece. The farther it is from the piece's focus, the more likely there are to be factual errors. Likewise, if the claim is about a subject somewhat removed from the journalist's beat, it may merit greater skepticism. I'm sure we've all seen cases where non-tech journalists say something completely absurd about technology. Oh and on that note... Always remember the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.

Optional question from Q28

31. A LTA was informed of another editor's IP segment through certain means. The LTA then uses that IP segment to register an account and perform destructive edits. An administrator found out about the LTA and blocked him, stripping him of his discussion page editing rights and emailing rights. The editor was also notified of the automatic ban, so he proceeded in accordance with WP:ABLK. Of course he can't edit his own talk page, he can't send emails, and he is in a region where IRC is blocked (e.g. mainland China) and the automatically blocked wiki has no WP:utrs. What should you do if you are the unfortunate user?

A: The first part of your question seems unlikely. It's pretty hard to intentionally place yourself on someone else's IP range. But, certainly, coincidences happen. I discovered a while ago that, in the summer of 2011, a sockmaster registered the username of a tiny local business I worked at in... the summer of 2011. So he and I were probably within a few feet of each other at some point. If I'd been editing at that point, who knows, maybe I would have turned up as a false positive to him and wound up in the scenario you describe. On the English Wikipedia, we have multiple layers of defenses against such coincidences, the last of them being UTRS. On wikis that don't have UTRS or anything like it, you'd have to look to local procedures and norms; I don't think I can comment further than that without specifics. If you do reach a case where you're truly locked out to no avail—I mean all options have failed—despite having done nothing wrong, the ethical question arises of if it's okay to create a new account. That's a difficult question because, even if you've done nothing wrong, if you're caught you will be treated as a sockpuppet, and precious editor-hours will be spent mitigating that. But at the same time I don't think I could in good conscience tell someone they need to indefinitely resign themself to a mistaken block that they've taken every possible step to appeal. A bluntly honest answer would be: If the person decides to create a new account, they should make sure not to get caught (cf. User:Worm That Turned/Quiet return).

Optional question from Renerpho

:32. I was looking for instances where your political views did impact your past edits/votes. I could not find any not yet mentioned here. What I did find was Vami IV's RfA, where you supported (and defended) a former self-identified fascist in their request for adminship. Could you elaborate on how you made the decision to look past their "sins"?

A:

Optional question from 2601:647:5800:1A1F:C54D:43E:AA67:CA78

33. How do make sure you are not jaded by your daily work at WP:SPI and other boards that are sometimes draining? Do you have any specific strategies?

A:

Optional question from NotReallySoroka

34. Please forgive this opposer should I prove overly biased for my question, but: What are your feelings (if any) towards supporters frequently commenting about the opposers (and vice versa)? I believe that some comments are more about the commenters than the comment. Thanks! Question withdrawn. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

A:

Optional question from Casualdejekyll

35. I believe Renerpho brought up some solid points in their now struck question, so, to rephrase it more neutrally: You've said some controversial statements about the suitability of fascists for adminship. With that in mind, how did your views on this topic influence your !vote in Vami IV's RfA?

A:

Optional question from Iamreallygoodatcheckers

36. What quality or trait do current Trump supporters have that makes you believe they shouldn't admins?

A:

Discussion

• Links for Tamzin: Tamzin (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Tamzin 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. Has my trust, support without question. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

   Tamzin and I don't always agree politically. I don't care. Everyone with the mop (and everyone without, for that matter!) has their opinions and beliefs and biases. The important thing is being aware of those and making sure they are not compromising your neutrality, and Tamzin has the maturity and introspection to do that. I firmly believe that Tamzin would never use anybody's political beliefs as a litmus test in any sort of administrative situation (alternatively, if she found someone's political beliefs so problematic that she did not trust herself to act neutrally, I trust her to get a second opinion or just choose not to act at all). I continue to support, and I suggest the oppose section do a little more reading of the nuances of her responses. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

2. Support -- Prodipto Deloar (Talk • Contribute) 02:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
3. Support. Positive experiences interacting with this user on SPI and technical issues. Great candidate. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
4. Support - Obviously deserves to be an administrator considering her allover knowledge and her work at SPI. I had always been waiting for this RFA to begin. I fully support her RFA. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 02:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
5. Support easily based on past interactions at RfD, where they are a valued contributor and closer. eviolite (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

   Reaffirm. I do not believe that expressing one belief of theirs that is more extreme than average would affect their administrative actions (particularly so in generally drama-low areas like RfD) in any significant way, especially per the pledges in Q18 and 29. eviolite (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

6. 👍 It's finally happening — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
7. 100%, without any hesitation. SQL^{Query Me!} 03:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
8. Of course! As co-nom. --BDD (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
9. Support. I've seen their work and am happy to see and support this nomination. Funcrunch (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
10. in just now, but support :) A competent, qualified, and friendly editor—absolutely trust them with the mop. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support wholeheartedly per her answer to my Q29. I'd like to remind everyone that an editor's conduct, and their viewpoint on power, is only relevant to an RfA to the extent that it affects their ability to wield the mop competently and fairly. Tamzin has that ability, and she's had it from the start of this RfA. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

11. Per their noms and their outstanding answer to Q4. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    With a lesser candidate I'd likely be moving to either strike my support or move to outright oppose so instead I'll just be a weak support should that come to mean something (which my guess is it won't). I believe in NONAZIs for the same reason I believe in a NOMRND. But I am not willing to say that anyone who voted for one of the two foremost political parties in a functioning democracy/republic cannot hold administrative rights on English Wikipedia. In fairness Tamzin didn't quite say this - January 6 seems to have been an important piece in forming her views on this matter and no one has (yet) voted for Trump since then. But it's close enough to saying that in Q14 for me to be mighty uncomfortable because I believe the best knowledge isn't forged in an echo chamber of any kind and have always appreciated that the messiness of our consensus process recognizes that. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

    In a "functioning democracy/republic", major political parties don't attempt to violently subvert the electoral process & retain power despite electoral defeat. Nor do they build their political identities around anti-democratic lies. The rules and norms that you might apply to a "functioning democracy" may need to be updated to reflect those realities. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

12. Support without hesitation. I'm happy to see this, but it's four years overdue! -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    I don't think this is needed, but since I've seen people count them: reaffirming support. It's a shame this turned into a political referendum (as an interesting parallel, the oppose percentage in this RfA matches to the whole number this percentage at the time of this affirmation), but that does not mean that Tamzin would use administrative tools to gain an upper hand against those with differing political views. I mean, we're talking about someone who wouldn't let her housemate support due to a perceived conflict of interest, and I doubt anyone would have batted an eye if that vote were placed in the support section. This is someone who is very in tune with her biases and conflicts of interests, and would go out of her way to not violate that perception. As a proud fellow member of the Cabal of Ta\w{1,2}i\w, I am familiar enough with her work to say with confidence that would be very out of character for Tamzin to take a COI-violating action. You would think that someone would be able to find some kind of action to support the claims made in the opposition because she is such a prolific AWOT, right? Actions speak way louder than words, and Tamzin's actions are impeccable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

    Proud? >:P 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

13. Support - seems to have sufficient good sense and experience, and I've seen nothing to indicate they'd abuse the tools. Thanks for volunteering. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Well this got lively since the last time I looked. Reaffirming support after reading the comments in question and Tamzin's responses/follow-ups. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

14. Support Have had nothing but good interactions. Should make an excellent admin. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support, also per Ritchie's double reaffirmation. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

15. Hands down. Nardog (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
16. Support Having seen Tamzin around, I tend to think of Tamzin as a thoughtful and conscientious editor. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
17. Support Long solid history of editing and interactions with others. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
18. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    I don't like Tamzin's opinion which has provoked the opposes, but I understand it. I trust her more than enough to not think that that opinion will much impact on her work as an admin. Still an easy net positive. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 06:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

19. Support - she already does a lot of admin-adjacent work and has a track record of thoughtful and valuable contributions in this capacity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
20. Support Thoughtful, experienced and competent. Would make a good admin. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffiriming support, though I have some mixed feelings. I still think Tamzin would make a great admin, with no more bias in her editing than the next admin (actually less given her unfaltering desire for transparency). While I agree with the sentiment of Cullen328, opposers need to consider WP:the one question a bit more, rather than using their !vote to morally grandstand. How does Tamzin's whack voting criteria affect her adminship? Although the same is true for Tamzin; you're too quick to dismiss the positive contributions and neutrality of admins who support Trump. I also completely disagree that "Political views are one of the best measures of someone's character". I think that you probably have a bias for how you view politics, as a politically literate person. A lot of people are more influenced by the opinions of their family, friends and media than the actions of politicians and their parties. To agf I assume incompetence in that respect. But I again disagree that being incompetent in that respect means they shouldn't be an admin outright. I don't think we can say that support of Trump affects the quality of their contributions, and hence their suitability as an admin. The other thing that I don't understand is your response to a (hypothetical?) 2020 voter of Trump "I would take note of that fact and move on with my day." If it's not avowed, continuing support for Donald Trump, then do you still ominously take note? I suppose I would have expected a request for clarification for that one. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

21. Support strongly. I've interacted with Tamzin frequently, and they're a classic admin without tools—highly competent, thoughtful, pleasant to be around, and overall deserving of the community's trust. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
22. Support has a need, not a jerk. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
23. (Editing to Weakest support23:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)) I found this by chance shortly before the transclusion, was ready to jump in! Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC) I jumped in after I found the page by chance the morning before transclusion. I don't know about our interaction, but as a lurker by habit, I have seen you a bunch, Tamzin, and believe you want the best for Wikipedia. Someone below pointed out I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter - and my instinct was to Oppose. And if this were just an RfA for someone I hadn't seen I'dve. But I believe you've done good, and more importantly, I believe in WP:1Q. I am an American who did not vote for Trump (either time), but I cannot stress how much I hate this statement. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
24. Enthusiastic support. Nothing but positive interactions. Checks all the boxes and then some. Will be a great fit. El_C 05:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
25. Support. Trusted user, need for the tools. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 05:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support following Q14; per Tamzin's answers to Q18, Q23, Q27, Q29 I do not foresee any problems with their usage of the mop, nor have I seen any evidence that Tamzin has let their personal opinions influence their onwiki conduct. Absent any such evidence I do not see an issue with a personal belief held by Tamzin. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

26. Support - I'm happy to see this user asking for the bit. I'm familiar with their work, cluefulness, and demeanor. Would make a good admin! - tucoxn\^talk 05:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
27. Support completely. Tamzin would make a great admin. ––FormalDude talk 05:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
28. Tamzin is among the most thoughtful and eloquent editors I’ve had the pleasure of coming across. This is a no-brainer. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Wow – if what I said here hadn't been true before seeing her answers to the optional questions so far, it definitely would be true now! No-brainer times two. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    And a final reaffirmation, for whatever it's worth. Above, theleekycauldron wisely asked can you foresee any area of conduct, open only to the mop corps, that would be significantly affected by the philosophy you expressed in Q14? Tamzin responded No. None. That's more than good enough for me – I respect the candidate for being forthright about their opinions and I trust them to maintain appropriate conduct onwiki. Oppose votes based on Tamzin's expressed opinions are of course fair game, but I'm disappointed by the number of opposes that misinterpret or even catastrophize their statements here and elsewhere. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

29. Support - per their excellent work and very thoughtful answer to Q4. firefly ( t · c ) 06:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming support per Nableezy and Beeblebrox. firefly ( t · c ) 13:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

30. Support, precious. We met by Maks Levin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
31. Yes please. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
32. Support: One of those How aren't you an admin already? editors. Glad to support. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 07:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support in light of recent revelations. Although Tamzin's suggestions in that RfA were unfortunate, I don't think she'll let her political/social opinions come in the way of her administrator actions. She is all over the project, I've never found her misbehaving with someone, or letting her POV reflect in reader-facing areas of the project. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

33. Enthusiastic Support (I was looking to watchlist the redlink for this RFA this morning, only to find it's already a bluelink) Tamzin is doing great work already. Looking forward to more. Cabayi (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Support Why not? --Victor Trevor (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Moved to oppose.--Victor Trevor (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

34. Support without reservation. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
35. Support - I see no problems. Deb (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
36. Support based on my experiences of working with them at SPI. Plenty of clue, no discernable jerkiness. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming support. There are a number of editors in the oppose section for whom I have great personal respect, and I hope that Tamzin will reflect on what they've said. However, my support is based not on Tamzin's political views, nor on her views about other people's political opinions and whether or not they would prevent them from being a good admin: my support is based on the belief that she will be able to use the toolset competently and fairly for the benefit of the project. My experience of working with her has convinced me that she has that ability, and nothing in the oppose section makes me doubt that. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

37. Support, knowledgeable and clueful editor. This request has been a long time coming. I've always enjoyed our interactions and conversations over the years. Graham87 08:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
38. Support I've seen this user's work from afar and have no concerns. The quality nominators help too. Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
39. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
40. Extremely clueful editor with great technical and social competence, will make a fine admin. —Kusma (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming support. Candidate understands the distinction between "not supporting" and "opposing". (Also, the original diff reads to me mostly as rather emphatically asserting that Vami is not a fascist). —Kusma (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

41. Support Yeah! Viewer⁷¹⁹/_Contribs! 09:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
42. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirm support, but I liked this RfA better when the biggest issue was Bluebook form. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

43. Support She seems to be a bit of a worker bee which is a good thing in this day and age. I don't see anything that tells me she wouldn't make a fine admin and a welcome addition to the corps. scope_creep^Talk 10:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
44. Support - Use for tools, has my trust, fits what I expect from a candidate. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Trump comment is deeply troubling if part of a pattern but I don't see enough evidence of Tamzin's political affiliation affecting their SPI clerking or dispute behaviour to break my trust yet. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

    For clarity my comment above indicates a weak support. Not that it changes anything in the bigger picture. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Striked, moving to oppose . — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 17:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Moving back to support. Clarification that the candidate would not deny permission requests based on political affiliation is something I will trust in good faith. I trust the community will be able to take action and fix Tamzin's mess if they cause any, and I have little reason to expect that to happen in practice. While I may not be endorsing Tamzin as a candidate as much as I would have if they hadn't insisted on continuing to dig once they found themselves in a hole, they've acted civilly and honestly enough that I trust they will follow WP:ADMINACCT. Their disclosure pages reinforce that belief. I am certain Tamzin will now have many more eyes on them than most new admins and am looking forward to seeing them take up the mop and doing the job that needs to be done. What a shame of an RfA, partim mea culpa. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

45. Support From contribution history, seems a net positive. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
46. Support I've interacted with Tamzin now for a considerable period of time, and she's definitely a good enough person to be trusted with the tools and obviously being in SPI means that need is pretty evident. Not knowing much about RfD I'll leave any review on that to others, but I'd be surprised if something was found that rendered them unfit for the mop. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    So I absolutely get the concern that the more recent opposes have raised. I am part of the minority of the mop corps who don't back NONAZIS as de facto policy. But I do think it unlikely that I'd ever (!)vote for one in an RfA, even if otherwise qualified. So there certainly is a difference between how an admin should act towards editors as part of their duties and how we should treat candidates. Tamzin's current answers don't make me concerned about the former. But the latter is a reasonable grounds to oppose - editors can draw different thresholds and "nazis" and even those who are "still Trump supporters" are definitely sets that by no means completely overlap. The end result of this is to make me a weak oppose support Nosebagbear (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Moved back from the oppose section, after a legitimate move from @Primefac: caused by a major typo on my end Nosebagbear (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

47. Support Why not --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
48. Support can be trusted with the tool.--- FitIndia ^{Talk (A/CU) on Commons} 11:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
49. Support Thought they should have been an admin about 5-6 years ago. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming support in the light of recent answers to questions, particularly Q14 and Q16. Admitting fault and building bridges is an important component on adminship, and Tamzin is right to point out the problems with SPI "cops" trying to get sockpuppet "robbers". (But I would say that, wouldn't I)? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    Double reaffirming support. You can't say "How about a Trump supporter who is scrupulously even-handed and neutral in their editing? (I'm sceptical that such a person exists because by definition they would support the 2021 United States Capitol attack and blatant lies about electoral fraud) and then oppose an Trump opposer who has explained (at least in my view) that they can be trusted to scrupulously even-handed and neutral in their adminship. Given that Tamzin self-identifies as a disabled queer trans leftist Jewish woman, it's small wonder she has no time for Trump fans, because Trump fans don't seem to have any time for her. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

50. Support Absolutely unreservedly. stwalkerster (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support here in this clearly contentious RfA. Ponyo and SoWhy have said the things I'm thinking already in a much more eloquent way than I could at the moment. stwalkerster (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

51. Support ZettaComposer (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
52. Definitely. - Astrophobe (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    I don't have time to lay out my reasoning but I want to note that I have to some extent followed the conversation below and continue to support the candidate, for reasons similar to those expressed in other reaffirmations. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

53. Support - based on their SPI work I am happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 11:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
54. Support – very thoughtful responses to the questions so far and clear need for admin tools. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
55. Support Answered my question intelligently and either way, I believe she will make a great admin.Volten001 ^☎ 12:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
56. Support -- lomrjyo ^🇺🇦 12:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reafirming my support in light of Q14 and the subsequent flurry of opposes. -- lomrjyo ^🇺🇦 01:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

57. When I saw this was Tamzin, obvs I thought, ah, the wannabe admin; I'll sit this out. but—but—when I realised this was &, who was fantastic many moons ago, then it was a dead cert. Didn't notice the years-long gap in editing in that time though. Hope it was life-upturning times! This is also, explicitly, per Drmies's nom. Cheers, SN54129 12:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Mandatory reaffirmation of support per Politanvm's thoughtful and nuanced disection of the situation; hopefully some of those who have "voted "regretfully", or moved from this column, will see the light now cast upon some unfortunate, but Wikilarilly inoffensive, vocabulary. SN54129 14:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

58. Support Will make an excellent admin. Lennart97 (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
59. Support - Definitely a right fit. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
60. Support per NOBIGDEAL; will be (and from what I can tell, was) a great admin. HouseBlaster^talk 13:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirm support. It would have been much easier for Tamzin to say "I am so sorry. I said that in the heat of the moment, and in no way do I believe that we should desysop all Trump supporters. I will do better with the tools," but they didn't. They did the hard thing, and told the straight truth. Good faith has been demonstrated; it does not need to be assumed. In light of this, I have every bit of faith that they will follow through with their recall pledge if the community finds that they are unable to keep politics out of their work as an admin. They will be hyper-aware after this RfA of their responsibility to leave politics at the door, whether or not this RfA passes. Finally, after reviewing their contribs and reading the rest of this RfA I have found no evidence that they have actually done anything improper, and I see no reason to believe that handing them the mop will change this. HouseBlaster^talk 21:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    Moving to oppose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceoil (talk • contribs) 8:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

61. Strong support Their work at SPI has shown that they are ready for the bit. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 13:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
62. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Weak Support Solid editor with an excellent record. No red or yellow flag that I could find. The sole oppose is (as usual) singularly unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC) ADDENDUM Moving back to support following their answer to my question 14. That said, their continued strong prejudice against those who don't share their political beliefs, is problematic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    Moving to nuetral pending response to my question 14. I may well end up back here in short order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

63. I usually don't bother to vote in obvious RFAs, but I'll make an exception here. Previous interactions have always left me impressed with their knowledge and approach. Plus I'm scared to cross Drmies. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Confirming my support now that there has been a spate of opposes. Basically, per (a) agreeing with the underlying philosophy, but also (b) per the answer to Q14, and per Ad Orientem's original addendum above, before they changed it. Grrrrr... Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)(italics added after posting, 11:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC))

64. Support - I feel comfortable that they wouldn't abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
65. Support No qualms about Tamzin's suitability for the toolbox. Schazjmd (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
66. Support Welcome to the mop corps. Katie^talk 14:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
67. Complete Support Tamzin is a very trustable user to have the tools. They and other users helped me get through my sockpuppetry block. They show that they can handle the tools even while they weren't an administrator. Congratulations and thank you! SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 14:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Support -Kpddg ^(talk) 14:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Moved to oppose.

    Support ~Styyx^Talk? 14:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Struck without moving anywhere. ~Styyx^Talk? 18:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

68. Support -- ferret (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Thought I'd come back and denote my Strong Support. I have zero belief that Tamzin will misuse the tools. -- ferret (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

69. Support Terasail^[✉️] 14:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
70. An enthusiastic support from me. I honestly thought she was an admin already. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
71. Support - Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Noting that, having reviewed Tamzin's responses to Q14 and others, I remain in strong support. I fail to see how it's controversial to believe that admins shouldn't hold political views which undermine the existence and rights of other contributors. I recommend that those in the oppose section arguing, in effect, that all political ideologies should be considered equal, should reconsider the effects of such a view. Regardless, this is a topic of discussion that we as a community can have, and I do not think it detracts in the slightest from Tamzin's readiness for admin tools. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

72. Support – I also thought she was one already . –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
73. Support – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Like many !voters, I'm troubled by some of the things Tamzin has said about the role that a candidate's political views should play at RfA. I find many of the opposes (particularly Levivich's) to be reasonable and well argued, and I hope Tamzin takes them to heart no matter how this RfA closes. But the applicable question here is not whether Tamzin's viewpoint is right or wrong: it's whether she'll be able to use the toolset responsibly and impartially. The answer to that question, I still think, is yes. The oppose section is noticeably bereft of any evidence that Tamzin's opinions have affected her on-wiki behavior in the slightest. She's made more than fifteen thousand edits since the June 2021 comment quoted above, and yet no one can point to a single action that has even arguably been affected by her political views. Instead, her work at RfD and SPI shows a long track record of superb judgment even in challenging cases, as I don't think anyone has seriously contested. Moreover, to SoWhy's point, her remarkable transparency makes it far easier to hold her accountable if she ever uses the tools in an unreasonable or involved way. If this RfA passes, Tamzin, I hope that you stay far away from taking administrative action regarding topics about which you hold strong opinions, even if WP:INVOLVED doesn't require it and even if you're absolutely certain that you can be impartial: the appearance of bias can be just as harmful as bias itself. Because I have faith that you'll do that, and because you aren't a jerk and have a clue, I'm content to reäffirm my support. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

74. Support Positive interactions with this editor at WP:SPI. FDW777 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
75. Support. What an excellent candidate. I wish her well on her chosen path. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
76. Support would be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
77. Support Chlod (say hi!) 15:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Re-affirming support. I won't go into detail as much of this section (particularly the comments of Ritchie333, Extraordinary Writ, Bilorv, Mhawk10, Leijurv, and FeydHuxtable) have already stated much of my reasons for re-affirming support. Having read the explanations given by the candidate and the discussions that spawned as a result of this RfA, I trust that Tamzin will be able to stay neutral with their work as an administrator. Perhaps I should have also given a rationale for my original support as well: I've communicated with Tamzin off-wiki multiple times (particularly for advice on things I have barely any experience on) and I've found them very friendly and level-headed. My experiences with Tamzin have been positive in general, and I don't expect that to change much. Chlod (say hi!) 04:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

78. Support should've been one years ago. Legoktm (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support. Everyone has biases, especially w/r to politics, I appreciate the extra transparency and nuance shown by Tamzin here. Legoktm (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

    Support, from my interactions with her they are definitely deserving of admin perms (even though it's not a big deal). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Moving to neutral due to some concerns brought up relating to a question Tamzin answered. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

79. Support --Vacant0 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
80. It would be an honor to be helped by this candidate, whether or not she's an admin. This is one of WP's truly awesome editors! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 16:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
81. Support per nominators and my interactions --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Noting for discussion sake that I have reviewed the oppose rationales and my support is unwavering. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

    Not overly concerned with the philosphically-based oppose rationales, though I think it would be better to be less out-spoken about one's politics. I've been accused of being a MAGAT and a left-wing commie snowflake on wiki. So, I guess I'm doing a fair job of keeping my politics off-Wiki. I think it best to avoid such political statements lest others question my neutrality. (as is hapening here.) But I think she can set her politics aside when using the tools. She is smart enough to do that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support in the face of @Hammersoft:'s unprecedented bullying insistence that she withdraw. Clearly, Tamzin has sufficient support from the community to make Hammersoft's assertion of lacking community support ludicrous. Tamzin, while overly outspoken about politics on Wikipedia , has shown that she can set aside her politics when acting as an admin. Though not outspoken about them, some of us have views and political leanings that we set aside when using our admin tools. I know I have. Changing to Strong support --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

    What Jacona said. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

    Deepfriedokra, I believe that your remark borders on a personal attack. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

    Deepfriedokra Please accept my apologies for my now-retracted accusation. NotReallySoroka (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

82. Very happy to be in this column. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Going to add in a comment here instead of responding under anyone in the O or N sections: given that at present a significant part of "right-of-center" American politics involves denying reality (a primary election in my former home state is between two candidates who essentially only differ on the election legitimacy issue), I have no issue with using a candidate's political views as a factor when deciding on RfA support. I do not read Tamzin's comments (particiarly in Q14, as opposed to the initial comment) as being nearly as hard-and-fast/extreme as some of the most recent opposes do. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

83. Support Good head on her shoulders. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
84. Support. Deeply thoughtful person. Glad she's here, glad she's running for admin. -- asilvering (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
85. Support I am so glad that Tamzin has volunteered. I have interacted with her a great deal at Rfd and elsewhere, and I have not seen another user with a better command of policy, or more importantly, with a more intelligent, logical, and level-headed application of it. She readily comes up with consensus-gaining solutions to problems appearing at RfD that have escaped others. Will be an excellent admin. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
86. Support About time! ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 17:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
87. Support. No question. Incredible cantidate. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
88. Support per above. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 17:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Support Looks good. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Support no issues. I'm not convinced by the oppose votes; one is from a habitual opposer and the other has no rationale whatsoever.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Struck, changed to weak oppose.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

89. Support. Candidate seems to be able to do administrator work, Drummingman Talk 17:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
90. Support: delighted to be the 100th support, and hope there to be 100 more. — Bilorv (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Well, the 100th support at the time, at least. — Bilorv (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

    I'll come back with a proper rationale. Tamzin has an excellent and lengthy history of strong contributions in behind-the-scenes areas of the site. Due to their tenure at RfD and SPI, I thoroughly trust them to close discussions according to policy and act appropriately in cases of vandalism and socking. But more than this, it means that I expect Tamzin to excel at any other areas of administrative work that they set their mind to. They also have strong content creation contributions, which is important for an admin to be able to empathise with writers during content disputes. I see no temperament or conduct issues; rather, Tamzin strikes me as a very principled and consistent volunteer who we will be lucky to have as an admin. As for whether winning "Rock around the clock" shows dedication or poor judgement... well, I'm not in a position to judge myself. :) — Bilorv (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    I'll revisit this once more in the light of Q14, after which I continue to support. Like it or not, if you edit Wikipedia in a neutral way then you are engaging in political activism. There is no such thing as "keeping politics out of Wikipedia". Because accurate educational content being freely available is in contradiction with the goals of the rich and powerful. My country used to have company towns, where all business in a town would be owned by a single company—including the local newspaper, your only source of information about the outside world. This company could present to you whatever worldview it wanted you to have. It would have campaigned to make Wikipedia illegal, had it existed at that point in time.

    Unfortunately, such propaganda continues today. The very act of publishing how many votes were registered for Trump and for Biden in the 2020 United States presidential election is political activism against Trump, who does not want you to have access to that information, and has fought a lengthy misinformation campaign to muddy the waters. The act of reporting facts that contradict Trump's false and misleading claims is political activism against Trump. And creating a community that welcomes people from all countries in the world will clash with people who agree with Trump's violent rhetoric on race and nationality.

    I will reconsider my support at such a time as somebody is able to point to a way in which Tamzin's views have materially damaged the encyclopedia, either by affecting content or our community. At this moment, I cannot see that anybody has suggested a single diff in which Tamzin invokes political views to make biased edits or to make people with differing political views feel uncomfortable, with the exception of Q14 itself and the one comment it stems from. — Bilorv (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

91. Support seen them around a lot, they would make an excellent admin. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 17:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support, I don't see how her political views will affect her use of the admin tools. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 16:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

92. Support - A solid admin candidate with a broad range of skills, the right temperment and the need for tools. Great work clerking at SPI. A trustworthy member of the community and a pleasant, thoughtful presence. I have a lot of respect for her work here. I've been hoping she would run, so very glad to see this RfA. Netherzone (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support and trust. I'm convinced that Tamzin has the integrity and intellect to conduct herself in alignment with the core pillars of WP and with WP:ADMINCOND. Netherzone (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

93. Support No issues as far as I'm concerned. Will wield the mop for good, rather than evil IMO.   Aloha27  talk  — Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
94. Support - Happy to trust the judgement of old Adminosaurus Rex, aka "Doc Mice". But I've even read the questions and answers (as far as they've got) this time. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
95. Support. I am late to the part! I would've supported sooner had I known!! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Re-affirming support: I think Tamzin is shooting herself in the foot by splitting hairs with the Trump supporters-right-wingers-admins nonsense. Still, I don't see how these opinions are going to affect her day-to-day admin activity all that much (given I have yet to see Tamzin loitering in the ampol topic area before). When they have weighed in on those kinds of topics, it was with edits like these. That absolutely is not a sign Tamzin is anything but level-headed even in topics they obviously are passionate about.
    I am not saying the concerns of the opposers don't matter, but I am going to affirmatively state that these concerns are almost entirely hypothetical. No evidence has been presented that Tamzin would actually do harm to this project with the tools or even that they have tried to push a POV. This controversy solely lies with what is in her heart, and honestly that shouldn't matter as much as people are making it out to be. Basically, her only mistake was being open about it, but the alternative isn't much better if you ask me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

96. Support Great work at SPI and extremely strong noms (plus, who in their right mind, would dare oppose a Drmies/BDD nom!). --RegentsPark (comment) 18:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reiterating support. Clearly, a wise admin candidate would not have answered Q14 in the way it was answered but we should keep in mind a couple of things. First, Tamzin has qualified their Trump supporters to the extreme ones and, whatever one's political views, that's not an unreasonable opinion to hold. Second, this is a RfA, not a RfB which renders the applicability of their opinion null and void. The question of a general bias is a fair one but there are a couple of things that give me the confidence to continue to support the candidate - it is better to have an admin with announced biases rather than hidden ones, and Tamzin's record in SPI cases. An admin with announced biases is better because that makes scrutiny easier, and scrutiny is our main tool for examining admin behavior. On SPI cases, (and this is well borne out by the support they are getting from Ponyo, RoySmith, GirthSummit, GeneralNotability, Blablubbs, Drmies, Mz7, all active SPI admins) Tamzin has been a "fair and balanced" clerk. Not easy, the temptation to chuck anyone who looks remotely like a sock out is a strong one but we really need to balance the negative effects of socking with the positive effects of keeping good faith editors within wikipedia and Tamzin, at least from what I've seen, does a good job with that balancing. We also do need more admins at SPI so there is an immediate need that they will fill. I continue to be confident that Tamzin will make an excellent admin. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

97. Support Looks like a good choice. Happy (Slap me) 18:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
98. Support Clearly qualified. ceranthor 18:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
99. Support I have interacted with Tamzin quite a bit and have a high level of confidence that she'll be a good administrator. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Reiterating my support in response to Hammersoft's suggestion that Tamzin withdraw. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

100. Support. I've encountered Tamzin a number of times, and always found her an excellent and level-headed editor. I'm certain she'll make an excellent administrator. JBW (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
101. Support - all around solid contributor from what Ive seen, fair and even-keeled. nableezy - 18:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

     There are a several names down below I think incredibly highly of, heck one of them is one of only 5 RFAs I have ever voted in support of. But the reasoning down below has me scratching my head wondering are we looking at the same thing here. There is literally nothing in what Tamzin wrote that suggests that she would ever use her administrative powers against anybody for their political belief. The only thing she said is that she herself would not support an editor's request for advanced permissions (and I take that to mean sysop and above, not rollback and others you can just ask for nicely, and she has said as much above) if that person was on record for supporting oppressive regimes. Not even that she would vote against that person, just that she could not vote for them. It is very easy to say "oh it's just politics" when you arent the one being oppressed, it is very easy to say "let's just agree to disagree" when the impact on you and your family is nil. Ive lost friends who couldnt understand why I would find it hard to remain on speaking terms with them when they support those who would see me and my family removed from the country of my birth. I cant imagine anybody here saying to a Ukranian editor that they must not take into account another editors public support for Putin when evaluating if they should vote for that person's RFA. These things arent just theoretical to some of us, and I personally find Tamzin's position to be anodyne. You may not like where she draws the line, but I am sure I can imagine places where you would draw it. If an editor expressed support for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and called his killing an unjust assassination, would you feel comfortable supporting their RFA? Would you just chalk that up to oh we have different political beliefs? I didnt want to add anything here, as my favorite part of this hoopla has been Tamzin's request to the people arguing with the opposers to kindly stop, but some of these comments betray, to me at least, a distinct lack of empathy and understanding for what it means to be a minority and have your existence denied and/or threatened. Especially given that the furthest she has gone has been to say she would not support such an RFA, not even that she would vote against it or that she would seek sanctions on the editor. Yall really catigating her for not supporting those who wave the flag of people who would oppress her? Anyway, I for one applaud her unwillingness to bend her beliefs for some internet power, and that says to me that she is exactly the type of person who should be granted that power. nableezy - 20:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

102. Support seen Tamzin around various areas and found their work, editor engagement to be excellent. Mop would be great new accessory for them. Star Mississippi 18:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
103. Support I honestly can't imagine how a candidate could be more qualified. --Ahecht (TALK
     PAGE) 18:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
104. From my experience with her, I believe Tamzin will be a good admin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
105. Trusted, competent. Overdue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
106. Support No concerns. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

     Re-affirming my support - I do not believe Tamzin's views on whether they would vote for a hypothetical right-of-center admin candidate will have any impact on how they would use the tools. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

     Support - At Rfd, I have had only positive interactions with her. Havradim leaf a message 19:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirming support per A14 and Barkeep49, Ixtal, Nosebagbear, Ad Orientem, Floquenbeam, and Deepfriedokra. To oppose the candidate based upon the same or similar type of rationale proffered by the candidate seems to me to be an incongruous or hypocritical affair. Havradim leaf a message 22:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

     Moved to oppose. Havradim leaf a message 17:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

107. Support. Regarding my question #7 above, I wasn't expecting anything sinister; I was vaguely aware of this, didn't know the details, and this seemed like an appropriate time to ask. In any case, my interaction with Tamzin has been mostly at SPI where they are a clerk trainee, and doing an excellent job at that. From time to time, they get to tell grouchy old me that I've screwed something up, which they always do with tact, politeness, and a total lack of drama. The ability to do that is an important skill for an admin. I'm looking forward to the day when they no longer need to use {{SPI case status|admin}} and can start using {{Adminshirt}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

     I've been plotzing over this for the past few days, and I think I've finally reached clarity. It is a crucial aspect of having a mop that you apply policy neutrally, or at least be sufficiently self-aware of your biases that you can walk away from situations where you're not sure you can do so. The question is, can Tamzin do that?

     Clarity finally came when I considered some of my own statements in the past. For example, it's no secret that I'm opposed to anonymous (IP) editing, and would be happy to see us follow ptwiki's lead of eliminating it completely. But, I acknowledge that current policy is that IP editing is allowed, and when wielding my mop, I follow policy. In a way, the fact that Tamzin's political feelings have been dragged into the debate is a good thing, because it should now be abundantly clear to her just how careful she needs to be to not let her IRL politics cloud her on-wiki judgement: if you even have to ask "Am I capable of being completely neutral here?", then the answer is "no", and you should walk away. There's no shortage of other work that needs to be done.

     Bottom line, I'm staying with "support" because I have faith that she can manage that compartmentalization. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

108. Absolutely! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

     I would like to affirm my support in light of this politics debacle. I read Tamzin's point to mean that we shouldn't be discussing this sort of political nonsense on-Wiki to begin with! If you, as an editor, are disclosing who you voted for and are using Wikipedia as a political platform, that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. We are not a forum. We are not a place for general discussion. So if you as an editor are mentioning that you like Trump, yeah, that IS a problem, because Wikipedia is about making an encyclopedia. As this RfA is evidence of, we should be making every attempt to keep politics out of discussions. Further, this is not evidence that Tamzin would make a bad admin. Just because you disagree with a candidate does not mean that they are unfit for the job. We're electing janitors, not presidents! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

109. Support of course. And please do self-assign EFM right away; you're more careful than most. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

     Noting that I'm aware of subsequent events, and have not been persuaded to change my mind. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

110. Support I know her from the SPI cases. She is doing good job. I wholeheartedly support her adminship!--Kadı Message 20:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
111. Support Good to have an another admin. Severestorm28 20:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
112. Support without hesitation, have seen her around SPI, will definitely be a net positive. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
113. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
114. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
115. Support I've run across Tamzin at VRT and I've found her work supporting those who seek assistance exemplary. Highly in favor of her bid for the mop and best wishes. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
116. Support About damn time. If you asked me to name a single non-admin who I most wanted to run for adminship, it would be Tamzin. Extremely helpful at SPI and just in general. Highly qualified and experienced. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

     I feel the need to reaffirm my support in light of the recent oppose pile-on. I have seen zero evidence to suggest Tamzin would be biased in performing admin duties. And none of the opposes have been able to find even a single example of bias in her editing, beyond expressing her personal views. Admins are allowed to have personal opinions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

117. Support Imagine my surprise when I saw this hit my watchlist. You're not an admin already? Next you're gonna tell me that Robert McClenon isn't an admin yet ^[Humor] Plus we both have pink in our sig.
     Oh, wait, I should probably do what I would do for a normal editor around here. Right - ticks all my boxes. 1. Knows what they don't know, 2. Knows what a mainspace is, 3. Not going to destroy everything. casualdejekyll 23:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
118. Support without hesitation; I've seen them around SPI and this would make them more helpful there. Welcome to the corps! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

     Support - Has been an effective SPI clerk, which shows judgment and knowledge, and would be an even more effective SPI clerk with admin tools. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

119. Support even though I have had some strong disagreement with them on one particular topic. They generally seem intelligent, competent, and trustworthy enough to hold the tools. Disagreements sometimes happen, and that should not be enough to prevent us from getting more admins/editors that we need. Huggums537 (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
120. Support – I trust Tamzin to use the tools with care and sensitivity. Thanks for stepping up ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirming my support with thanks for Tamzin's openness and transparency through this process. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 22:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

121. Support Good answers to questions, exhibits competence, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Lkb335 (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirming support thanks to answer to question 29. We all have our own biases, but I trust that Tamzin will be able to keep theirs out of their work. Lkb335 (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

122. Support very good content work, admin tools will help at SPI and RfD, no reason to oppose Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
123. Support I like what I've seen of the candidate. Happy to pile on. Miniapolis 23:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirming my support of the candidate as a net positive whom I trust not to abuse the tools. Miniapolis 22:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

124. Support Done more than enough to be trusted with the tools. --Find bruce (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
125. Support - I've encountered Tamzin at SPI and found her to be effective and diligent, and everything I can see indicates she would make a good administrator. --Sable232 (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
126. Support quality content work, good attitude, apparent maturity, and two great noms. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
127. Support No worries, great candidate. Equineducklings (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
128. Support. Oh my gosh finally. What a superb candidate. Thank you for standing. 🤍 Folly Mox (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirming support. AMPOL is pretty far from SPI. I still trust Tamzin. Folly Mox (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

129. Support. Good candidate and good argument for adminship. Thingofme (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     Rethink but I support because we don't need to have political neutrality for every admins. She also states the neutrality and the involvement of candidates. Thingofme (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

130. Support. Tamzin is an absolute treasure to Wikipedia and I am confident that she will be excellent with the tools. I am extremely happy to see her step forward into this role. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     WP:INVOLVED notes that In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. I've read the response to Q14, the responses to follow-ups, and the promises Tamzin has made. The only issue with this sort of thinking as it applies to being an administrator is whether or not the administrator will misuse their tools or engage administratively in disputes where they are WP:INVOLVED. Tamzin has revealed that she has a closely held animus against open supporters of the former U.S. President, though I would only find this to be disqualifying per se if this would call into question Tamzin's judgement when using the tools. I see three sorts of admin actions that political animus against a particular group of editors could affect: blocks, arbitration enforcement actions, and the granting of permissions. But, so long as Tamzin is mindful of WP:INVOLVED, my analysis is as follows:

     • With respect to WP:AE actions, Tamzin noted that The community has ruled in the past that admins known to have strong political views may act at AE on political topics as long as they are not involved with respect to the matter at hand (internal citations omitted). This is, of course, true; we don't expect every admin to be a bland sack of potatoes, and holding strong political opinions per se does not necessarily prevent one from applying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in an objecive manner. Tamzin also noted that she would recuse from topics within American politics that I've expressed opinions about on-wiki, which is to say the disputes that substantially pertain to Donald Trump or users who advertise their support for him. In other words, Tamzin is publicly acknowledging that she experiences strong emotions in this area and is committing to not taking actions where she might give off the impression of not being capable of making objective decisions. That she's been forthright about this and commits explicitly to not doing so is a good thing—concerns that she would somehow go back on this and make AE actions in light of all of the diffs she has made on this thread is somewhat absurd to me.
     • With respect to blocks, Tamzin said she would not take actions in areas where she's very emotionally involved outside of super-blatant disruption like someone spamming an anti- or pro-Trump catchphrase across a bunch of talk pages. In other words, where she's involved, she'll avoid making blocks other than for obvious vandalism, which is perfectly fine.
     • With respect to granting non-admin permissions, I really don't think that she's expressed any hesitancy to grant people who are right of center access to advanced-but-less-sensitive permissions like rollback, reviewer, or page mover. I don't really see much of a reason to think that her decision-making is affected in these areas.

     In short, I really don't see any special indication here that Tamzin will misuse the admin tools unless she decides to ignore WP:INVOLVED. I really don't see much evidence that she will, especially after this thread, so I'm still in support of this candidate for adminship. I see a clear way that giving Tamzin the tools would help in the areas she works and I think that the benefits of her as an admin outweight the risk of tool abuse. And, if she does wind up abusing the admin tools, then there's a desysop procedure already in place, though I am confident that we will never come to that point. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

131. Support. I have seen nothing but positive things from Tamzin, seems like a great candidate. --TylerBurden (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
132. Support Yeah why not? :D Justiyaya 01:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     Support Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 01:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     With regret, struck and moved to Oppose. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 15:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

133. Support. Looks like a great candidate, no concerns. Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     I have struggled with this following the Q14 discussion. Certainly I don't think people should be removed as admins purely on the basis of their political views and she made a seemingly troubling comment in that respect. Considering however her further comments, her full history of work, her commitment to a recall process, and the fact that perfection is not a requirement for being an admin, I am reaffirming my support. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

134. Support. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     Here now I must offer my most unequivocal and uncompromising reaffirmation. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

135. Support. Seen her around a lot, I'm confident she'd be a great addition. Yeeno (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
136. Support. There is great need for people like Tamzin to be given the mop. – Anon423 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     While "sysop without tools" is complete nonsense in my opinion, due to the nature of sysops being editors with extra tools, a sysop without tools is just an editor, and is another way to "reward" editors or treat editing in "sysop" areas to make people more likely to gain clout or the tools or both, but the question is are there issues that should prevent the user from being a sysop? The answer, in my belief, is no. And it's really the only question to be answered. Naleksuh (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

137. Support. I have come across this editor in various contexts, and they have all been positive. BD2412 T 03:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
138. Support. I have good interactions with the editor at RfD. I would welcome an admin that will work on the wiki's backwaters. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
139. Support. Very competent. Hemantha (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirm. Hemantha (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

140. Support. No issues from my interactions with her, and I am impressed by the other supporters and honored to add my name with them. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     #Support. Lots of good work per above, along with humor and not overreacting to (my) mistakes. WP:NOBIGDEAL, right? Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Regretfully moved to Oppose .

141. Support. Very clear need for the tools. Trustworthy, clued up, transparent. The Achilles' heel is obviously content creation and it was a very good idea to get a few articles underway. The work on the journalists killed list is solid so that satisfies my desire for knowing how to create content. Schwede66 05:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
142. Normally I'd automatically oppose per my I don't think a candidate needs to have "audited content" provided they've done demonstrably useful collaborative content work, but you don't seem to me to have demonstrated a reasonable amount of content contribution. I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. boilerplate, but this is an exception. The candidate is asking for the toolset to use in one specific area, has demonstrated why it would be useful, and most importantly has been active long enough to give a reasonable degree of confidence that she understands her own limitations and isn't going to start throwing her weight around in content and conduct disputes. ‑ Iridescent 06:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
143. Support without reservation. Some good content creation work and excellent investigative skills displayed at SPI, where the tools will be of clear value. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
144. Support qualified candidate. --Assyrtiko (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
145. Support - demonstrates a need for the tools, and is one of the most level-headed and thoughtful candidates I've seen in ages. I can't imagine them causing any drama when using the tools. I respectfully disagree with those who believe an admin needs to be a content creator, especially in cases like this where the candidate wants the tools to help in technical areas like SPI, and with RfD. IMO, you don't need a background in content creation to do that. Neiltonks (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
146. Support Leijurv (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirming support in light of subsequent discussion. My discussion question here is a quick summary, but I will say more here. Many of the opposes speculate that Tamzin might not be trustworthy enough to act as sysop without political bias. I am having such a hard time understanding these! Cullen328's mentioning of unbiasedly correcting WP:BLP violations doesn't make sense to me if you look at Tamzin's history, or even just a quick look at her user page which has statements like (Reminder! If you see an unsourced contentious statement about a living person, don't it; remove it! I routinely remove BLP violations that are more than 15 years old, and that should not be happening.), or, reading the Q&A section of this RFA, where Q22 put this plain as day. I am confused how Cullen328 came to the conclusion that Tamzin might become politically biased in BLPs. Later, Cullen328 brings up Do all candidates for administrator need to be investigated, purged and ousted if they once said that they voted for Trump?, which is strange in light of Tamzin's A14 which directly and clearly said It isn't about people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. It is about people who continue to support him after he spent months trying to undermine the outcome of a free and fair election [...]. Hammersoft's depiction of Tamzin's views as disgusting and despicable, and saying it's horrifying that people are voting for her, is quite dramatic. WaltCip says actively discriminating against political viewpoints in the course of administrative duties is highly problematic with no cited reasoning to believe that that would happen (recalling that voting at RFA is not an "administrative duty"), and in fact, a direct statement against that in the answer to Q29. I think that the ambiguous use of the term "permissions requests" that led someone to lump in WP:PERM was a bit of a misstep, but now that that has been corrected and clarified in Q27 and Q29, we'll see if it leads opposers to reconsider, so I will not comment on the various misinterpretations of Tamzin relating to WP:PERM (e.g. Hog Farm's oppose). Along that line Urve for example disbelieves the answer to Q27 (and also cites that Tamzin contributed to WP:EDPRONOUNS). Levivich says We should vote based on the candidate's contributions history, not based on our conscience but, in my estimation, if we did that, we would see Tamzin as having made tens of thousands of good edits. I'm not sure if anyone has brought up even a single edit among those that demonstrated bias? Tamzin's A14 is clear: We're not judging character at ANI or SPI [...] Heavens know that if we were judging on character there'd be plenty of people I'd have requested blocks for at SPI [...] I closed that SPI as "not proven" despite a strong personal desire [...] to see them gone Mythdon says Her answers to Q14 demonstrate a willingness to judge a user solely based on their political views and not based on the actions they've actually taken on Wikipedia., while the diff linked in Q14 says (although I wouldn't vote against someone solely on that basis). On another note, I think Levivich's statement The answer to Q29 reinforces my view. Tamzin says she doesn't want to edit under a pro-Trump admin, but also says her anti-Trump views won't affect her use of tools; that seems paradoxical to me. is a good point, I think the resolution to that apparent issue might be something along the lines of WP:BLOCKNAZIS The English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement as a whole are based on the concept that everyone has a right to receive free knowledge, regardless of their race, ethnicity, class, creed, or any other demographic factor, and that everyone has the right to contribute to this sharing of knowledge so long as they act in a way that does not disrupt the ability of others to contribute. Racism, both historical and neo-racist varieties, is inherently incompatible with these principles in a way that virtually no other ideology is. in that some beliefs are oppressive in a way that is "Wikipedia-incompatible", while the lack of those beliefs isn't. Leijurv (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

     Another point: it seems like some criticisms are missing the forest for the trees. I've seen a lot of speculation and worrying over the question of what if an editor previously expressed some right-wing-associated belief, causing Tamzin to be biased against them in the present day (even though the editor no longer holds that belief now). Some sentences quoted from the diff in question are being construed by some to imply this, but, in reality, when you read that diff, you see that Tamzin was defending Vami IV in this exact scenario! Leijurv (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

     The connection between political beliefs and aptitude at editing or administrating Wikipedia cannot be completely disregarded as some seem to want to. Haughtily dismissing the idea as inherently contradictory to Wikipedia's aims is a fallacy. I suggest to instead consider the paradox of tolerance, combined with the fact that we do have standards to edit Wikipedia. Specifically, neutrality with respect to non neutral views isn't a virtue, in fact it isn't neutrality at all. For example, if I said that I'd never support-vote a flat earther for admin, no one would blink an eye. I'm being intolerant towards people who lack scientific literacy, critical thinking, education, and whatever other ingredients you need to maintain a genuine belief that the Earth is flat. But this non-neutrality on my behalf, my intolerant vote, would be a good thing. I'd be defending Wikipedia from an admin who perhaps shouldn't even be trusted to edit without someone checking twice to make sure they aren't introducing faulty sources or reasoning. I have an easy time imagining what reasoning would lead someone to believe that declining to support a flat earther at RFA is very comparable to declining to support someone who believes the last election was stolen and Trump was the true winner.

     That's the angle of competence – there are some beliefs in conspiracy theories that rightfully ought to raise huge red flags as to an editor's judgement, competence, ability to tell reliable from unreliable sources, etc. To ignore such red flags in the name of NPOV is absurd, it would be extremely non neutral to let such signals of incompetence go ignored. Okay – you might say that beliefs in conspiracy theories is fair game, maybe even perhaps desirable to consider. But shouldn't we draw the line at political beliefs? Shouldn't those be off the table? Well, setting aside the fact that the American right has significantly blurred the line between political beliefs and conspiracy theories (what with candidates running on platforms that include which conspiracy theories they back (credit)), we also need to consider hate and intolerance as a disruptive belief. In other words, someone's political beliefs can signal not just possible incompetence, but also a tendency to edit disruptively. The trick is that almost any belief can be called a "political" belief. See the first few sentences of WP:BLOCKNAZIS, in essense, views supporting intolerance are disruptive, views opposing intolerance aren't, and views supporting neutrality towards intolerance are not truly neutral. I like Bilorv's comment: Like it or not, if you edit Wikipedia in a neutral way then you are engaging in political activism. There is no such thing as "keeping politics out of Wikipedia". Because accurate educational content being freely available is in contradiction with the goals of the rich and powerful.

     But all of this is just correlation. For a Wikipedia editor, supporting Trump today is correlated with believing Trump was the rightful winner of the election, which is correlated with the qualities that lead someone to believe in such conspiracy theories such as decreased aptitude in determining the reliability of sources, which is correlated with lacking that competence to edit Wikipedia, leading one to decline to support them at RFA. On another angle, beliving Trump was the rightful winner of the election is correlated with supporting the attempted undermining of the election on January 6, which is correlated with intolerant beliefs and anti-democratic sentiment (but, these are easier correlated directly with just supporting Trump). But these are just correlations, and after you stack a few correlations, the resulting beginning-to-end connection wears thin. This is true. But even thinner is the connection between this opinion and exhibiting bias as an admin (e.g. an opposer said It does bother me that it seems such opinions will interfere with the duties of being a Wiki administrator). It's much less than the leap that one opposer made to a fear that Tamzin would now treat BLPs in a politically biased way. We have a beautiful mental pivot from Tamzin's statements about her proclivities to vote at RFA to an idea that she would be biased in admin actions. On the side of "no bias", we have clear answers to Q14, Q18, Q22, Q27, and Q29 that state that politics do not enter her wiki editing. We have tens of thousands of edits going back a decade to support this (Bilorv again put it well). On the side of "bias", we have hand wringing that somehow, everything will change once Tamzin becomes an admin, and now she will decline to remove BLP violations??? (e.g. in this oppose, see my expanded response to that above). I see a tinge of hypocrisy in negatively judging Tamzin's competence to be an admin solely based on a purported bias coming from her great sin, which was... judging other's competence to be an admin based on personal criteria that would correlate with aptitude to being an admin. If Tamzin is problematic and wrong for judging RFA candidates based on behaviors and beliefs that correlate with Wiki-competence, then isn't it even more problematic to judge this RFA candidate based on an even looser and less plausible correlation (indeed, one with 30k+ edits of evidence to the contrary)?

     Here's the problem I see: Tamzin's statements about the political beliefs of candidates are being misinterpreted as her "admitting bias" or "revealing a COI" or something along those lines. I think this is a gross misinterpretation. Really, she was describing just one of many signals that can be used to judge a candidate's aptitude. A few examples of what I'm talking about: The original diff said I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. This is plainly an ambiguous statement, and plainly a bit of hyperbole. If only we had clarification... here: I would not advocate creating such a rule, but if I woke up one day to learn that such a rule had magically sprung into existence, I would be okay with that and A14: It isn't about people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. It is about people who continue to support him after he spent months trying to undermine the outcome of a free and fair election. So, plainly, Tamzin was not seriously proposing this idea, and would not advocate for its imposition. She was, however, sharing a sentiment about what would disqualify someone, in her eyes, from her support to be admin.

     The hand wringing over what percent of America Tamzin is dismissing is also just so strange to me. We follow WP:CIR despite the fact that billions of people don't speak English. We have policies like WP:CIVIL despite the fact that billions of people would have an extremely hard time sticking to it in the face of frustrating, bad faith argumentation, such as what's seen on this RFA. Billions of people lack the educational background and academic experience to be able to weigh and judge secondary sources by their reliability. Billions of people are biased, immature, fallacious, stubborn, etc, to such a degree that they would be quickly blocked for WP:DE and/or WP:TE; we see this all the time! We have many good policies that, nevertheless, in practice, result in enormous groups of people being unable to edit. Tamzin's positions on adminship are connected back to these accepted Wikipedia ideals. Q20 clearly explains how WP:DE underpins her position on bigoted views. But of course, we shouldn't block editors on correlation. Of course, we should wait until an actually disruptive edit occurs. But, Tamzin said this (how annoying!) in Q20: Let's just block those who are disrupting the building of our encyclopedia summed it up nicely.

     I think it is Kafkaesque to simultaneously 1. speculate that Tamzin would be biased against someone who voted for Trump in the past, even if they don't support his actions today 2. judge Tamzin on an extremely narrow interpretation of specific sentences taken from single comment she made, while ignoring, dismissing, or disbelieving all the extensive clarifications and expanded nuance that she has added in this RFA's Q&A section. These two views are clearly in direct contradiction at best, outright hypocrisy at worst. Leijurv (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

147. Support qualified candidate, all the best for you Mila vecto (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
148. Support Mer mensch iz gut. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
149. Support - Tolly4bolly 10:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
150. Support very qualified --DB1729 (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
151. Support—Didn't recognize the username at first, but then I saw "formerly known as PinkAmpersand". And based on what I've seen from that name, this is a very easy support. Kurtis ^(talk) 10:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
152. Support I'm not sure where I recall seeing their name, probably at an SPI or something, but I have a positive association with it, so good enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     I've given this a lot of thought, and although I'm not terribly pleased, I don't think she'll abuse the tools, and that's what matters. The tools will help with what she's already doing, and given the attention that will obviously be on her, the likelihood of abuse is near nil. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

153. Support. Has done good work at SPI and could use the tools to further help both there and at RfD. Loopy30 (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
154. Support Recently interacted with them for the first time not to long ago, they are a kind competent user. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
155. Support. Wait, Tazmin wasn't an admin already?? Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
156. Support I have no reason to oppose and see no reason not to give them a shot. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
157. Support I have no reason to believe that the nominee would misuse the tools. --Jayron32 14:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
158. Support, as clear evidence of previous good work in relevant admin-related areas. Bibeyjj (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
159. Support - Húsönd 16:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
160. Support Based on the nominations and answers. The percentage of nominated articles for deletion that were kept I think is a bit high, but I am sure that as an admin will also improve in that area. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
161. Support. Tamzin is great and I am happy to see she is willing to take on more responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎StarryGrandma (talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirm support. Tamzin belongs to one of the few minorities in the United States that people feel they can be openly against because of what they are. Other biases need to be hidden by most politicians, but transgender is different. The Trump administration attempted to eliminate transgender rights. Current state-level Republican administrations are trying to do the same. Texas is making making parents of transgender children subject to prosecution for child abuse for medical treatment. American politician have found that many of their constituents love this and that it increases their chances of being re-elected. They encourage voters to see dangers in someone like Tamzin, to be against her whole existance, even against the right to include "she/her" in her signature.

     The statements that started this opposition happened in a comment at an RfA with the edit summary of "rant". While not all Trump supporters and certainly not all Republicans believe that Tamzin and others need to be treated so harshly, she can be forgiven for her feelings. This is not having "despicable views" about people in normal political disagreements as many of the oppose votes are painting it. This is being the recipient of despicable views, not holding them. Tamzin is perfectly capable of separating her personal views from her administrative actions and with her transparency there is no danger of hidden biases. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

162. Support I was wondering when Tamzin would be nominated for adminship, I couldn’t pass up on voting, Tamzin is a great editor and does a lot of work with the edit filters and in SPI. Zippybonzo | talk 18:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
163. Support. Whenever we've crossed paths at AIV or the odd occasion I venture into SPI, you've seemed level-headed and sensible. Just remember Coren's advice about balancing back-end functions like SPI with things that more directly affect the reader. With respect to the opposers, I do look for some track record in the mainspace from an admin, but mostly to demonstrate that they understand the key policies that they'll be charged with upholding, rather than to produce something flawless and immaculate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
164. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     Much as I see political polarisation as a huge problem, especially for the US, no change to my support thanks to Trumpgate. Strong affective polarisation (hate/contempt for political opponents) is now the norm among Dem & Rep voters - between 55% - 80% of them feel that way, depending on which study one looks at. Among dems, higher education bizarrely seems to make them less accurate in ascribing despicable views to Republicans. Stunningly, one of the larger studies found "This effect is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree." Its statistically impossible that Tamzin would bring new anti-right feeling to the admin corps that isnt already widely there. What she would be bring is exceptional transparency and a track record of considerable restraint in not letting her (inaccurate but widely shared) political views affect her encyclopaedic work. She's made over 30k edits & no evidence of pov pushing or any discrimination against right wing editors. The only reason her political views came to light was due to defending someone who used to identify as firmly right wing. I agree with SoWhy it's ideal to declare your biases. There's strong arguments either way, but I feel it's an aid to collaboration on contentious articles if editors can see where each other are coming from. The only reason I'm not upgrading to 'strong support' is I didn't like the comment directed at PerryPerryD and SoyokoAnis. They didn't "attempt to defend" you, they defended you quite well. Granted, it was timely to ask them to dial back, but rather than saying "Find something else to do" it would have been better to thank them & say something like "but please would you mind replying less frequently or even stopping entirely, as too much oppose badgering can be harmful". I'm making a big deal of this as I've seen it before when young editors have been told too firmly to stop badgering and then they never go to RfA ever again. Few arrive wiht pitch perfect badgering skills, young editors have to learn by doing. Ironically enough, too firm enforcement of community norms can be oppressive. That said, you come across as friendly and kind almost all the time, so dont take that too much to heart.FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

165. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
166. Support. I thought she already was an admin (and a good one at that!). JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
167. Support: No concerns. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
168. Support have run across Tamzin's contributions and comments on several occasions and always found them to be clueful, as is also evidenced from their answer to Q11 and third bullet-point here. Abecedare (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     Having followed the discussion at this page over the past few days, I am comfortable reaffirming my support. There has been some overblown rhetoric thrown around by a few of the opposers and, arguably more pertinently, by the candidate themself but its noteworthy to me that the latter (afaict) occured only in the immediate aftermath of and in response to some pretty fraught analogies; before and since then, Tamzin comportment and composure during the RFA has been very impressive. And while issue of political bias is legitimate, I have not seen any indication that Tamzin would let their political opinions effect their administrative actions should they gain the bit; we have a ~10 year record to base our judgment on and IMO the "factors Tamzin considers when !voting in an RFA", even if one disagrees with them, shouldn't overshadow the rest. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

169. Support . Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     Since I made my vote there are now many arguments in the pile on of opposes that indeed raise legitimate concerns. Many are from admins for whom I have the greatest respect and it would be wrong of me not to have second thoughts about supporting. I've mulled greatly over the situation before deciding whether or not to change my vote and it's been one of the most difficult conclusions I've made in the 100s of votes I've made on RfA. This RfA might now not succeed or may go to a 'crat chat, but on the balance and assuming the candidate's good faith vis-à-vis politics, I'm staying here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

170. Support: Trusted User. Eveready to help the newbies. Would like to see her as an administrator. Dove's talk (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
171. Support Great work at WP:SPI. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

     Endorse. In addition to other good qualities already enumerated, this user doesn't mind humor (as seen in their participation in April Fools'), but they are also capable enough to know when to take things seriously. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

172. Support...Comr Melody Idoghor (talk)
173. per noms DanCherek (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
174. Support Having seen Tamzin around RMT, they're worth it. Why shouldn't I support? ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 23:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
175. Support Very happy to support Tamzin on this, I think they'll be fantastic! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     Not only do I reaffirm, but I feel like I should strengthen my support. What Tamzin has said, that has spurned most of the recent oppose votes, is entirely uncontroversial outside of America. What a lot of editors have forgotten or don't realise is that the political centre is relative, both in time and in geography. Not only does it shift as your Overton window shifts, it also differs widely geographically. What is considered left-wing in America, is considered center-right or right wing in most of Western Europe. What is considered right-wing in America is usually far-right in Europe. While the exact position will vary from party leader to party leader, Trump is, relative to my country's centre, absolutely considered far-right.

     To give a counter-example contemporary to Trump's 2020 election campaign, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who were decried as "far-left" by certain parts of US media, would be considered centre to centre left where I am from. That is how skewed American politics is relative to other countries. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

     I realise this is the closing hours of the RfA, and with it being buried in the middle of the support section, it is unlikely that anyone will read this.

     However, I would like to amplify a reply made by @Leijurv: a short while ago. A substantial number of the oppose votes over the last couple of days have singled out answers made by Tamzin to several of the questions above, saying that because of the responses given Tamzin is not suitable to be an administrator due to their bias against right-wing view points.

     Unfortunately most, if not all have missed a crucial point. What Tamzin has expressed here is a belief. What they have not expressed here is that they would act upon or manifest that belief. In fact, for the hypothetical post-2020 Trump supporter, Tamzin has gone to great lengths to say that they would not advocate for such a rule to be created/enacted. All they have said is that if that rule were to come into existence, they would not have a problem with it. That is purely and simply an expression of a belief, it is not an intent to act upon it.

     Everyone has biases, whether you want to admit it or not. But it is only those people who are aware of their biases who are able to prevent themselves from acting upon them. From the words written, Tamzin is very aware of the biases they posses. If you are a believer in or strong adherent to the assume good faith guideline, then assuming good faith would and should compel you to assume that Tamzin will not act upon that bias, unless or until proven otherwise. As no editor here, to my knowledge, has been able to point out an occasion where Tamzin has acted upon their biases, then I would urge you to reconsider whether your votes are or are not assuming good faith in Tamzin's conduct now and going forward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

176. Support wholeheartedly. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     I'm reaffirming my support. I believe Tamzin will act neutrally despite her stated political stance. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

177. Support Epicgenius (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     To elaborate, despite the candidate's response to question 14 (something I don't necessarily agree with), I think Tamzin is still a good fit for the tools. I have seen her around for close to ten years, under both her usernames, and I think she is a net positive. She does have content experience, though not necessarily an FA or GA. More importantly, I have seen her fantastic work at SPI and think she has a demonstrated need for the tools. Again, I don't totally agree with Tamzin's response to question 14 because I don't think one's personal beliefs should dictate whether they should be an admin - it's the way they conduct themselves that should be considered. However, this very principle is the same reason I don't find that response disqualifying. Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

178. Complete and utter support Blessed be her ascension ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirming support. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

179. Support Will be an excellent admin. GreenComputer (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     WP:200 - Beccaynr (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beccaynr (talk • contribs) 09:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

180. Support. I look forward to working with you when you become an admin. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
181. (edit conflict) Support. How did I not come across this earlier? I've had too many positive experiences, including resolving my WP:FLOUNCE violation last month. Also, they possess some serious Toki Pona skills. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 00:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     Weakly reaffirming my support. While I agree with Ponyo's views—Wikipedia is not a political battleground—we have to remember that Tamzin's quote "I'd be fine with automatically desysopping any Trump supporter" means that she basically means to say that 50% of U.S. voters would automatically be desysopped. This is unacceptable. For clarity, I both support and oppose Trump. As is with all politicians. Without delving into too much of my political views, the saying is unacceptable, but let's invoke Ponyo's idea for a moment—this is a free encyclopedia, not an MMORPG where you can fight over your political ideologies. Plus, her answer to 78.26's question makes me feel a little bit relieved, since she would "take note of [the] fact and move on with [her] day", and not post a request at BN saying "desysop this Trump supporter". As the number besides my support !vote inevitably goes down, I hope you can take this into account, whoever sees this. Thanks, and good luck, Tamzin. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 03:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

182. Support, good work at SPI, I expect any expansion to other areas of admin work will be handle well too. CMD (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
183. Support, absolutely fit for the role; additionally, every interaction I've had with them has been 100%. I am really happy to see this RfA come up. :) Perryprog (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
184. Support, would be happier with more content creation but editor has been around for ten (10) years without any other reasons to oppose so pretty safe bet they will be a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
185. Support Has a clue, and is kind both towards me and others. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
186. Support - quality aren't-they-an-admin-already editor, working in some challenging areas with great results. Will be a fine admin. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
187. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
188. Per my interactions with Tamzin. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     I have reviewed the answer to Q14 and following discussion. I share the opinions of Kusma, SoWhy, FeydHuxtable, 78.26, Ponyo, Epicgenius, XOR'easter, and Deepfriedokra. I still believe Tamzin will use the tools in line with policy and in a way which will be a clear benefit to the enyclopedia. I maintain my support. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

     Support I think Tamzin is probably the best editor doing administrative work who is not yet an administrator. I see no reason to believe that she is unfit for the mop. The opposes don't convince me. Good luck. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     I have unstruck my comment, and retracted my oppose per my initial argument. The good work she does outweighs her biases by a long shot. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

     For the record, I have always believed that Trump was the worst thing to happen to the GOP. I did not vote for anyone in the 2020 primaries. I will not vote for him in the 2024 primaries either. I endorse the neither Capitol hill attack nor the big lie. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

189. Support I hope that the humility and soundness you have shown in answering those questions and in editing (particularly these last few years) translates into another excellent admin. Thanks for standing! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
190. Support. Net positive, good answers. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
191. Support – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 05:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
192. Support. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     The statement I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter [1] is worrying. I like to think that this was an ill-considered off-the-cuff comment, and not a considered opinion. Does User:Tamzin hold that position, firm and considered? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

     @SmokeyJoe: See A14 for the long answer. The short answer is: I would not advocate creating such a rule, but if I woke up one day to learn that such a rule had magically sprung into existence, I would be okay with that. People seem to be taking this as some sort of radical stance, yet it seems most people here agree that it's reasonable to not want admins who support oppressive regimes. If one believes that Trump wishes to create an oppressive regime, which is not exactly a fringe take on his views, then opposition to Trumpist admins follows from that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

     User:Tamzin, I think it is unfortunate, on your part, that you are holding firm on a highly ambiguous term, “support”. Support could be in the privacy of one’s mind, through to personally contributing active violence. By naming “support” as the central criterion, it implies that you require an inquisition into the mindset of individuals. I support the appointment of Trump as president in Jan 2017 on the basis of the results of the Nov 2016 election; does that cast me foul of your standard? You should clarify the nuance of your meaning of “support”.

     While your position on a hypothetical community consensus would not normally be important to adminship, you brought this issue to someone else’s RfA. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     I affirm support for adminship. I disapprove of any Wikipedian voicing support for a belief test to be applied to other Wikipedians. However, I am confident that this isolated unfortunate statement will not be reflected in Tamzin’s exercise of admin duties. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

193. Support has a clue, seems to be a net positive. Opposes are unconvincing. We don't need every admin to be a prolific content creator, we just need to be able to trust them to not hinder content creation by others. Doing necessary work at SPI is just the kind of support role that indirectly helps good faith content creators. Just like a museum, we do not need our janitors, security guards or tour guides to also be artists. Regards SoWhy 08:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirming support. Personally, I prefer any editor with strong political opinions to clearly disclose them rather than hide them. This includes openly admitting that one's bias might influence a !vote at an RfA for an otherwise qualified candidate because the alternative would be to hide the bias and invent some "acceptable" reason for opposing. There has been no evidence though that Tamzin has ever let her political views influence her work at SPI and there is no reason to believe that she won't be able to compartmentalize as an admin. If anything, we are better off for it now, since she knows that there will be a lot of eyes on her if she ever acted as an admin in any APOL-area. Regards SoWhy 14:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

194. Support I thought Tamzin was an admin already! --Jack Phoenix _(Contact) 08:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
195. Support. A win for SPI and other areas. MarioGom (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     Since some are suggesting that earlier votes might not be valid, I reaffirm my support. I do not agree with Tamzin's position expressed in Q14, but that's not a big deal. This is not a RfC on admin elegibility, so everyone will still be allowed to have their own personal RfA criteria (I strongly disagree with personal criteria expressed by other admins too). Also, I have often found Tamzin to be a very reasonable person even in difficult situations, and I think her temper will be a win for the admin corps. MarioGom (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

196. Support. Qualified candidate to undertake mopping. :P _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 10:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
197. Support - contrary to the assertion in oppose number 3 below, the candidate doesn't have "absolutely zero content creation experience"... she has in fact pointed us in the direction of some pages she's written in question 2 above. As such, with no skeletons found in the cupboard, lots of experience and the aforementioned content pedigree, I see no reason not to support. Good luck, and welcome to the corps!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirming my support in light of the recent slew of opposes. Tamzin is in effect being pulled up for being honest about her personal preferences in an admin. She hasn't said she'd Oppose such candidates, or campaign for a change in policy to "ban trump supporters from being admins", she's merely stated that as part of her philosophy of the world she would sit out any RFA where that was an issue. That's something anyone might do, voting in RFAs isn't mandatory, and it in no way implies that her judgment or ability to resolve disputes fairly is impaired. Her track record over the years suggests that her judgment is sound.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

198. Support - She will be a great admin. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirm. I feel that many of the opposers are confusing supporting an admin candidate with agreeing to each and every one of that candidate's opinions. One might read such an opinion and feel compelled to refute it at length, and that's fine. But ask yourself: did you never find yourself in profound disagreement with an admin whom you otherwise believe to be doing great work? I know I have found myself in such position more than once. Sometimes I find myself silently cursing at the stuff some admins say, knowing full well that in general they are among the most valuable admins on the project. Also ask: does this particular disagreement really mean that the candidate won't be a good admin? Will they really be a net-negative as an admin because of it? If so, sure, oppose. But if not, consider moving to neutral, or even to support. It's important to voice any possible concerns, but it shouldn't lead to someone who would be a net-positive not getting the bit. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

199. No reason not to support. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 13:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
     • Support. No obvious red lights and so WP:NOBIGDEAL. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Regretfully moved to Oppose. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
200. Support. Tamzin's lack of substantial experience writing articles isn't ideal (for those questioning which this matters, I can recommend User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content), but her technical proficiency, experience in a range of behind-the-scenes processes, and obvious trustworthiness more than make up for it. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
201. Support. Thanks for volunteering. Vexations (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Reaffirming support. 15:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
202. Support No reservations. Every interaction has been a pleasure. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     Support Approved for 12 years + Good user. - CafeGurrier66 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     Note: CafeGurrier66 (talk · contribs) (200 edits) is now indefinitely blocked following a 31 hour expired block. Don't know if their comment counts or it can be struck. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

     This should have been struck earlier. bibliomaniac15 05:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

203. Fuck sakes, I'm really not paying attention, far too many days late in expressing my support. Nick (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
204. Support, obviously. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     Support I have no qualms throwing my support in Tamzin's direction. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Moving to oppose

205. Support Absolutely, yes. Operator873 ^connect 21:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
206. Support - Looks like a really good candidate who will be a welcome addition to the team. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
     • Reaffirm - Just commenting to note that I reaffirm my support upon review of the controversy over Q14 and the relevant context. I love being a reactionary as much as the next guy, but I really cannot convince myself to buy into the opposition from an ideological or rational perspective here (“ideological” referring to Wikipedia’s ideology). Thinking logically, it’s unsurprising and unconcerning to hear that a “disabled queer trans leftist Jewish woman” would be this vehemently opposed to Donald Trump and what he and his supporters objectively stand for. It’s a mainstream belief shared by much of the US, much of the West, much of the English-speaking world, and much of the world at large. I am sorry for those who hate to hear that, but that is a fact. As someone who is trying to not let political beliefs influence their perspective, that is my most objective assessment. If there is no evidence that the nominee is or will act in a morally corrupt manner, the fact that they hold fairly common political beliefs should not matter. I have read every single oppose and I see no evidence provided that they will misuse the tools. If you (the community) disqualify this user from adminship, you’re making a statement that you’re willing to disqualify a “disabled queer trans leftist Jewish woman” for simply stating her beliefs, which are, again, whether or not you agree with them, literally just normal views for many around the world. The notion that a Wikipedia admin must never acknowledge their belief that Trump was a malicious fascist is as patently ridiculous as the notion that no Wikipedia admin can be a Trump supporter (who would likely hold equally aggressive views about the other side). Being even more frank, I might point out that a “disabled queer trans leftist Jewish woman” is expressing her opposition to a camp that does include many who literally wish to either rescind her existing rights or even exterminate her. This is…widely accepted and verifiable fact that is reported by this project itself. Jesus Christ people. The opposition strikes me as a fairly shocking reactionary backlash. It is a troubling sign. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
       • Thanks for the clarity of your reaffirm, User:Swarm. As one of those who has opposed, I just wish to reassure you that I did not vote against a “disabled queer trans leftist Jewish woman”, I voted against a Wikipedia user named "Tamzin" who brought politics into a neutral arena and advocated for a form of segregation or apartheid. Part of the reason for my oppose vote is so that we don't have divisive conversations in which a person's politic beliefs or whether they are disabled or queer or trans or Jewish, etc are brought up. One of the significant advantages of the internet is that here we are all equal as nobody knows our gender, race, political beliefs, etc, unless we decide to make them known. And when we do make them known we should not be treated any differently by anyone. It matters not to me what Tamzin's gender or religion is, but it does matter (a lot) that they are advocating unpleasant views on Wikipedia. I wish to affirm again that I am not opposing Tamzin's gender or religion, just their advocacy for segregation. SilkTork (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
         • Again, she said this (hyperbolically) about a camp that includes those who want to exterminate her. On a human level, that shouldn’t be disqualifying. But what do I know? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
         • @SilkTork: To reaffirm with even more clarity, a Wikipedia user named "Tamzin" did not "br[ing] politics into a neutral arena": they made a comment in a previous RfA—where of course politics was being discussed by all-and-sundry-and-their-dog—which was then raised in this RfA by a third party. Cheers, SN54129 11:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

           I think it crossed a line. Human history is replete with different peoples, nations, beliefs and political groups having at each other's throats. This hatred has resulted in everything from persecution to war, up to and including genocide. Wikipedia editors were not created in a laboratory. We are current members, or otherwise descendants, of any number of those groups. And yet here we are busily putting together an encyclopedia. I think that anyone who is good at stirring up a commotion about other editors' affiliations and/or beliefs is only leading us down a slippery slope, and should not be rewarded for it. Havradim leaf a message 09:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

207. Support No concerns. XOR'easter (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Addendum after reading the opposes: First, I don't think that getting stamps of approval like GA/FA is a good way to gauge how active an editor has been at "content creation". I myself have put a lot of work into articles that I've never bothered to nominate for GA, because the topic area seemed too niche and I doubted that I could find a reviewer both knowledgeable and enthusiastic enough to complete a review. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to collect trophies. Second, it's a plain fact of life that some political ideologies are simply incompatible with building an encyclopedia, because they are fundamentally anti-journalism and anti-education. Such an ideology could be found on the left, the right, or even in the political center (the home of pathological both-sides-ism that is completely at odds with what we mean by neutrality). Wikipedia is a fantastic opportunity for people of different persuasions to come together and create something good, but to make it work, we have to recognize some harsh truths. In Tamzin's statements and clarifications, I see a mature recognition of our unhappy reality. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
208. Support and thanks for all the work already at SPI. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirming. Much has been made about the candidate's one comment at a previous RfA, and their comments at this one. But taking a step back from that, there is a long history of contributions and interactions with other editors which in my view are more key in assessing if this candidate is likely to edit in a fair and neutral way if they are given the admin tools. None of us are perfect, of course, but on balance I trust that they will be able to do so. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

209. Support - No concerns per above -- Tawker (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
210. Support - User can be trusted with the tools. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
211. Support per my trust in the nominators, the nomination statements, several reasons stated above in particular HJ Mitchell's. Good answer to Q14. Remains civil and calm in the face of shenanigans, yet shows firmness as necessary. example. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

     Re-affirming support -I have attempted to make my own politics as invisible as possible, but I must now plainly state that I did not vote for Trump, and it made me shudder to type q25. However, there are people who I love and trust who do support him for various reasons. I was hoping to give the candidate an avenue to explain that past contributions (the edit history) are significantly more important as an indication of future performance, that the candidate would evaluate and communicate with such a person lookiing for nuance, and that someone should not be judged on a single regrettable statement/instance (see q25, which was misinterpreted but not unreasonably so, and I profusely apologize to the candidate and the community for it). The candidate (probably wisely) chose not to go there, this has become an un-winnable minefield. I re-affirm because the candidates overall history leads me to believe they will act reasonably and responsibly with those they disagree with. I may not agree with everything the candidate has said, or thinks, but if that were the criteria then I couldn't !vote for anybody. I also fully believe the candidate will deliberately consider the well-considered opposes. Keeping in mind the first law of holes, I cease. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

212. Support Trustworthy and sensible. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
213. Support per so much of the above. Seren_Dept 03:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
214. Stephen 04:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
215. Support per help with SPI clerking. Mathsci (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

     Support almost instantly due to her work in multiple avenues, such as redirects and admin noticeboards. Even though I would usually take more consideration if they don't have enough good content written, User:Tamzin#My_philosophy_of_Wikipedia is enough for me to convince that she will put her admin tool to good use for safeguarding articles' quality. Cheers to you, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

216. Support all places I have seen Tamzin on wikipedia, she has been a positive contributor. I have especially seen her work at RfD and while I do not always (but often) agree with every close she has made; there's always good rationale for it and none that I would ever feel worthwhile reopening. From my interactions at RfD especially, adminship is more than logical. TartarTorte 13:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
217. Support Established good editor, hard worker for the community, no red flags, instant adminship. — The Anome (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
218. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
219. Support I've seen Tamzin's contributions a number of times and it's always been positive. Reviewing more, both in Tamzin's edit history and in the sections here, only confirms it. Skynxnex (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
220. Obviously. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

     So I see that at least two people whose support votes came after mine have reaffirmed. Despite the fact that I believe all relevant information was available when I voted, let me also reaffirm my support. This includes reaffirming my assessment this is an easy and obvious choice; I endorse in full the detailed analysis offered by Politanvm below of why the politically inspired oppose votes are unconvincing. JBL (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

221. Wasn't going to participate in this RFA (or any future RFAs), but I feel the strong need to counteract the recent opposes. KICK BUTT TAMZIN!!! Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
222. Support Falls into the "I thought they already were an admin" category for me. Thy are a long time productive editor. The mop and bucket will be in good hands. MarnetteD|Talk 22:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
223. Support good content creation Jno.skinner (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
224. Oppose them not having the tools per the wise people above. But seriously, this RfA is going to pass and at this point I'm just piling on. My support isn't done blindly though. I worked with Tamzin supporting the response to the botnet vandalism attack earlier this year and they proved their capability. I trust them, and them not having the tools is a big deal. They are exactly the kind of user who should have the admin bit. Lets wrap this up Seddon ^talk 23:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

     Phew! You almost blew our cover! /j -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

225. Support. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

     Just to indicate I have been reading along, and am only more persuaded to support, in agreement especially with comments from WereSpielChequers and Drmies on the UCoC and other uncontroversial WP policies. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

226. Strong Support. I've been waiting to !vote support when someone starts a RFA for Tamzin. Rusty4321 ^{talk contributions log} 01:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
227. I’ve had positive experiences with Tamzin. Diligent and possesses good judgement. Was slightly concerned with regards to DS enforcement, in which I think impartiality (and the appearance of such), diligence, and experience as a content contributor in these areas, are all important. But, in short, am satisfied with Q23. Good luck. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
228. Support per most of the opposes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
229. SupportI guess this is the most transparent RfA I've experienced. Her opposition to a threat to democracy like Trump, and her defense of it is just great. That's the kind of admin we need. Other admirers of threats to democracy should be opposed as well. And for the future successful SPI clerks I suggest some kind of a SPI Barnstar of the equivalence of the GA or FA so your admirable work gets better recognizable.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

     Other admirers of threats to democracy should be opposed as well. So should us Donald Trump supporters NOT run for RFAs? Just because of our political affiliation? Will our contributions to the Wikipedia be thrown away just because we supported Donald Trump? SunDawntalk 09:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     I will say that I would be uncomfortable collaborating with editors who knowingly support politicians that openly and repeatedly advocate for violence against my people and whose disinformation campaigns have led to the death of family members of mine. If you end up running that's the kind of sentiment you should expect if you insist on making your political ideology part of your wiki presence, but you may still pass based on what you want the tools for and if you can be trusted with them, SunDawn. As many others have raised in the RfA, we'd all be better off if we kept the wiki as apolitical as possible. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     That is why I oppose the nominee, because she brought politics to the scene. If she just made a promise that she will not be political, even after her comments, all will be well. I really agreed that we need to be apolitical, and we are judged only by our conduct on the wiki, but it seems like the ship has sailed. How many Support votes is there because the guy in question is "Trump"? Will she gets the same kind of Support if the guy in question is <insert other politician here>? SunDawntalk 10:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     The reality is much more nuanced than Trump being a random political figure. We all know that, and acting as if he's just a run of the mill conservative is simplifying the issues at hand. She would get the same kind of support if the guy in question is Andrew Wakefield or Samuel Shenton, I'd imagine, but would be SNOW opposed if the person in question was Liz Cheney. The support votes are there because the rationale of the nominators is sound and the need for the tools demonstrated while the opposes' rationales are not convincing enough to the supporters. Like in all RfAs. This RfA is not a pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump display of partisanship and let's not make it seem so, SunDawn. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 10:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     I didn't say that, we should elect our admins regarding their contributions to Wikipedia, which in the case of Tazmin seem to be fine. My other threats refer to politicians like Erdogan who showed what a threat to women, democracy and Wikipedia he can be.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirm support per General Notability. Don't just read what Hammersoft wrote, also read what Tamzin wrote, please.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

230. Support Obviously trustworthy, easy support. Parabolist (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
231. Support per many of the recent support comments. Nigej (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
232. Support. Good noms. I’ve seen Tamzin around and they seemed levelheaded. Seeing lots of positives in their contributions and nothing to say they can’t be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
233. Support Thank you Tamzin for your work at RM. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 10:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
234. Support. Levelheaded, thoughtful, good communicator. Seems trustworthy and unlikely to let the mop go to her head. As regards the opposes related to Q14: we all extend trust and gain confidence in someone's judgment through the totality of their communications. If someone presents political opinions we consider strongly deficient in logic and dangerous, that of course colours our own assessment of their judgment and trustworthiness. That has little to do with whether we could or would be neutral in wielding the mop. Bottom line is while I would personally be less polemic than Tamzin about the issue, my trust that Tamzin can be impartial and effective even in politically charged areas (should she choose to act there) is increased by her thoughtful answers in Q14 more than it is decreased by her original, off-the-cuff polemic remark. Martinp (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
235. Support. I don't follow RfA much these days and I wasn't going to comment. But after seeing the recent opposes I have decided to offer my support. My decision to support Tamzin is based on whether I trust her actions on Wikipedia to be fair and consistent with Wikipedia policies regardless of politics. Judging by what I've seen of her contributions over the past few years, I don't have any concerns about that at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
236. Support – 💯 trust in her actions. She is very observant, has the experience, and her ability to understand controversial situations is one of her many shining qualities. Atsme 💬 📧 12:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
237. Support I initially read the nomination and questions two days ago. I felt somewhat uneasy reading (in Q4) when it comes to users where there's any shred of AGF to be had, I don't anticipate relying on the blocking tool much more than I currently rely on the option to report to admins. The intended meaning is probably I come across lots of clear-cut cases and I could block them rather than report them, which makes sense in an SPI context, but for a rando like me this sounds a lot like I will block people even though I am WP:INVOLVED to save time, which is obviously unacceptable.
     I therefore had doubts about their ability to communicate effectively, so I went looking through their recent contributions, thinking I would easily find a bitten newbie or something. After 20min or so of digging, I did not, so I concluded all was fine. At that point in time there were zero substantial opposes so I did not feel the need to pile-on.
     Since then, the "Trump supporters cannot be admins" thing blew up. While one might be inclined to dock points for stating blunt opinions in the context of an RfA, the opinion itself (with the clarifications the candidate later gave) is within an acceptable range IMO. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
238. Support. Levelheaded, trustworthy, would make a superb admin. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

     Re-affirming support per recent answers, and along the lines of Ritchie333's re-affirmation comments. I still remain confident the candidate would make a great admininstrator. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

239. Support. Experienced and trustworthy candidate who deserves adminship. 747pilot (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
240. Support. As an RFD regular I can corroborate with BDD's enthusiastic nomination. Deryck C. 12:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
241. Support. No concerns, will be a positive. --Mvbaron (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
242. Support. She has a clue so I'm sure she'll do just fine if we give her the mop. Pichpich (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
243. Support. We've mostly crossed paths on noticeboards and SPI. It'll be helpful to have a more empowered SPI supporter. Tamzin has also shown commitment to content creation in encouraging me to get around to finishing a particular Draft. Regarding the opposes, the only place she has mentioned her views impacting a decision is at RfA, and the highly unlikely creation of a policy for admins. I don't know of a policy or guideline for when a user should/can support/oppose/not participate in RfAs. But if an RfA candidate believed in a thoroughly discredited fringe conspiracy theory that attempted to violently overthrow a democratically elected government, it would be reasonable to question their fitness for adminship. Outside of RfA, I trust Tamzin's ability to be impartial when applying Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and most of those actions would be public and available to the community's scrutiny. Politanvm ^talk 14:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

     To restate, reaffirm, and recontextualize:

     • Tamzin, on another RfA, defended the candidate from attacks on their political views. In that defense, she discussed her anti-fascist political views to emphasize how open she was to supporting a former self-professed fascist.
     • In that comment she talked about how her views affect her RfA criteria (and only her RfA criteria) as well as a side comment about potentially de-sysoping Trump supporters (not that she will propose or vote for that policy, just that she would be fine with it) which is obviously a non-starter and hypothetical.
     • Ad Orientem brought that comment to the attention of this RfA (rightfully so), which then brought the question of politics into this RfA. Tamzin did not bring politics into this RfA.
     • Tamzin could have responded reactively, but instead wrote a thoughtful, clear, honest, and forthright response where she:
       • Confirmed that her opposition is to oppressive regimes across the political spectrum.
       • Walked back the "never vote for a right-of-center admin candidate" comment (which, again, was made in the heat of the moment defending an RfA candidate against attacks for their political views)
       • Confirmed that this only affects her RfA criteria (and RfA is one of a few places on enwiki where people are free to have their own criteria), and that it's only one of several considerations, and even then she has never applied it, nor expects to.

     From all of that, the only reasons I could think to oppose are:

     • You don't believe her responses that this doesn't affect her editing/actions outside RfA. But nobody has shared any diffs showing her political beliefs creeping into her editing or actions at SPI. In my view, her ability to stay impartial even when dealing with topics she disagrees with is a credit to her ability to be a good admin.
     • You don't believe admins should hold political views.
     • You don't believe admins should be open and honest about their views. Of course, the context she mentioned them was related to another user's political views, so it makes sense why she did. That RfA became mostly about politics, so users shared their political views, just as people are doing on this one.
     • Optics about admins holding political views, and potential appearance of biased admin actions. Fine, but most admin actions are publicly viewable, so she wouldn't be above accountability. And there's nothing (at least nothing anyone has shared outside of the RfA diff) to suggest her views cloud her judgment outside RfA.
     • You disagree with her politics. Again, fine, editors are welcome to have their own RfA criteria. But since the main issue is Tamzin's RfA criteria, it reads a bit contradictory.

     Given all that, I don't see how her diff at the other RfA, the answer to Q14, or any of the subsequent questions/answers/comments are disqualifying. Politanvm ^talk 14:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

244. Support Was already an AWOT. I did have to do a double take of "wait, weren't they already?..." and then "oh yeah". Definitely needs the tools too, given their activity in areas where the tools are needed to take any action. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
245. Support. Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
246. Support after reviewing the context of the controversial comments etc. (Apologies for some incoherence, please see note on my talkpage). To get the important thing out of the way: as other users have said, particularly RoySmith & Girth Summit, I think giving Tamzin, an active SPI clerk, the tools would be great for the work that they intend to do on-wiki. Obviously, Q14 etc. gave me some pause. But I also remember how heightened the tensions were during the RfA context in which they were written. And like Vermont, I also wouldn't want to see anyone in a position of power (including an online position of power) who frankly doesn't believe in my right to exist as a queer disabled woman. There are right of center people w/ whom I get along; they are capable of eloquent conversations & they generally respect the right of others to exist. There are also groups of people who have threateend my health & well-being over things beyond my ken. I'd prefer not to see the altter category in positions of power. Just... my rambles I guess. I trust Tamzin. — GhostRiver 16:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
247. Support — What again are the unwritten base requirements for passing an RFA? Let’s see; A clue as to how the collaborative project works, competence, civility and a clear need for the tools, and I see all four being met. I’m afraid I do not truly understand "the oppose" Furthermore Drmies & BDD are part of a very select few I respect, thus if they are endorsing you I invariably would as I trust their judgment. So yes I’m supporting Tamzin. Celestina007 (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
248. Damn, I look away and Tamzin is running for admin? OK then--support. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
249. Support from what I understand, Wikipedia has a shrinking number of admins and we need more. I don't think that Tamzin's stated political opinions will cause them to misbehave as an admin, based on their behaviour on Wikipedia up to now. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
250. it's been around 24 hours since it came to light and I haven't seen or found any diffs that indicate Taxmin's political opinions had a negative impact on the project. Instead, the level-headed reponses from the candidate so far has been rather impressive. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
251. Support After reading this RfA I have seen no good reason to oppose this candidate. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 18:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
252. Support - Trusted user, demonstrated dedication to the goals of the project. The response to Q14 is unusual in that it explicitly names and criticises modern political beliefs - something unusual on here - but Tamzin's follow-up statements and explanations are logically sound, and I do not see how the views expressed will harm the encyclopaedia. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 18:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
253. Support candidate is more than qualified and nothing here would be disqualifying in my mind --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
254. Support It's unfortunate that this RfA has devolved into a political debate of sorts as opposed to (in my opinion) focusing on Tamzin's history on this project. Has she, in 9+ years, demonstrated that she can edit productively, civilly and cluefully? I believe she has. Will providing Tamzin with the tools improve Wikipedia as a whole? Based on her history and, more specifically, her extensive work at SPI, I believe it will. With nearly 32,000 edits worth of evidence available, I see no reason to believe that Tamzin would be anything less than a helpful admin, let alone abuse the tools should they be granted as seems to be implied by some of the opposes.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
255. Support. A trusted editor who would make good use of the tools. As a minority who lives in a country that has been going through a right wing wave, I understand their concerns and comments, even if I might not share in their points of view entirely when it comes to Wikipedia. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 20:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
256. Support – no sign of any editing activity that raises any red flags. Clueful and has a demonstrated need for the tools. --bonadea contributions talk 20:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
257. Support No concerns.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
258. Support: I don't believe that an editor expressing their political opinions should void their candidacy for adminship. Easy support. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 21:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
259. Taking notice of the canidate's compelling answer to Question 11, I must offer my strongest possible support. HiDrNick! 21:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
260. Support I vote aye, so to speak. →StaniStani 22:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
261. Support per SoWhy and Ponyo. Tamzin has done excellent work at SPI, and I trust her judgment - including to recuse where appropriate. GAB^gab 23:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

     Reaffirming my support. As per SoWhy, There has been no evidence though that Tamzin has ever let her political views influence her work at SPI and there is no reason to believe that she won't be able to compartmentalize as an admin. If anything, we are better off for it now, since she knows that there will be a lot of eyes on her if she ever acted as an admin in any APOL-area. GAB^gab 01:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

262. Support, per Beeblebrox and Ponyo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
263. Support. A strange, wonderful, and straightforward person, and a committed and versatile editor. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 00:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
264. Support (moved from Neutral) per FeydHuxtable. The vast majority of American Wikipedia editors are already politically left of center. Tamzin’s candor with her views is a net positive. Many editors are not as frank about their political positions. I stand by what I said in the “neutral” section. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 02:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
265. Support. I find her clearly supportable. Some of the objections worry me. I became an admin long ago and I am surprised by the discussion here. When I reached the age of 80 I resigned as my memory is less good than it was. It is clearly now much harder to become an admin, and I think this will discourage applicants and the number of active admins will seriously decline. Being an admin is supposed to be no big deal. The discussion here suggests that is no longer the case. We may well move to not having enough admins to maintain quality in WP. --Bduke (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
266. Support I suspect there are a large number of editors who would be swayed by political biases in the event of, for example, an open Trump supporter at RfA. The only difference is that Tamzin is not hiding their bias, which all editors have. SK2242 (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
267. Support Appears thoughtful, concientious, and skilled - all qualities that Wikipedia needs for its admins Somej (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
268. Support What Beeblebrox said. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
269. Support I have been impressed with Tamzin's professionalism at SPI, but what really motivated me to !vote here (my first ever in an RfA) was reading their extended response to Question 14. We need more admins who have the maturity to balance professionalism with humanity, and who have the courage to be candid about it. Generalrelative (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
270. Support — Candidate has history in the areas that they would like to contribute to as an administrator, particularly AIV, RPP, and UAA – so I'm very happy with that. Candidate has no history in the political edits that they're being !opposed for, despite holding political opinions (oh, the horror!). More to the point: they're trustworthy, have experience with content creation, and I don't believe they'll misuse their tools. Tamzin good luck and all the best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
271. Support Quite frankly I do not understand the outrage about Tamzin's political opinion. It's her political opinion which she is entitled to. You can have your opinion, but I think that her justifiying distrust in users who protect and defend someone who incites violence and is a hypocritical liar is valid. If sysops defend a person who has been shown time and time again to be wrong, and continue defend someone who attempts an insurrection, is outwardly racist, how do we know they are trustworthy to see the correct facts regarding a block? ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 05:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     When their "justifying distrust" is okay and when it is not okay? Some people think that it is justified to distrust people who supported Trump, but what about Le Pen? How about Xi Jinping? How about Carrie Lam? How about Rajapaksa? How about Bolsonaro? How about Stalin? How about Maduro? I think it is a great wrong to judge people based on their political position. We should judge people based on their conduct on Wiki, not on what they might or might not do in real life. SunDawntalk 11:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     I feel like this is a strawman argument. Your point seems to be comparing Trump with Stalin - which seems to go against the point you are making. Could you clarify your point? I may be misunderstanding here. If I do understand you correctly, it would be inappropriate to compare the people you have listed to Trump as they are like apples and oranges. I would like to point out that although I do not live in the US/am American I am still aware of the Capitol riots and all the Trump drama. This is because the leader of one of the world superpowers is spreading disinformation and inciting violence. I think a more appropriate comparison would be Putin, but even that is a stretch. Hence I believe that those who openly admit to defending someone who spreads racist, misogynistic, and discriminatory beliefs, which are based on disinformation is unfit to be a sysop. ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 15:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

272. Support basically per Ponyo. I think that Tamzin will make a fine administrator. Wham2001 (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
273. Support Tamzin is an excellent candidate. I don't hold it against her for being uncomfortable about people who are phobic about her, and as Wikipedians we should all be concerned about fans of "alternative facts". As a Londoner who follows some international stuff I'm aware that political scales vary around the world, and that many US Politicians would be off the scale in UK politics. I would be more than a little narked if someone said that support for any of the parties that have MPs in Great Britain should be a disqualifier for adminship. But I don't see that we have to say there are "good people on both sides" when the question is about support for Trump despite Birtherism, his calling Mexicans rapists, or his telling the Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by". However I'd counsel the candidate to focus their concern on the obvious dissonance between Trumpian values and the WMF's Universal Code of Conduct, as well as our commitment to factual accuracy and reliable sourcing. There are rightwingers who are neither racist, nor homophobic, nor transphobic nor dishonest and if I've read the candidate's words correctly she can work with such people here. The bigger issue that this RFA highlights is the clash within the WMF Universal Code of Conduct when someone's political affiliation is itself an attack on other's "ethnicity, race, religion (or lack thereof), culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender or sex. ϢereSpielChequers 08:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     Support User is a good contributor to Wikipedia. --Gowzena1978khhwe (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     User's first edit. —Kusma (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     Blocked as WP:NOTHERE (trolling). —Kusma (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

274. Support Don't usually participate in RFAs, but their temperament and capability to lighten conversations while talking to other users in Wikipedia is appreciated. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 10:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
275. Support. Tamzin has been here a decade and made over 30,000 edits. If the oppose concerns that she might let her personal political opinions improperly influence her treatment of editors were valid, we might expect to have seen some evidence of that before now. Given how open Tamzin is about her political opinions, I don't think there's any danger that once she gets the tools, she will suddenly start using her position to push her politics, and if she does people are going to notice. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
276. Support: an eminently qualified candidate. The politics question has been blown out of proportion: no-one is arguing here that editing should be influenced by political preferences, but any person's exercice of power in a community (even if it's so limited as here) will obviously be influenced by how they believe power should be exercised in the wider society. If you value authority, tradition, privilege and hierarchy, then you really have no place wielding power in a project that for all practical purposes is organised as an anarcho-socialist commune. – Uanfala (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
277. Support Unconvinced by people's political arguments. No strong reasons not to. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 12:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
278. weak support. I nearly hit the oppose column, but I reread the answers to 14 and I think I get where she is. She walked back her "center of right" stuff and focused on Trump. And I think a belief that Trump has tried to undermine the outcome of a free and fair election is not irrational. And not trusting those who support such a person isn't crazy. I'd rather have my admin corps be free of politics, and I'd strongly encourage her to avoid using her admin status (if this passes) in the context of political discussions. But just don't see it being a significant negative for her as an admin. That said, I think she handled the whole thing poorly (initial discussion and parts of her answers here) and that's part of why I nearly opposed. Hobit (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
279. Support user's contributions suggest they will be a good admin and no one seems to have found any reasons to oppose that aren't based on political views. ♣ Ameliorate! 14:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     A little ironic, I think. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

280. Support. I am impressed by the nominee's openess about their own biasses. And while I did not like all the answers they gave in the questions section, I think they are aware of many of their shortcommings, and that's all I ask for. I also liked their comments about WP:NOTTHERAPY. Renerpho (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
281. Strong support. This is one of those cases where I see a name at RfA, and go "wait, I swear she was already an admin." Your nuanced and well-thought-out comments here only reinforce my opinion that you're clearly worth of the mop. Gaelan 💬✏️ 15:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
282. Support. Although I agree with several sentiments expressed by opposes, I fail to see how Tazmin's biases (and biases are unavoidable; it's impractical to disqualify a candidate on the basis of having biases) or ideas might overly influence her actions as an admin to make her unsuitable (indeed, as an editor she's been excellent). A candidate need not be perfect or very close to it to make a good admin. Tazmin is otherwise an excellent candidate. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     Seeing as how this could end in a 'crat chat depending on the final !votes, I'll elaborate a little more. I think opposes referencing the diff that sparked Q14 and opposes referencing the appearance or hiddenness of bias (among other opposes) are faulty for several reasons. The diff itself is a faulty reason because it was hyperbole in an already political RfA (clarified in Q14/addendum) and Tazmin doesn't have a habit of reguarly talking about politics. The appearance/hiddenness reason is faulty because Tazmin was not the one to bring it up; it was asked to her. Though she could have provided a short and curt answer walking her back, due to her transparent character she gave a full explanation anyway. The opposes have also failed to provide any evidence that her views have damaged the encyclopedia, and if her views would make her an unsuitable admin I'd expect it to show in some of her 30k edits so far. I particuarly like what PJavanMill, MJL's 2nd paragraph, SoWhy, MastCell, Politanvm, TNT, and probably others have said. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

283. Support, despite the objectionable political comments. I hope she has learned from the furore, and let's face it, the problemmatic issues don't come up very often. It doesn't really matter what other candidates she would not vote for, and when was the last RFA with a self-declared continuing Trump supporter candidate? Yes, there was Vami4, but look what happened there (not just for political reasons). Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     I like what Tamzin wrote in response to Vami4's RfA: There's a number of ways that I wish more Wikipedians could be as self-aware and open as he is. (And the rest of their comments there, too.) Renerpho (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

284. Support (moving back from oppose) – candidate has since clarified her answers to Q14 in her answers to Q26, Q27 and Q29 and that put together with my original support rationale here, having seen her work at ANI prior to this RFA, I'm moving back to support in spite of the concerns I still have here. She has insofar demonstrated otherwise that she has the temperament and communication skills and is very honest and upfront. She's not the perfect candidate (nobody running for RFA is) and while I still have concerns as per when I switched to oppose, if the candidate demonstrates that those concerns won't be an issue, then the only way she'll be able to show that is by actually giving her the mop. Thus, her answers to Q26, Q27 and Q29 combined with the evidence I've seen prior to when this RFA was put up, is satisfactory for me to move back to support.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
285. Support. I came here because I appreciate Tamzin's calm demeanor at sockpuppet cases and talk page discussions. I think Tamzin's response to negative reactions of Q14 is fair and balanced. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
286. Support. Bridget (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
287. Support Less Unless (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
288. Support. Qualified candidate. Getting the mop is supposed to be no big deal, and I don’t see the candidate’s politics as one, either. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
289. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
290. Support per S282 TippedNotion (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     @TippedNotion: Okay, I'll bite: who is S282?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     I think they're referring to support #282. DanCherek (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     that would be correct. TippedNotion (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     That's fair. But the continuing striking a comment, moving to oppose or revert back to support has completely messed up the numbering. It's unlikely that the S282 you referred to would remain at 282 by the end of the RfA. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     We can see from Special:Permalink/1085483395 that it is Caeciliusinhorto's support (as it read at the time of TippedNotion's comment). And if someone had supported per SN54129, well that would clearly mean "support number 54,129". — Bilorv (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     Bilorv Ah, so passing the "WP:Number of times 54,128 Wikipedians have supported an RfA" of course  :) SN54129 21:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

291. Support I've been sitting on the fence here for a few days. The political discussion involved the paradox of tolerance. I disagree with Tamzin's line here, and given her wish to be involved in AE, where the appearance of impartially is vital, that did give me pause. Llevivich explains my discomfort well. Mhawk10, and the promise of recusals from Tamzin, has convinced me this should not pose a problem with doing admin chores, especially given her broader interest in places without politics. Femke (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
292. Support, will make a great admin.-gadfium 21:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
293. Support I trust this person. Hipocrite (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
294. Support Sro23 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
295. I have been watching this RfA unfold over the past several days. I sympathize with the bulk of the opposition; neutrality and tolerance of opposing views are core tenets of this project. Based on her expanded answer to Q14 – combined with the tremendous amount of good work and common sense I have seen from her, going back a decade – I believe that Tamzin herself agrees with this, and I trust her to remain impartial in her work as an admin. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 23:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
296. Support. Generally been impressed with Tamzin's thoughtfulness, judgment, and individuality (the latter quality especially refreshing in a time when Wikipedia seems dominated by faceless, anodyne bureaucrats). She seems like someone whose every decision I may not agree with, but who can be trusted to approach decisions carefully and circumspectly.
     As for the reaction to Q14, it's predictable Wikipedia stuff. Let's just say that if the Republican Party were trying to legislate middle-aged white male WWII buffs out of existence, a lot more of you would probably sympathize with her qualms, as a transgender person, about Trump supporters. But that's a distraction from her excellent qualifications as a potential admin, which are the core issue here. MastCell ^Talk 00:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
297. Support. Setting aside Q14, this is a strong candidate who has a very complete skillset for an admin. What the Q14 situation has shown is a person who is willing to hold herself accountable for her actions and statements and explain them. I also see a candidate who is aware of the potential for appearance of non-neutrality (see Femke's remark just above about recusals), so I have no hesitations in supporting this candidate. —C.Fred (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
298. Support. I was pleased to see it was Tamzin who was running when the notice came up on my watchlist, and I very much hope her candidacy is successful. She would make an excellent administrator. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
299. Suport. No issue in supporting the candidate. Conlinp (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
300. 'Support I cheerfully vote (don't think I ever have before) to negate Hammersoft's Oppose. The line in question, I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards. is one I can get behind fully, and applaud Tamzin (I have had no connection or interaction before, to my knowledge) for taking this courageous stand. Please do not waver in the face of this loud-yet-tiny band of detractors, you will be a valued contributor to the admin team. Zaathras (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
301. Support, after having read everything on this page and its talk page twice (and familiarising myself with the candidate’s work by my usual and not very thorough method of taking samples). Whatever I may think about that one opinion which garnered so much opposition, it doesn’t change my own conclusion that having Tamzin as an admin is a net plus for the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
302. Given what's come to light, it would be inappropriate for me to take any bureaucratic action with regards to Tamzin's candidacy, seeing as their views and mine overlap. Instead, I'm participating and will not be involved in this RfA's closure should it be a close result. Win or lose here, Tamzin, don't let the alt-right / far-right defeat you in the long run. Acalamari 04:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
303. Support, an honest and hard-working volunteer who will make a great adminMarshelec (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
304. Support – Tamzin has my trust based on our interactions on-wiki. While I disagree with the answer to question 14, I appreciate the candor and sincerity that the answer demonstrates. I am sure there are other admins who feel the same way about the US right wing, and I would prefer a candidate who is up-front about their views over one who hides them in wikilawyering. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
305. Support -- I have only encountered this editor once, and don't recall the details, but it was with reference to something contentious about Ukraine, and the editor was matter of fact and pleasant, resolved the issue, and left me with a very favorable impression. Elinruby (talk)what I

     on reflection, I believe they reverted something another user had added, I asked why, and got what I considered a good answer Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

     @Elinruby: If you're trying to remember the exact details, I actually discussed this in one of my answers! :) See Q12. --