Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vami IV

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

Vami IV[edit]

Final (114/50/6); ended 18:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC), withdrawn by candidate. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Vami IV (talk · contribs) – As an editor with over six years of activity across mainspace and the back end alike, Vami IV is long overdue for a nomination for adminship. His content work is prolific: Vami is responsible for creating 242 articles, 164 of which are biographies of women under the auspices of Women In Red. He has expanded numerous others with well-researched and encyclopedic content, particularly stubs for the long-running 50,000 Destubbing Challenge.

On the back end, Vami is a born collaborator who works well with others, an essential skill for any admin. His 229 GA reviews, many nominations of others for Editor of the Week, efforts to educate users interested in helping out at the highly technical contributor copyright investigations area, and work as coordinator of WikiProject Germany all bear witness to this. I hope you'll agree with me that Vami will be a strong addition to the admin corps. ♠PMC(talk) 03:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination by Lee Vilenski

I am absolutely delighted to introduce Vami IV to the community as a candidate for adminship. Vami has been with us for almost six and a half years, and in that time has produced over 80,000 contributions. They have been continually active since 2016 and are a fantastic contributer, working on articles up to FA class, such as Fort Concho and Ludwigsburg Palace with 25,000 edits to mainspace. Their skills in content creation is exemplified by having a Triple Crown, and won the Editor of the week award in 2019.

However, Vami is much more than just a content creator. They work in WP:CCI, somewhere where the toolset is incredibly helpful, for revision deletion as well as handling blocks. I very much trust Vami with handling themselves with decorum in discussions, and have no qualms with them having the toolset. I hope you’ll agree that Vami IV is a fantastic editor that would benefit from the toolset. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept these nominations, and thank their authors for writing them. And the people, admins or otherwise, who convinced me to run for the mop. For five Marches out of the six I've been here, I never treated the idea of being here at RfA seriously. I was of the opinion that I didn't need to be an admin, and that Wikipedia didn't need me as an admin. I still believe I am correct about those things. But in my sixth March I decided to run because, as I said at my ORCP, I believe in this project and want to help maintain it in a greater capacity. So I reaffirm this: I do not see adminship as something owed to experienced editors, but something a suitable, experienced, and motivated editor owes to the project.♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hereby withdraw as a candidate for adminship. Thank you, everyone who supported me. I apologize for the turmoil in the comments and on the talk page. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have never edited with an account other than this one or an IP address, and I have not and never will engage in paid editing. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to be a copyright admin, investigating and cleaning up copyright violations. I understand that there is also a deficit of admins at WP:AIV and WP:PERM, but my focus, especially while I get my sea legs, will be copyright cleanup.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The easy answer would be the two Featured Articles, five Good Articles, and Did You Knows that earned me my Triple Crowns. There's also my participation in Women in Red, the contests run by Encyclopaedius, or my GAN reviews. But my answer is the article Hololive Production. I ordinarily wouldn't be proud of a C-class. As experienced editors know, a C-class is a job half done. But I am proud of the story behind it. A handful of editors, and a community of volunteer fan translators built that article from scratch, from Japanese-language media. It still has problems, and has changed a lot since I started pursuing other projects in December 2020, but that collaboration on- and off-wiki – giving readers a new, more collaborative and accurate sense of this project – is my best work.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Of course. Always because I made a mistake, because I was gung ho about something. To be honest, it was people like me for whom WP:BRD was written. How I've resolved disputes (and my goofs), is exactly that formula: be bold, get reverted, and then work it out. Take this example from back in 2018. As an admin however, I will be more cautious before doing something like this again.

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 Cryptic
4. What was the context of your recently-deleted User:Vami IV/Userboxes/clericalfascist?
A: I grew up in a conservative household, but in the lead up to the 2016 US Presidential elections, I fell into the camp of Donald Trump. I adopted increasingly right-wing politics, and even publicly professed to be fascist. Thankfully, I had a lot of people to mock and shun me for my cringe beliefs, and friends to talk me down from those cringe beliefs. Since then, I've done a lot of soul searching and reading, and on-wiki written about such things the history of American imperialism, Confederate war crimes, and helped purge racists from this project. It goes without saying that I still feel a lot of guilt about how I used to be. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from John M Wolfson
5. Your edit summary usage is spotty compared to what is ideal for an administrator, at a rather low 75%. Furthermore, as late as last November it was as low as 50%, and has vacillated between there and 100% since then. Communication is an essential skill for adminabili, so edit summary usage should be rather high. Will you commit to using edit summaries in all of your edits? There is an option in your preferences that you can check to remind you to use a summary at every edit. You don't necessarily need to check it (I don't), but it can help.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Yes. I turned on that preference a couple months ago to force myself to use edit summaries. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Go Phightins!
6. I was just wondering if you might say a little bit more, in general, about how you think about reaching conclusions like this one, that "enough is enough" and the encyclopedia is better served moving on without a particular editor in our ranks. I imagine this comes up in the CCI area too, and so I am just a bit curious as to your thought process about these sorts of conduct issues (and am not asking for reflection on the particular AN/I thread I linked). Thanks.
A: I reach my conclusions regarding the net positivity of someone based on their willingness to consider criticism and advice, and change. In that case, that editor was absolutely unwilling to do any of that, had demonstrated this on their talk page and at ANI, and had a history of angrily rejecting any input regarding his edits while trying to pull rank. As the Buddha is incorrectly said to have said, "It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles." –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Bilorv
7. (Per a comment below.) Do you believe this 79-word attributed blockquote to be a copyright violation? Why or why not?
A: Yes. And I explained as such to that editor, though admittedly by linking an essay (twice), which they also did. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text: Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. I punctuate, Brief quotations. It is worth noting that I am not the only editor who thinks that OQ and other OQs constitute copyright violations.♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: There is strong consensus that this answer is unacceptable, so I will review and submit a new one. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: On reflection, I was totally in error when I included in my CCI request for the relevant editor, and I owe them an apology for that and my previous answer. It is clearly sourced, placed in a quotebox, and cited to its source. It is not a copyright violation (per WP:NFCCP and WP:NFC#Text) and my interactions with the relevant editor are breaches of WP:CIVIL. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional questions from Elli
8. You do a lot of work in CCI, removing copyright violations, because they are against site policy. However, one of our most fundamental site policies is "ignore all rules" - as long as doing so makes the encyclopedia better. How can you justify removing copyright violations from articles that are deemed good/vital - cutting them down significantly - why not apply IAR and let them stand?
A: "Copyright violations" and "good/vital" are antonyms. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
9. Would you consider closing controversial discussions as an admin? If so, how would you assess consensus in a large discussion where, if you count the !votes, it's split narrowly in favor of one option, but you're convinced that the other side has stronger policy-based arguments?
A: No, not really. That's not where my attentions lie. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Scorpions13256
10. Imagine a situation where a 10-year-old article has turned out to be a complete copyright violation. Would it be smart to nominate it for deletion via AFD?
A: AfD is not the process for removing copyright violations; WP:CP is. There have been many times I've used CP to delete presumptive or confirmed copyright violations because of the difficulty in just cleaning them up by hand, but there are times you really should just clean it up by hand. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Celestina007
11. Thank you for volunteering, You have my support. Generally, what are your thoughts on undisclosed paid editing?
A: I strongly dislike paid editing in general, as I see it being fundamentally at odds with this project, but hate UPE in particular. It is a threat to our credibility. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Sennecaster
12. At CCI (and copyright cleanup in general), both copyright editors and violators are capable of violating civility policy. As someone who will (presumably) be opening cases at CCI and dealing with repeat copyright violators, what are some ways that you could handle heated case openings and exchanges?
A: That really depends. There are editors who violate copyright and contribute in good-faith, and can't grasp copyright policy, and then there are editors who refuse to, or perceive your warnings about copyright as a personal attack. There are and have been CCI cases on both types of editor. So I will observe WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF, even while opening a case. A copyright violator's actions will speak to the goodness of their faith. There is also the input of other admins, copyright admins especially, to lean on. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Celestina007
13. Good Response, I’m sorry to ask two, my second question is, are you ready to do the hard and controversial work, other admins would generally shy away from?
A: Yes – after all I'm investigating and cleaning up copyright violations – but I'm conscious of the consequences of being brash and reckless, and of offending LTAs. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Chess
14. You said in question 1 that you "I fell into the camp of Donald Trump" and that "thankfully, I had a lot of people to mock and shun me for my cringe beliefs, and friends to talk me down from those cringe beliefs." Would you allow an editor who supports Donald Trump to be mocked and shunned on the English Wikipedia?
A: No. That would constitute a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
15. You also said you were proud to help "purge racists" from the project. What would you say the line is at which an editor is a racist and needs to be "purged" from the project?
A: I did not say I was proud about that. I'm not going to be proud about banishing contributors. The line is bringing that racism on-wiki – a racist username like the linked example, edit warring to keep a racist and demonstrably false view in an article, use of slurs, – and refusing to cease racist on-wiki behavior. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Haleth
16. I'm aware that you are fairly active on Discord, and a fairly outspoken participant at that. Obviously Discord is a more informal environment compared to Wikipedia, being off wiki and all, and everyone has the prerogative to dislike another editor on a personal level. That said, whenever you openly denigrate another editor on the public chat log who isn't in a position to respond, I WP:AGF that it is probably said in jest as opposed to a malicious casting of aspersions at said editor. Still, now that you are seeking adminship, and because we all agree that a sysop's conduct is held to a higher standard compared to other editors, do you think you will self-reflect on your prior conduct and consider whether it is appropriate public behaviour befitting a sysop, even when it is off wiki?
Optional question from Ifnord
17. A piggy back to Haleth's question, for clarity. Have you engaged in off-wiki behaviour (in the context of Wikipedia only, identifying users by name) which would not have been appropriate on-wiki, in terms of civility, etc?
Optional question from Beeblebrox
18. As you are apparently active in working to remove copyright violations, could you explain why User:Vami IV/Archive/Stadtarchiv Stuttgart is not one?
A: I had completely forgotten about that subpage. That is trans-copyvio and should be deleted immediately. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I have requested that page be speedily deleted per G12; I created it at 14:55, 11 October 2016 UTC to work on Stuttgart and History of Stuttgart. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Cullen328
19 My question is a follow-up to #7 above and to DGG's oppose. I happen to think that judicious use of properly attributed quotations can often be a great improvement to articles. Personally, I use them frequently in the "Critical reception" sections of articles about books, films, works of art and so on. I just checked one such article that I wrote and found a three sentence quote from a professional critic that was about 80 words in total, attributed by name to the critic and the publication. I think quotes like that are often proper, and I would hate to have you come along and revision delete that quote and block me for copyvio. So, please describe in detail the factors that you use to differentiate an acceptable quotation from one that you would deem a copyright violation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: With the discussion surrounding this matter now, I believe this is a question bigger than just me and look forward to the relevant RfC(s). To answer your question, I first ask, "is a quote necessary here?" or "what does this add?" (questions I ask myself especially after reading Tony's guide) – I've also seen "am I unable to word this better?". This is kind of vague, and is governed by personal taste. In my experience, the answer to the first is almost always "no", "not much", and "no" (such as in the link for the third question). Reception sections are where this changes. I have experience reviewing them before becoming a copyright investigator and writing them, as at Harry F. Sinclair. I haven't reviewed or written an article about music or a movie yet, but a quick review of My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (picked at random) leaves me feeling comfortable in my beliefs. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I want to note, in case you aren't joking with have you come along and revision delete that quote and block me for copyvio., that I will follow BRD or start a discussion on the talk page if I object to the use of quotations in an article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Iflaq
20. Will you ever block an admin if necessary? Will your blocking process be same as a non admin block?
A: No, to both questions. Even a seasoned admin would not block another admin without clear and unambiguous community consensus. And a hypothetical blocked admin can still behave problematically, for example abusing or continuing to abuse the ability to block users. The venues for addressing and, if necessary, preventing further disruptive action by an administrator is WP:ANI and, if the community cannot come to a consensus, an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from xaosflux
21. Some edits could be a copyright violation, some could be plagiarism, some could be both. Could a contribution be plagiarism without being a copyvio, and if so how should such a contribution and the associated editor be responded to?
A: Yes; contributions that are original summaries of a source, whether copyrighted or freely useable, but that do not have an in-line citation to that source are both plagiarism and a violation of WP:V. A contribution that copies from a freely useable source but does not make it explicit that the copied text is a quotation is also plagiarism but not copyvio. If the editor contributing the plagiarized material is active, they should be contacted and a discussion about WP:PLAG had with them. But if they aren't, then it falls on the identifier to correct the plagiarism and broach the subject on the talk page. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional questions from RandomCanadian
I see you have a lot of experience dealing with copyright. While I'm fully of the opinion that adminship isn't a big deal, I'm a bit surprised about the lack of activity in other areas (dealing with vandalism, disruptive editors, ...) where admin attention is always needed. This brings two questions regarding commonly used admin tools, just to be sure:
22. What is the purpose of a block?
A: Put succinctly, blocks are to protect the Encyclopedia, and are preventative, not punitive. Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Protection and WP:DBLOCK list examples of things that merit a block such as spam, harassment and persistent personal attacks, and copyright violations. Often, they are a measure of last resort; blocks for copyright violations for example are always preceded by warnings, because we want to educate editors, so they can continue to contribute while adhering to our policies. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
23. Under which conditions would you consider protecting a page?
Optional question from Iffy
24. How would being an administrator assist you with your content creation work?
A: It wouldn't. An administrator cannot abuse their position to get their way in a content dispute, or edit disruptively with tools and abilities like rollback and page locking, and should be receive equal treatment at content reviewing processes like GAN and FxC. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional question from Tol
25. In the general comments section, Chess has posted a quote of you from the Wikipedia Discord messaging server. Part of this quote as posted was "Oppressors exist to be killed by the oppressed". Can you please explain the context surrounding this quote and elaborate on the meaning of it? Tol | talk | contribs 03:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: This was said in the #offtopic channel, during a conversation about a hypothetical revolution in the United States, which I was absolutely against because of the violent and destructive nature of (most) revolutions (there are thankfully contrary examples). "exist to be killed" is metaphorical and must be understood as such, like the killing of slavery in the United States. I have struggled for years now to snuff out the oppressor within myself. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional questions from Andrew
26. Please explain your account name, "Vami IV". In your sig, you stylise this with colours and symbols. Are they significant?
27. Your user page leads with a picture of the Knight of Swords, signifying boldness. Please comment on this trait in the admin role.
Optional question from Ritchie333
28. Relating to Q25, a further comment that has been singled out for criticism is "my favorite part about disneyland america was that historian who compared the park to israel and called the existence of both "intolerable""" Please you can you elaborate clearly what exactly you mean by calling the existence of Israel "intolerable"?

Optional question from Zoozaz1
29. While looking through CCI, you notice a just opened investigation where an editor, who has been inactive for about a month, has copied a few different articles from the same site such as this article and this article into Wikipedia articles. If you were an administrator, focusing strictly on copyright, what would you do regarding the situation (the editor and those two articles) and, more importantly, why?


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

  1. Support trusted user, demonstrates a need for the tools. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 16:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Considering the huge number of opposes I feel its necessary to reaffirm my support. In the time I've worked with Vami I've found him to be a nice, knowledgable editor without a hint of fascism, who will be a huge asset with the admin toolkit in CCI and related areas. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 12:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support - not a jerk, has a clue, will be another admin to look at my RD1 requests at CCI. firefly ( t · c ) 16:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I feel obligated to elaborate and reaffirm my support here given the hullabaloo below in the Oppose and comments sections. As I said there, today Vami_IV is no more a fascist than any of us - his answer to Q4, his content work, the support of various contributors from WP Germany, and his repeated, sincere disavowal of his prior beliefs shows this clearly. This is getting somewhat away from the point of RfA, but we must allow for, and celebrate, people casting off problematic views and moving forward, and not hold them eternally accountable for things they believed as teenagers. Who among us didn't have beliefs as a teenager that make our grown selves shudder? Sure, Vami's happened to be more extreme than some, but the important point is that he is no longer that person. He is a tireless writer of quality content, a kind and respectful Wikipedian with the mirror opposite philosophical values to those he previously held, and a sterling candidate for the mop. Judge Vami on who he is today, not who he was. firefly ( t · c ) 10:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Strong support I am passionately enthusiastic about this RfA. Vami is a fantastic editor and person. He's unyieldingly dedicated to his goals; he writes with fluency and sophistication; he understands what the project wants and needs, and serves it best he can. He won't just be a good admin, he'll be a fantastic, Hall of Fame admin. Vaticidalprophet 16:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Reaffirming support. "Someone was bad once, they must be bad forever" is grotesquely inappropriate, whether or not paired with vague waves at "people I know think Wikipedia is bad". I would also rather like people to consider how likely "run again in six months" opposers are to be fulfilled for someone whose RfA was...on the much worse end of the scale, let's say. Vaticidalprophet 18:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. support Net positive, seems to be a good editor for adminship! 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Proficient, hard working, good history of content creation. I have a lot of respect for Vami and the work he does around here, and I'm certain he'll be a great admin, peko.  Ganbaruby! (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support I, like many others, have been watching Vami for some considerable time to push them towards running. I would have supported off their work a year ago. However, since that point I've also got to know them personally in more depth, and have been able to experience their good judgement and interaction with other users. All of these nicely combine in someone who would be a good mop, especially in the perenially understaffed copyright field. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Not a jerk; has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support, trusted contributor and shows a need for the tools. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 16:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support. I have interacted with Vami quite often over the last few years, at first because he reviewed some of my good articles, then actually to collaborate with a good article with him. From these interactions, I have found him to be trustworthy. I have also seen him conduct a lot of cleanup at CCI, which sadly is a little understaffed. I think, based on his activity at CCI, he has a pretty good need for the tools there. Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support. Trusted editor with a need for the coveted mop. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support. MER-C 17:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support. I have come across Vami IV a few times in the past and they have been amiable without appearing to be a pushover. They are a fine content creator, with a couple of successful FA nominations to their name, the most recent being promoted just three weeks ago. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support. Looks like a great candidate. Best of luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support I have full confidence in Vami. Their GAN work is particularly praiseworthy. (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support Trusted user, genuinely dedicated to improving Wikipedia in all facets, took serious thought into running for admin. Most importantly, does a good deal of work at CCI, which always needs more mops. Kncny11 (shoot) 17:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support Net positive. Has a clue, not a jerk. Best, —Nnadigoodluck 17:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm surprised I haven't encountered him in my content work and FACs, but seems good to me with the appropriate answer to Q5.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC) I am so sorry, but at this point the maturity issues raised by Joe Roe (albeit without the crime accusation) and others (even though Vami is only a few years younger than me), combined with the answer to Q19 that conflates what is optimal for content with actual policy, means that I can no longer support. Do note that I will not oppose, and that Vami's previous politics have rather little to do with my decision.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support Net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support. Clear need for the tools, and has the skills to use them in an area that I’ve heard needs more admins. Honest and satisfactory answer to Cryptic’s question makes me feel even better about supporting. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Strong support: brilliant content work and I gave them an award for it recently. We need more people in CCI who have the mop, enough reason for a strong support by itself. #4 doesn't concern me—people can change and any current fascist will give off a spectrum of warning signs that are not present here. Some random checks convince me that Vami IV has a temperament plenty good enough. — Bilorv (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Three days later, I'm still in support, as I'm seeing a lot of drama (including some unbecoming conduct by others), but no evidence of anything that suggests Vami IV will misuse the tools or behave inappropriately onwiki. — Bilorv (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Looks good to me. – SD0001 (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC) (moved to neutral)Reply[reply]
  20. Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support as nom, obviously. ♠PMC(talk) 18:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support Had good experiences with him since our first interaction. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Passes my RFA criteria. Clovermoss (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support Have only seen good things from them. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support On balance, I am satisfied with what I see in terms of reflectiveness, willingness to change course when necessary, and instincts on conflicts with other editors. And any help in the copyright area is, of course, welcome. Go Phightins! 18:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm afraid I am no longer quite so confident about the candidate's instincts in interactions with others and judgment as reflected in some of the rather slapdash answers to reasonable questions (though cognizant that some of the questions are not particularly reasonable, I find the answer to Q14 not particularly clear in terms of where the line is, which makes me question a bit more the answer to Q6 and Q15) and something of a trail of questionable judgment (including the reference to India in the userpage Bingo card and some rather brusque comments about fellow editors discussed in some of the oppose section) and/or over-eagerness in some areas. To put a finer point on it, where my initial review gave me confidence, I now have a bit of uneasiness, but since I can't quite quantify it, I don't intend to move to oppose at this time. Go Phightins! 18:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support: Looks fine; answer to Q4 especially shows that he can reflect and accept mistakes. Another copyright admin is great. Tol | talk | contribs 19:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support. Is competent, has a need for the tools. Good luck! ~ANM🐁 T·C 19:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support. I doubt they'll misuse the tools and they clearly could use them, so why not? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Reaffirm - people claiming that someone's past identification as a "fascist" should preclude them from working on an encyclopedia are... to put it in the most AGF way possible... not attempting to build an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is built best when people from all viewpoints can collaborate together to form the most neutral, and verifiable set of facts that we can. Attempting to "cancel" someone simply because of a past identification, or really even a current identification with an ideology that one disagrees with is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Unless the individual is involved in a group whose purpose is to disrupt Wikipedia, it does not matter one bit what their current or past political/historical views are. There are, in fact, many editors who openly aspouse beliefs in viewpoints that some disagree with on Wikipedia, but they still edit appropriately even in topic areas connected to their strong beliefs. We must remember that all editors are entitled to their personal beliefs, both past and present, and while it's never bad to see someone changing their mind to agree with us, they should not be obligated to do so as long as they are helping the encyclopedia. Society, and in fact Wikipedia, is not based on everyone having an agreement on viewpoints - and we must contend with those that view things differently than we do. Attempts to "silence" or "cancel" someone who is an otherwise productive member of society (or here, Wikipedia) because you disagree with their past/present viewpoints is not beneficial at all, and I trust that the bureaucrats will give opposes based on such views the weight they truly deserve (i.e. none). Vami still has my full support, and I feel confident that Vami is unlikely to use administrative tools greatly in the area of fascism without asking for a second opinion, at least at the start - as it's clear that some may feel they would be too involved. That does not, however, mean that they should not be given access to the tools which they would use much more frequently in completely unrelated areas of the encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Strong Support. I have had many conversations with this user in WP:DISCORD and feel they can be trusted with the tools. Link20XX (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Reaffirming my Support. I am aware the candidate has made mistakes in the past and has said some things in discord, but I really don't believe either of those are big enough deals to block adminship. Link20XX (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support with enthusiasm. The candidate is clearly dedicated to the project and has been an asset to the community, and will make good use of the tools. DanCherek (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Vami IV is willing and able to accept criticism and learn, and he is an enthusiastic Wikipedian. Let's give him more types of work to do! —Kusma (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support A demonstrated need for the tools and a clue as to go about it, both of which are my criteria for supporting any candidate. Furthermore if MER-C & Premeditated Chaos trust someone I trust them too. Celestina007 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support Very familiar with Vami from GAN, definitely has the head to be an admin. Kingsif (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Per the excellent response to my question. There was a situation a few months ago when Vami IV did in fact nominate a Billy Hathorn article for deletion via AFD. He did also have notability concerns. His answer tells me that he has learned and is ready for the mop. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC) I would like to thank Vami for running, but I feel that there are far too many anomalies for me to support. The opposers bring up too many good points. However, I am not moving into the oppose camp just yet. Scorpions13256 (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support - has the right attributes. Cabayi (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support - an ability to introspect and change questionable beliefs is to the candidate's credit, even if the views are not. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support. An archetypal admin candidate here. Fills in all the checkmarks in relevant experience and clearly has both extraordinary passion and dedication, which more than qualify him for the role. Aza24 (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support, user can be trusted with the admin mop. NASCARfan0548  21:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support I have had a decent amount of interactions with Vami in the past month and they have always been pleasant. Combine that with solid copyright knowledge and great content creation and you have an absolutely fantastic candidate. --Trialpears (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support Not a big deal, one asks why not? - TNT 💞 21:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support. Good answers, good overall opinion of them. Guettarda (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support Have had several interactions with them through participation in the MILHIST project, and I've seen no red flags. I personally think the use of overlong attributed quotes is more of a WP:NFCC violation in most cases than a copyright one, but that's nothing to hold against them. Hog Farm Talk 22:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Reaffirm support. In my interactions with them, I've seen no indications of politics spilling over and tainting editing. Some of their interpretations of copyright violations differ from current consensus, but I've seen no indication they'd abuse the tools to override consensus. They seem to have learned from the Seamus Heaney incident. I would caution them to act slowly in copyright areas where they disagree with consensus, which I don't think will be an issue. Hog Farm Talk 13:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support Although some points have been raised here that might in other circumstances be concerning, I believe that Vami has been and will continue to be in earnest when they express a desire to address and such points. Their genuine humility and willingness to take ownership for previous errors and not repeat them is exactly the type of attitude that admins should display. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support, demonstrated need for the tools, history of content creation and interacting well with other editors, clearly would make a good admin. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support Vami has enough knowledge and I know that they'll do a good job as an admin, good luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Moved to oppose -FASTILY 05:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support. Vami has earned my trust on matters of temperament and disposition, and has served the encyclopedia with honors as a content creator and as a CCI cop. He is diligent and dedicated, and will make a wonderful admin. — Goszei (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support - Vami has been a tremendous help at CCI, and has unrelenting dedication to that sphere. Also a friendly editor overall and in our interactions with one another (mostly off-wiki). I'm interested to see their future endeavors as an administrator. --Chlod (say hi!) 22:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support of course. Have seen Vami IV around, and have been quite impressed. Answers above indicate an ability to engage in self-criticism and self-reflection, very useful attributes in an admin. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support no brainer considering adminship is no big deal at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support - As a great editor and decent trustworthy fellow, Vami would no doubt be an asset. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 23:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support - Good contributor, and no reason to think he'd abuse the tools. The userbox might've been a red flag some time ago, but he removed it years ago, asked for it to be deleted, more or less disavowed it, and thus far nobody has identified where those beliefs actually caused problems while editing. What else could we want? For what it's worth I don't know anyone my age (or really anyone over 30) who isn't embarrassed about some belief they held when they were younger. I'm ever thankful that social media wasn't really a thing when I was in high school/college. No reservations about supporting. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support as a net positive. Miniapolis 00:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support - encountered him as an active user on Discord; always helpful and without a doubt knowledgeable on copyright matters. His response to the userbox shows openness to growth and change; we can't expect anyone to have always held perfect beliefs. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support I do believe that this user can be trustworthy with use of any of the tools listed at WP:MOPRIGHTS.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support: a trusted contributor with good judgement; thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. It is indeed hard to forgive the candidate's sins... namely the one time he called me "Tammy". But I think I can bring myself to look past that in recognition of his long history of positive contributions to the project. (In seriousness, I've known Vami to be a conscientious person capable of great introspection and self-critique. There's a number of ways that I wish more Wikipedians could be as self-aware and open as he is.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I feel obliged to elaborate here, as I think the discussion below is utterly unfair to Vami. Joe Roe and others have spun a narrative based on a hypothetical version of Vami that simply doesn't exist. I'm a disabled queer trans leftist Jewish woman. The Nazis would have killed me five times over. And I am an ardent anti-fascist. I have spoken to Vami at length about social justice issues on Discord. He has readily acknowledged and apologized for his past beliefs, never trying to hide them, always unequivocally acknowledging that he was wrong. In fact, I've had to dissuade him from being too hard on himself about them. He's someone who's passionate about social justice and about opposing fascism in all forms. I would not vote for him otherwise.
    I imagine my views on the intersection of far-right politics and adminship are more extreme than Joe's: 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 (although I wouldn't vote against someone solely on that basis). I'm sure that'll piss some people off, but, like I said, I'm a disabled queer trans leftist Jewish woman. I have very low tolerance for those I associate with my oppression. Vami asked me (unprompted) a while ago, did I think he should have been blocked for the fascist userbox? I gave him my honest answer: Yes. And, I told him, I would have supported an unblock once he wised up and apologized. Wikipedia is no place for fascists. But it's a perfectly fine place for people who believed dumb things as teenagers and later apologized.
    All of this criticism is of a caricature, painting a conscientious supporter of social justice and anti-fascism as some wolf in sheep's clothing based on unsubstantiated fearmongering. I think several commenters here should be ashamed of the conclusions they've leapt to. We don't check WP:AGF at the door when we come to vote at RFA. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support: I have been waiting for this for a majority of my (really short) tenure on Wikipedia. We need more willing admins at copyright, and he fits it well. The tools will be put to good use. I think that every mistake made there may look bad, but CCI in general lacks a general collective knowledgebase to ask for tough cases, so mistakes arise out of WP:BOLD and are hopefully never made again after they are criticized. His encouragement for me (and others) entering copyright work and to continue said work is not exactly related to his sysop candidacy, but shows that he is an editor willing to collaborate and make people feel valued around the project. Sennecaster (What now?) 01:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support based on my interactions with the candidate, good Eddie891 Talk Work 01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support Vami has helped me on several occasions via the unofficial Discord server. They have always been polite, patient, and helpful. They seem quite qualified.DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support, I have seen Vami around and witnessed the valuable contributions they make, will be an asset. Cavalryman (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  59. Support Looks good to me, definitely seen Vami around once of twice before. Justiyaya (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support as a wikifriend. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On reflection, I feel that, as someone who has interacted with Vami primarily on Discord, it would be inappropriate for me to !vote one way or the other in this RfA. To be clear, I have not seen Vami make any comments that violate WP:CANVASS, but their preparation for this RfA was extremely noticeable, and I do not want the outcome of this RfA to be called into question because of concerns about a group of Discord editors supporting due to groupthink. I wish Vami the best. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support Net positive. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support I met Vami in the Discord server and he's always been kind in my interactions with him. Additionally, I appreciate the work he's done at CCI. Regarding the questions I asked - I think the first one ended up being phrased quite poorly, as everyone I talked to didn't seem to understand what exactly I was asking about, so I appreciate his response to it anyway. As for the second, I'm glad Vami answered honestly - nothing wrong with admitting there's a task you're not interested in / won't enjoy doing. I'm sure Vami will be a great sysop around here. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support. Pamzeis (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support, no problems here. Graham87 05:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC) No longer true; I don't feel comfortable supporting now. Graham87 05:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support net positive. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support. CCI work is thankless and absolutely necessary. Just like mopping. Vami seems like an editor who demonstrates dedication, competence and a positive attitude. BusterD (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support. The user shows a clear need for admin privileges. Despite some of the issues raised, some of which are notable, I think that this user will be a net benefit to the admin team, and shows a strong editing history. Bibeyjj (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support. Yes! Leijurv (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Belated support as Co-nom. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support - great content creator who is also dedicated to CCI, an area where we badly need admins. Exactly what we need. As someone who is very much not a fan of Trump (and that's putting it politely), to the extent I generally stay well away from writing his articles. I want to say a few things. Firstly, there is a massive difference between Conservatism and Fascism - indeed, I think compared to some countries such as Sweden, Joe Biden could be called a Conservative - and mixing up the two terms is dangerous and wrong. Secondly, it is not a problem to have believed right-wing politics (or, as I prefer to call them, lies) in your youth, and then distance yourself from them with remorse as you mature. So I trust VamiIV will be able to use the admin toolset responsibly in a neutral manner. The blockquote issue is something I have come across. Calling it a copyvio is a legitimate view, but more often the problem is that articles with excessive quotations tend to not be written too well, and trimming the quotations down so they are paraphrased can improve the article. In any case, nobody has given any evidence that VamiIV would abuse administrator tools in this area - he seems to be just stating his view in discussion, with people disagreeing politely. So I think that point is moot. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Much of this is strawman, Ritchie333: something's either a copyright violation or it is not (in this case a fully sourced quote is not), and whether they are a sign of a well-written article or not is cobblers (nothing to do with with either admin toolkit or copyright generally). so, to clarify, you've addressed 50% of the opposes. ——Serial 10:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Pretty sure stating a living person is a criminal (when they haven't been convicted) goes against BLP. Specifically stating that one would jump for joy when a living person "gets done over for tax fraud". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 10:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ritchie said that they will be pleased if he gets done over for tax fraud. "Done over" here is a British idiom meaning 'defeated' or in this context 'convicted'. Nowhere in his !vote did he state that anybody was, at present, a criminal. firefly ( t · c ) 10:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hoping that someone will be convicted of a crime presupposes that they are, in fact, guilty of the crime. I don't see why attacking an living person and saying they committed tax fraud is OK here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 10:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ritchie could just as well have meant that he hopes it turns out that Trump has committed tax fraud. Personally, when I say "I hope Donald Trump spends the rest of his life in prison", I'm expressing no opinion on whether he's actually committed any crime. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 11:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Tamzin Exactly that. I copyedited the above sentence that some editors took offence to, as it was not the main thrust of my argument. You can judge my opinion of Trump from reading some of our articles like Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and 2021 United States Capitol attack, so in my opinion BLP does not apply (otherwise at least the first two articles could be deleted per WP:BLPDELETE). Furthermore, in my opinion anyone causing all of the issues expressed in those articles should end up in prison as basic justice - but if he can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have committed those crimes, prison for tax fraud will suffice. I think the phrase is "Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb". Anyway, this is going off-topic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If I gently suggest that the phrase should be "might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb", would that make me a "grammar pendant"...? firefly ( t · c ) 10:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support—Anyone with the capacity for the kind of introspection that led Vami IV to disavow his past political leanings, not to mention the honesty and courage it takes to admit it openly in their RfA, is somebody we should want to have as an administrator. @Vami IV: Don't be ashamed! You were inundated with extreme right-wing demagoguery, and your old beliefs are a reflection of this—but you outgrew it! That's more than can be said for many other people who adopted those sorts of reactionary views. You have matured into a genuinely decent, compassionate person. And look at how far you've come: literally hundreds of new articles under your belt, stellar work in some of the more contentious of the site's subject areas, and now you're at the precipice of being granted a set of tools that are given only to the most highly trusted of volunteers. We're proud of you! Kurtis (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Very strong support They are a very trusted editor here, leading me to believe they would be an outstanding member of our cadre of sysops here because they have the proficiency and competence of one. They’ll be a helpful addition to the members who use the tools due to the fact that they are sufficient and pre-eminent. ScrapheapNinjaShuriken77 10:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. I see nothing to make me belive that the editor in question would abuse the tools. Additionally, I strongly trust the nominators here. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 10:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support precious, lasting good relations --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Less sure per some recent opposers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support Grimes2 (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support Fine for me. --Minorax (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support No issues, good luck. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support with thorough disgust at what's taking place in the comments section at this RFA.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support: trusted, has a demonstrated need for the mop. JavaHurricane 16:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support Vami is a superb contributor, and we have worked together before (see Vami's very voluminous list of birds). Vami is very kind and helpful, and have no doubt they will take the feedback received here on board. The copyright quote matter is a result of the lack of proper guidance, and I think we as a community should lay better ground rules around what quotes do and do not count as copyvios. In several places, all our guidance says is "brief" quotes are allowed. In practice we have allowed up to paragraph length quotes, somewhat contrary to a textualist reading of "brief". Something ripe for an RfC it appears... With regards to the political angle, this is the first time I've ever heard of it, and I have interacted with Vami significantly on and off-wiki over the years. Never once have I thought that Vami was bringing POV or disruption, and they have always been beyond courteous. Political indoctrination is a spooky thing that happens to many young folks, and we should be glad that folks can escape such things. Vami seems to have done much soul searching on the matter. So all in all: Vami's political issues lie behind him, the copyright issue is a matter of community disagreement, not inherent fault on Vami's part, and Vami is an excellent contributor. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 16:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support Can be trusted with the toolset. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support. A good editor, who is responsible and motivated. Aside from minor peccadilloes and dirty laundry (of which most people, including adminstrators, are guilty), there is nothing to suggest that Vami would be anything less than an excellent admin. They have a great deal of experience with creating, reviewing and editing content. Things like AfD participation do not really matter if they're not going to work in AfD. They've been making the place better for a whole, which I expect this to continue after enmopment. jp×g 19:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support - I believe this user can be trusted with the mop. While I was concerned that Vami once professed to being fascist, I believe that it was merely a case of not understanding the true meaning of the word. - ZLEA T\C 19:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support meets most decent criteria. Vermont (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talkcontribs) 23:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support It's not a slam dunk for me; the fascism thing does bother me even after professing a hard turn, and I disagree on the copyvio stance (as expressed in Q7). But I like most of the answers and I definitely like the straightforward style shown there. The content work is, of course, great. I guess the WP admin works will be able to buffer a candidate with some less middle-of-the-road views, in exchange for the likely benefits of having them on team. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support. I also disagree on the copyvio stance, but (as a longtime intellectual property attorney) I agree with the applicant and |CaptainEek that the project as a whole needs to be clearer in this area. The political issue is potentially a firecracker, but I would just advise the applicant to steer clear of the use of administrative powers with respect to disputes in that area unless obvious vandalism or the like is involved. Other than that, I see no problems here. BD2412 T 03:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support - Clear net positive planning on doing important work in an understaffed area. The discussion around the copyright specifics has been interesting, I think I'm in the camp of people who don't entirely agree with Vami IV's stance on quotes - but it's become clear that this is a fairly broad disagreement that probably does need some RfC work, so I'm happy that any disagreements seem to be solvable in the future. Any other direct behavioural issues seem to go back into the relatively distant past, and as long as Vami IV isn't planning on swinging into serious American politics admin work I do not see it as an issue today. ~ mazca talk 09:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support Vami's helped me a lot in my editing and has always been there for me on Wikipedia. Vami has done diligent work in the field of copyvio investigations, and I think admin powers would provide a boon in this regard. Roniiustalk to me 10:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support - no concerns, even about the 'fascism' thing. Editor has expressed regret and it was a number of years ago. Regards, your friendly neighbourhood socialist ;) GiantSnowman 11:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support - provided the candidate keeps to the five pillars...what's the problem? SethWhales talk 14:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Weak support I am unconvinced by the opposers' arguments about being a fascist 4 years ago being disqualifying, as people can change in 4 years. However, the answer to Q7 does give me pause, because I do not think that an attributed quote of less than 100 words is a copyvio, as long it is not almost the entire work.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support - Bluntly the admin bit is over-hyped even by people who should know better. On of all the advanced permissions requiring some sort of community approval, the admin bit affords you tools of little real concern. No one can do any real damage without being noticed. The worst it can ever really approach is mild inconvenience. I don't believe we should be rejecting candidates who are clearly well-qualified. Give him the mop and see what he does with it. A few months of waiting isn't going to teach much new but I am sure it'll give people more time to find arbitrary issues to be at fault with, including I'm sure the inevitable accusation that he "rushed back to RfA". He has written more articles than most. He has reviewed more quality content than most. He is capable of changing his mind on something and proactively do something to correct a previous wrong. That is more than what most of the current admin cadre is capable of combined and I include myself in that. A user capable of change, course correcting persistently for a period of years. Does the facist stuff leave me uneasy? Sure, but the folly of youth affects us all and Wikipedia is proven to be a truly formative place and he has proven that. If anything, a cock up from Vami IV seems likely to result in a lesson learned and that is a trait needed to be an admin. Multiple admins (I include myself in that) have reviewed his userpage history and found nothing of concern not now addressed here in this RfA. At least one unsourced aspersion seems to be based on one individuals grievances with a Wikiproject rather than Vami himself. Multiple users who have interacted with him have shown support for his character. I see nothing to prevent affording him the bit now. Floquenbeam is right. RfA doesn't reward bravery but thankfully the broader project is more tolerant of mistakes when in post and affords more chances to learn. To @Vami IV: if you lear one thing from this in terms of both on Wiki and in life - Own your mistakes. And keeping willing to change when wrong. To everyone else I quote Floquenbeam - "I suspect they'll still be a net positive" - for the admin tools; that should be more than good enough. Seddon talk 18:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support. A well-qualified candidate who has helped me on several occasions. Regarding the fascism concerns, is it uncomfortable? Yes. Vami absolutely has a past that he has to, and will continue to, contend with. That said, the concern is being overblown by a few contributors. The inability to understand that people, and their beliefs, can change is a kind of purity testing that keeps people in fascist pipelines. Kudos for growing, Vami. I hope you continue to make right. You'll be a great admin, can use the tools, and have been a pleasure to edit alongside. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. I don't see the need to castigate candidates for their political persuasions when it's not been well-argued they are an actual issue in on-wiki conduct and they have disavowed them regardless. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Per David directly above. Daniel (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support Content creator and a clear need for tools. Roller26 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support Content creator is a ++, 229 GA reviews another ++, Triple Crown and Editor of the Week ++++...and he's a birder ++ = ++++++++++ and we're worried about what?? Atsme 💬 📧 23:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support Good guy, can't wait to have you! Contribs looks good and you are very helpful! Good luck! Heart (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support Poked around and discussed. Looks as good as any new admin. StaniStani 01:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support Responses so far seem to indicate the user has a clue, they've demonstrated a need for tools in at least one area, and the opposes are not convincing, especially in light of WP:NOBIGDEAL. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support. As someone who has watched an entire generation of editors grow up on this project, Vami is a great example of someone who has learned a great deal about the world both inside and outside Wikipedia, and has had the strength to change their views as a result. I think Vami will be one of those admins that just quietly gets things done and uses the tools to support the project. Risker (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support Vami is a great person and will prove a valuable admin. Dracophyllum 05:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. SupportAhmetlii (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support on balance. I give a lot of weight to concerns raised by some of the opposers, but nobody's perfect. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support I feel the candidate would be an asset to the project, and feel that the single real reasonable oppose rationale (the copyright issue) isn't disqualifying. Happy to support. Parabolist (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support While I understand where some of the reservations are coming from the opposing camp, I feel confident that enough time has passed and enough trust developed to believe Vami would be productive and upstanding in their new role. To add, I'd be very careful about assuming malice and labelling people for their past misguided beliefs, especially when all evidence points to them being reformed. nearlyevil665 11:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support: I can't understand some of these opposes, I've personally had a great experience with Vami. — Berrely • TalkContribs 12:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support Level-headed, bold editor. Would make a great admin. Wkikpedia needs more admins, and this candidate is a good choice. Johnnie Bob (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support I believe they have done amazing work on the project and should be trusted. Keeping some issues aside may be we can give him a chance. I believe his positive contributions overweight issues that has been highlighted. signed, Iflaq (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. I'm not going to not get my say in. I would not have encouraged Vami to run if I did not think he was ready. He got Fort Concho from a poorly sourced mess written by a long banned user to a FA. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Night w, an awful long term one with hundreds of edits, would not have been completed without Vami's help. Neither would have Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Feryeah13, which consisted of translation violations that he helped clean out. The endless quality content work is something to be help high as well. I do not agree with the interpretation of overquotes, and the CP blanking of that one article was maybe something I wouldn't have done, but these are also areas where no admin agrees 100% and there aren't many clear rules. I do not think there is serious fault there. I lost a great friend here to fascism, I would not be on such good terms with Vami if I thought he still believed in those evil ideas. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 16:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support Money's and Seddon's arguments combined give me confidence. Vami is an important contributor at CCI, a severely backlogged place where he demonstrably has a need for the tools. He knows (and ultimately follows) our rules and customs, and (afaict) is civil and can introspect. Some advice: Vami, you need to be surer where you stands on copyvio and need to show more restraint/forethought in doing large-scale edits. I see admins as needing to be sure, steady and kind; while Vami scores well enough on the latter point, I'd like to see more in the former two.
    The politics-related concerns raised can be valid concerns, yes (well, maybe not the ridiculous rationales of "not leftist enough" and "not rightist enough"), but there is no need to wantonly cause grief, anger and mental overtaxation, and (specific to the Discord messages) conjure up bigger meanings and malicious intent from a few broken messages that may have been said in the heat of the conversation with loosened tongues. I am very unimpressed by suggestions that Vami isn't un-fascist enough because he dared edit WP:Germany after "only" half a year of renouncing fascism. I wouldn't care even if it was half a week. Also disturbing is the amount of reading between the lines happening about the CCI Bingo game card, and how I supposedly should see it as racism, racial profiling or stereotyping of myself... The #offtopic comments about the IRA are not what I would make, but (especially after reading the clarification) they are opinions which are reasonably held by many about the Troubles, and as a frequent commenter about political issues on the same channel, I'm inclined to let it pass. The Israel/Disneyland comment lacks sufficient context, and the intent and language can be interpreted in a thousand different ways, with all interpreters utterly convinced they are right, and any attempt by Vami to explain himself or apologise will be branded - yes, branded, because the discourse here is at that level - an attempt at trying to safely weasel out of the situation, so I will ignore it entirely as it has not, seemingly, affected his editing. So yeah, Vami is not the Devil incarnate, as much of the heat generated here seems to indicate.
    As a general statement, I'd like to remind everyone here, especially those with the matches, to drop behaviour that shows they are of the opinion that generating light requires heat; I'd rather we all be LEDs. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 10:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Updated Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps mention WP:BLUDGEON for some of your more... emotional oppose-opposing colleagues also. ——Serial 12:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please do so directly, to those who think are bludgeoning. Oblique references do not help. I have directly addressed all those who I disagree with; you should too. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since I have to spell it out: that company includes your good self. ——Serial 16:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Another general disclaimer: This discussion has tired me thoroughly; I am off for a week. Unless something egregious is proven about Vami, my support stands; if he socks or yells or something, consider my vote struck. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support with no reservations! Politics, perhaps not the most volatile of the four taboo subjects, can still be way too explosive in any context, and it has no place at RfA. If this admin candidacy goes into a "questionable" state because of the numbers, we sincerely hope that those who decide the fate of this fine editor keep this in mind when they contemplate most of the content below these many supporters. We can attest that such things can easily get out of control. Often wonder how WP:AGF so often goes out the winder here at RfA! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I am not satisfied with the response to Cryptic's question, in which the candidate feels guilty about being conservative and/or right-wing. Wikipedia already has enough of the opposite bias. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 18:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The owner of all: He was fascist, not conservative. He never once implied that voting Trump was something to be ashamed of. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That may be true but I have experience in real life of conservatives being labeled fascist. That's about as much as I'm willing to discuss that on Wikipedia. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 18:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand, but I'd like to let you know that I am conservative too. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anecdotes from offwiki life don't really matter in RfAs, you know. It was Vami himself who called himself fascist, and Vami himself who regrets it, as is his right. This is not a discussion of conservatism in particular or political beliefs in general. This is a request for adminship, where the Wikipedia editing community collectively decides whether (or not) a user has need for the tools, and is fit for the tools, per the established guidelines, traditions and precedent that govern the project. So please, oppose him all you want for valid reasons you might have to believe Vami will not be a good admin per our rules, but if the only reason you can think of is political, know that it is not relevant. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 19:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding to what Scorpion has said, what the candidate wishes to feel about being right-wing/conservative is, to put it very bluntly, none of your business, nor is it relevant to this RfA. Outside of extremes such as racism/fascism/transphobia/homophobia, we do not police editors' opinions; even if, as you charge, Vami is "leftist", that is simply irrelevant. Your vote, being based on the private, non-harmful, personal identity of the editor not being the kind you like, is a bad-faith vote. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 18:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. Wikipedia is extremely influential in real life and there is politically-motivated things that happen in real life that affect people. I believe it is not bad faith to use someone's stated political opinion as a factor in determining things. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 19:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also disagree with your assertion that my !vote is based on disliking his political views. There are other issues raised. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 19:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then mention those in the vote, rather than politics. I hope you understand this is not a political election. If you do not, it is very unfortunate. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 19:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no idea how a candidate's guilt towards a previous personal political opinion is enough to single handedly disavow every single other aspect in support of their nomination. Unless you can provide some actual evidence for why this has been a bad thing (e.g. difs) then there is quite literally no validity to the argument. Aza24 (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we move this to the talk page? This has to be one of the most ridiculous opposes I've seen. The nominator has changed how they describe their political views, so it's believed that they can't manage the admin toolset on Wikipedia? If there is additional reasonings, then this is the place to share them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my opposition to this candidate, without replacing it with a "neutral" or "support". ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 19:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Oppose I too oppose using long quotes, and in fact unnecessary quotes in general, as a matter of style. . But an attributed quote of 75 words is not in my opinion a copyright violation when discussing ordinary prose, and I specifically disagree with the example in Q6 above . I don't think we can draw an absolute line, and we've never defined "brief", but I think it depends on the nature of both the cited work and the article, with an upper limit of perhaps 300 words or so (which is about the normal academic limit) Complete quotes of a work however short are copyvio. 25 words from a 50 word newspaper notice are probably copyvio; 100 words from a printed nonfiction book probably are not. I'm much more worried about using snippets, which easily can be quoting out of context and distorting NPOV. There's enough disagreement here that we may need a more general discussion. But I think the views of the candidate are at one extreme end, and I therefore would not give admin powers to enforce them. (and though I may stand at the other end, I don't take admin actions to enforce my view) DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I notice the candidate is in the process of changing his opinion. I'm glad he's learning about copyvio, but I am not comfortable with an admin who has to be taught the basics of their role at the RfA---especially when they've proposed it as their principal role. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I think it's sufficiently clear (based on answers to my question) that the Vami IV wouldn't let their political biases affect their editing and I appreciate how they've managed to distinguish between off and onwiki conduct. That being said, I had some concerns about the nominee's userpage (I elaborated below in the discussion section) and on further review I've come across something far more troubling.

    Apparently two weeks ago Moneytrees deleted the page with a G7 rationale and restored it 30 seconds later "per request" as seen at Special:Log/User:Vami IV. The page history from before that moment has disappeared into thin air. I don't like to cast aspersions on other editors but it looks like Moneytrees deleted and then partially undeleted the nominee's userpage. If this occurred, it is in my opinion WP:ADMINABUSE and a misuse of the WP:Selective deletion process which is not to be used for covering up bad stuff before an RfA; only complex history merges. Given that I am not an admin I cannot see exactly what happened here but judging by circumstantial evidence it looks like that is what happened, given that Joe Roe has informed us that deleted revisions on the nominee's user page exist and I cannot see them. While I can forgive someone being an open fascist in the past and the minor userpage issues I see right now the fact that there's some kind of cover-up going on here w/r/t the nominees userpage history makes it impossible for me to support them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I'd like to add on that now another key reason why I can't support this candidate is due to messages on Discord I've elaborated below in general comments.Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moved to talk.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose I can't feel comfortable with what I regard as the candidate's tendency to occupy fairly emphatic or extreme positions; in my view it is desirable for an administrator to be comfortable with the middle ground, where subtlety, nuance, moderation and compromise can be found, and I'm seeing too much of the opposite in the candidate. The fascism thing is one example, another - seemingly coming from the opposite political pole - is on (Redacted). I also don't like that the candidate requested that a question be removed from this RfA - it seemed a pretty inocuous question to me, and not exactly difficult to answer in a casual manner, even if the candidate found it objectionable. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose I probably won't win any friends with this oppose, but I don't think this user is suitable for adminship. Looking into their contributions, I saw several incorrect uses of English. Those struck me as odd at first, but then I saw the statement "As this the first of the reviewee's articles that I have reviewed, they should note that I am a grammar pendant and will nitpick in the interest of prose quality" attached to around twenty GA reviews, over the course of a year and ending only recently. This might have been a simple typographic error (with a lot of irony), but it strikes me as too much. I don't think our admins have to have a perfect command of English, but I do think they should be alert to such glaring errors. Vami IV, sorry I can't support, but thank you for running. --- Possibly (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Amusing case of Muphry's law, but is this really an oppose matter? Vaticidalprophet 05:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you serious? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 05:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (small note: it seems that usage of “grammar pendant” started and ended in April 2020 but some of the talk pages have been edited by others since: see e.g. this GAR from that month with "grammar pedant" in its place) eviolite (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you suggesting that a user who writes FA quality articles is somehow not suited to adminship because they do not have good enough grammar? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I wouldn't want to speak for Possibly, but none of these comments seem to be interpreting the !vote correctly; i read it as saying that the oppose is because of the (admittedly ironic) carelessness in the candidate's statement of how careful he is ~ in other words, the lack of care is the rationale for the oppose, not the error itself. Thus, it is irrelevant how many FAs have been written, pace Lee Vilenski, but what is relevant is care in communication; happy days, LindsayHello 08:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose I came to this RFA expecting to support the candidate. I was aware of their excellent work in content creation, which I admire. I'd also like to say how much I value their contributions to the GA process and CCI. Having read this RFA and looked through the candidates userpage, I must echo PaleCloudedWhite's rationale for opposing. While choosing a userbox in support of a form of fascism shows an egregious lack of judgement, it's also been at least a few years in the past (I've seen 2017 suggested below). It seems the candidate has moved on and disavowed these beliefs but I'm not sure their judgement has improved much. The CCI Bingo on their userpage is an example of this. Why would one name "Indian subcontinent" in the same breath as "sockpuppet party in the edit history" and "awful attempt at paraphrasing to get around Earwig's"? Regardless of the statistics being discussed in the comments section, this box is plain bad taste and inconsiderate to a large share of our contributors. (It is also WP:BITEy.) I wonder why this box wasn't taken down before running to be an admin since it was bound to raise questions. It's this tendency towards the unnecessarily emphatic and the lack of judgement associated with it that make me uncomfortable. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose. I haven't encountered Vami before, but after some research I don't think he is mature enough to use the tools responsibly, especially when it comes to communicating about them to other editors. The fact that until late 2017 his user page stated This User Identifies as a Fascist. Plz no discriminate, as I have discussed below, is obviously a huge red flag, but it's not the only thing. I don't doubt that Vami has changed his mind about this and of course he's far from the only person to have said embarrassingly extreme things as a teenager. With that said, he uses the same trivialising internet-speak to denounce fascism above ("cringe beliefs") as he did to deflect criticism for it then ("Plz no discriminate"), which strongly suggests to me that he still does not understand the seriousness of it. Just six months after he removed that box from his user page, he volunteered as "coordinator" for WikiProject Germany, a role he continues to perform and which is prominently referenced in this nomination. That the extreme "cringe" (to borrow his phrasing) of an American teenager who formerly espoused fascism coordinating Wikipedia's coverage of Germany has apparently never occurred to him is again a poor reflection on his maturity and ability to consider how his words and actions come across to other people. I have not included diffs here because they in the history of Vami's user page, which he (wisely) had deleted shortly before this RfA because it includes numerous personal details self-outed when he was a minor. I'm glad Vami has now realised what a bad idea that was, but the fact that he only did so a few weeks ago, similar to how he only deleted the fascist userbox he created in January, does not scream maturity to me. Nor does the racist stereotype that Indian editors do not understand copyright on his userpage or the concerns raised here about his behaviour on Discord. Vami does seem a capable Wikipedian but with his young age, apparent lack of maturity, and, as PaleCloudedWhite puts it well, a tendency to rush to extremes, I worry he will quickly get into trouble with the admin toolset. – Joe (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Joe Roe, why is it cringe for a reformed fascist to coordinate WP Germany? Do WP Germany have any complaints? Internet-speak is not trivialising - like it or not, much of it has diffused into the English of Gen Z irl and can be used in deadly earnest just as often as in meme-speak, and so, just like with any other kind of English in which jokes are cracked, you need nuance and context to understand it now. FWIW about the CCI Bingo, I don't feel racially attacked by the "Indian subcontinent" box, because I know I'm not a copyright violator. It is indeed true that subcontinent-related topics make up a far larger share of CCI cases than they should, as the proportion of subcontinent-related articles and editors is small overall. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 11:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    why is it cringe for a reformed fascist to coordinate WP Germany – take a moment to consider what you've just written there. – Joe (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I know what I wrote. I bolded and italicised reformed for a reason. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 20:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This oppose, to me, suggests that you would like our admins to be making their decisions on optics (dubious optics at that) rather than what is actually beneficial to the project. The fact that they remain the co-ordinator suggests that there haven't been any issues and any optics issues were so clearly obvious to all that it took roughly 4 years and an in-depth review by the entire community for anyone to find them. Everyone wants admins to be capable of a) admitting fault and improving b) working the tough areas c) making the controversial decisions. So the reasoning for penalising Vami for having the audacity to show good behaviour escapes me Nosebagbear (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Nosebagbear: That's a fair point. My oppose is partially motivated by 'optics', but I don't think that is mutually exclusive with what is beneficial to the project. This situation reminds me a bit of the recent scandal on Scots Wikipedia, which went largely unnoticed for 7 years, but still managed to severely damage the project's reputation in Scotland and beyond when it came out. It's easy to think that the world isn't paying attention to us, but they are. In my corner of the real world, the vast majority of the people I talk to about Wikipedia have no interest in engaging with us because they think the project is sexist, racist, and generally toxic. You can also find this view repeated again and again in academic literature and academic social media like twitter. This conclusion is usually based on recollections of media coverage of things like the Strickland incident, where the nuances of internal wikiprocesses and the fact that the AfC reviewer in question was and is extremely beneficial to the project are not mentioned, only the (essentially correct) headline that "Wikipedia excludes notable women". So yes, I worry that—"Wikipedia moderator in charge of articles on Germany is former fascist"—could turn into yet another bad headline and yet another swathe of potential editors alienated. That really sucks for Vami, I know, but the harsh truth of the world is that when you publicly espouse fascism, there are long-lasting consequences no matter what you do afterwards.
    That said, it is only part of the reason. I also think Vami is personally too immature to use the tools responsibly, as I explained above. – Joe (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose I'm not convinced of competency in the area of copyright based on their responses, which I consider to be the most important part of the project. That would only be a weak oppose from me, but I've also read Joe's oppose directly above mine and share those concerns. I wouldn't say it's a complete disqualification, but I'd like to see a few more months of maturity in both of those areas before handing over the mop. SportingFlyer T·C 11:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'd like to clarify based on the discussion below, my biggest concern is the fact their user page was revdel'd a mere two weeks before this RfA, making it impossible for non-admins to see. While I'm not necessarily dissatisfied with their response, I'm concerned about the lack of transparency there, and the fact that it seems to have been done specifically to prepare for an RfA run. SportingFlyer T·C 14:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I can of course not speak for Vami, but I find it completely natural to look through your user page before RfA. I myself checked my userpage just a few days ago to make sure everything there was relevant and up to date. If I in the process was reminded that I shared some personal information I no longer want to be readily available on wiki I would have contacted an admin and asked for it to be removed from the history just like Vami did. --Trialpears (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No-one doubts the lack of shadiness. What's called into question is a matter of trust, and that's where admins cannot pronounce. ——Serial 15:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Precisely. You could boil my response down to a simple "I don't quite trust them with the tools yet," and it's not just the revdel issue, either. SportingFlyer T·C 16:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose per their answer to Q7, which, being a mixture of "others did X" and "I like to think Y": the opportunity was there for a robust defence of their position; an opportunity not taken, unfortunately. There are also obvious questions as to maturity and general savvy. While almost nothing they have done (raised in the opposes) is absolutely egregious, all together they smack of trying to do too much, too quickly when they do not possess—at this juncture—the necessary qualities to do so. More haste, less speed, as they say!
    Oh, and Vami IV, the community's always interested in democracy; if you have any spare Discord messages on the topic available, could you post them here? Many thanks! ——Serial 12:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Serial, currently you've posted both an Oppose and a Neutral... just letting you know. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 12:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Many thanks, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI; FWIW, I thought your Twitter comment was right on point. Talk about dumbassary! ——Serial 12:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose Generally along the same lines as Joe Roe.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose - I don't care what political views people held when they were teenagers (although Joe has a good point about optics and judgment, it's less of a concern for me), but the answers to questions (eg 6, 7, 19) and recent concerns raised here lead me to believe they're not ready to use admin tools. Levivich 14:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose. In regards to Wikipedia, I do not participate in social media or other off-wiki communications. Everything I do on Wikipedia is on Wikipedia. It's transparent. I do not care about the candidate's previous or current political views but the specter has been raised regarding incivility off-wiki (in relation to users on-wiki) and has not been addressed. My bar is generally low, adminship is no big deal. But, before I jump on the, " not a jerk," bandwagon, I have to know. The candidate is welcome to either reply (I will not consider it badgering) or answer my question in that section. Ifnord (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ifnord, Do you mean this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would AGF and take a one-word answer of simply, "No," as completely appropriate and, barring anyone pointing out a specific example, would change my vote immediately. Ifnord (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose per Joe Roe. The nuking of his user page history shortly before this RFA doesn't help his case either. -- Calidum 16:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record, I also find the candidate's answer to Q20 to be problematic. Being an admin does not make an editor immune to being blocked. -- Calidum 17:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose per DGG and Serial, and answers to Q7 and Q19. Their views on sourced block quotes lead me to believe they would be over-zealous as an admin in that area. Their answers to many of the questions are disappointingly short and perfunctory (it is noteworthy that Cullen had to go to their talk page to get them to expand on their answer to his question). I am also concerned by the issues over the fascist userbox, which I don't think can just be explained away by the folly of youth. The overall impression I get is that this candidate is not yet mature enough to be ready for adminship. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Weak oppose Together with the concerns others have raised, your conduct re the permabanning of Commander Waterford indicates too much risk that you'd take a hard line against other valued contributors who make a few mistakes. To clarify, I don't mean your initial vote for the indeff which was well explained & like the other indeff votes a valid perspective. Your 2nd vote though was objectionable on a number of levels. And to top it off, you made an unnecessary edit to the commanders' talk after he'd lost TP access, which borders on grave dancing. On the other hand, the fact you have so many perceptive editors coming out to bat strongly in support suggests you are a good collaborator. Your content work is very good from a quick review, and per the admin shortage we ought to take a chance on a few possibly risky candidates. Hence only weak oppose. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Regretful oppose at this time. I have great admiration for Vami's 6 years of significant content contributions. I also have a great deal of sympathy for the fact that he (apparently) didn't consider a run for adminship until recently, and also only recently saw a need to fully clean up some detritus from his wikiyouth. And yet: the userbox, combined with the userpage cleanup (inaccessible to users) as raised by Joe is a bit concerning. Then, the perplexing rationale that a 79-word quote fails to be "brief", and the approach at the end the answer to Q3 (self-assessed by Vami as not how he'd behave as an admin) both seem to indicate a rather non-nuanced view of copyright, the area he wants to work with. Finally, a few other answers which are brief and black-and-white rather than really helping us understand how the candidate approaches things (Q11,13,10) . Net-net, I'd prefer to wait a few months and see how the candidate participates during that time before giving the sysop bit. Martinp (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose I judge based on the feeling if I can trust the user being put forward for consideration. In this case, with the combined scrubbing their user page and the feeling of immaturity I get from the way they communicate, coupled with their inteded area of admin work, I don't trust they wouldn't cause issues down the line. Valeince (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose The fascist self-identification four years ago concerns me but that has already been discussed thoroughly. The candidate states that they wish to be a "copyright admin". Noticing with concern their reply to question #7, where they vigorously defended their judgment that an attributed blockquote of 80 or so words was a copyvio, I asked followup question #19 asking them to please describe in detail the factors that you use to differentiate an acceptable quotation from one that you would deem a copyright violation. In response, I got a meandering response including I believe this is a question bigger than just me and look forward to the relevant RfC(s), a link to an essay that does not discuss attributed quotations, a link to an article, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, that includes at least nine cited quotations, and the strange statement, This is kind of vague, and is governed by personal taste. I come away knowing less about the candidate's opinions about the copyright status after reading all of that than before. And I notice that the candidate has now struck out their answer to question #7, leaving me even more perplexed. I am also concerned about their very recent copyvio blanking of Seamus Heaney, a biography of a Nobel prize-winning poet, that I understand lasted for four days. If I understand this matter correctly, the issues were almost entirely false positives, described on the talk page by another editor as simply the titles of Heaney's works, quotes from others about Heaney, quotes from Heaney's own works, job titles and awards held by Heaney, and other short strings of text that are not copyrightable or materially relevant in a copyvio discussion. My conclusion is that this candidate who wants to work on copyright issues needs significantly more experience and evidence of clearer thinking in this area. I look forward to supporting a candidacy in the future. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose Per User:DGG, and User:Cullen328 I have concerns about their interpretation of copyright. Their original answer to question 7 is concerning, despite the fact that they have stuck it. This is an area where I expect them to use their tools and I believe that they have more work to do in this area. I very much hope to support this candidate in the future. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Broad note to "I hope to support in the future" opposers: There is not going to be a Vami IV 2. If you would like to see Vami as an admin, it'll be here, because no one who's had an RfA of people digging up their every word to accuse them of being a criminal fascist is going to run the gauntlet again. Vaticidalprophet 04:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Vaticidalprophet, there is only one person who has the right to make that statement, and that is the candidate, not you. And the candidate also has the right to change their mind. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Quite so. There are numerous examples of candidates coming back after taking on board the issues raised, and going on to be among our most respected admins. For example Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lourdes 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte 2. I also consider this ability to listen and improve to be a highly commendable trait in any editor. Please withdraw this comment, Vaticidalprophet, as there is no evidence that it conforms to the candidate's wishes.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Additional broad note to blockquote-based opposers: the answer has changed in the direction of "I made the wrong call there". Vaticidalprophet 04:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Regretful Oppose almost entirely for the very recent Seamus Heaney blanking affair, which I'm amazed has hardly been mentioned here. Copyright is supposed to be his strong suit, but this is not how to approach it. There was a fairly quick apology, but he did not reverse his edit, put anything on talk, or help sort out the (relatively minor) actual copyright problems. The page was blanked and sent to WP:CP by Vami on 27 May with the edit summary "Sending to WP:CP for gross and historical copyright violations". See the extended discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 May 27. No details were given as to what was supposed to be copyvio, and from where. There was nothing on the article talkpage about copyvio (ever), & it turned out that at least one of the supposed sites copied was almost certainly written from the WP article, as proper patient copyvio work by User:The Earwig determined. The page was entirely blanked for 4 days, which at an average 650 daily views, means some 2,600 readers have been thrown back onto the much shorter other top-of-google hits, if they bother going there. Partial blanking laster longer. Then almost immediately he launches this. No heckling please. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Forgot to add User:Guliolopez on the "proper patient copyvio work" here. Johnbod (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose per DGG. Also, candidate has a tendency to take strong positions which is undesirable for an admin. Temperament is not considered enough. The duller the better for the routine work that is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  21. Oppose per above. The answer to Q7 is a major cause for concern given that the candidate wishes to work with copyright issues. Would be willing to support a future run however. -FASTILY 05:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose per Cullen and others. signed, Rosguill talk 05:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose I'm sorry to have to oppose as there are many good aspects to the candidate, including a willingness to acknowledge mistakes and learn from them. Being bold, being reverted & discussing is good for an editor, not what I want in an admin. Focusing on the copyright area where their interest appears to lie, it appears to be too much of seeing things as right or wrong and I am not satisfied as to the level of their understanding - being so far off the mark as to strike an answer directly on point. --Find bruce (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Oppose — I was on the fence until now, but I am afraid that I will have to oppose this time. It takes strength, character and a decent amount of self-reflection to recognize, introspect and change beliefs that are founded in hatred, and I appreciate how far they have come from where they were. It is a good thing that they were able to rectify their hurtful beliefs, and a positive attribute I would like to see in an administrator.

    Having said that, I find it difficult to overlook concerns brought up on this page. The comments they made on Discord while identifying as a Wikipedian editor, albeit on an unofficial Wikipedia server, are offensive at best. I simply do not want to see an editor and potential administrator say "It absolutely was justified. Do not misunderstand me. Oppressors exist to be killed by the oppressed... Friendly reminder that Palestine and Northern Ireland are struggles by a colonized oppressed against their colonizing oppressor", in context of IRA's violence during the Troubles and "my favorite part about disneyland america was that historian who compared the park to israel and called the existence of both 'intolerable'." I am aware that these were off-Wikipedia, but they were still in channels dedicated to Wikipedia where Vami IV participates because they are a Wikipedian editor. These comment would warrant a stern warning, at minimum, and potentially a block if they were made on this site. Things people say outside of Wikipedia are obviously not governed by the rules of this site, and everyone has freedom to say whatever they want. But should a connection be made and verified, they are not immune to scrutiny or consequences for the things that were said.

    Additionally, they intend to work in the area of copyright; their recent missteps like the blanking of Seamus Heaney, removal of a 79-word attributed blockquote as a copyright violation, and their subpar answers to questions regarding copyrights give me the impression that they have a bit more to learn in the field. While the contents of their userpage which were perceived by some as insensitive and them changing answers to questions asked in here are not the things which would make me oppose, they do give me concerns regarding their maturity. All in all, I cannot find myself supporting this candidacy. I believe that Vami IV is a fine editor who has done a lot of good. They are a net positive and I admire how they have learned from their mistakes. I hope that they continue the good work, learn from what has been said here, and try again in the future. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Note — I take into account that the candidate has clarified that their comment was intended metaphorically, and I stand by my rationale. To say that "Oppressors exist to be killed by the oppressed", right after saying that "It absolutely was justified" — "It" being the violence that killed hundreds of people — is just exceptionally poor choice of words if their intent was to say so metaphorically. — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose per DGG and others, given they want to work in copyvio they need to be competent in that area. I am also very concerned about the past fascist self identification and off-wiki behaviour highlighted in this RFA. Polyamorph (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Oppose. For an editor who would like to focus on copyright issues, the answer to questions 19 is concerning. Cullen328 asked for a general explanation of when quotations constitute a copyvio. Instead, the candidate responded with an explanation of when to use quotations as a matter of style: I first ask, "is a quote necessary here?" or "what does this add?" They also reference Tony1's style guide, which—as far as I can tell—has no relevance to copyright. This non-answer suggests that the candidate either has bad reading comprehensions skills or a poor understanding of copyright, both of which are disqualifying IMO. The candidate has some excellent content work, so I hope they are not discouraged from continuing to contribute; however, I cannot support at this time. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (moving to unexpressed neutral)Weak Oppose for now. I feel like there's a strong likelihood I'd support them in the future. I have an issue with the response to Cryptic's question. Provided one's politics don't impact the discharge of administrative duties, I don't personally care what one's beliefs are; I'd support an ISIS member to be an admin if they could convincingly present themselves as a capable, mature, policy-directed and even-keeled editor. My issue with their response, therefore, is with the compositional quality of the reply. It seems very adolescent. The use, for instance, of the word "cringe"; or, the declaration of a sense of "a lot of guilt" which makes it sounds like he did a stint as a guard at Buchenwald, not that he was a teenager who went through a shock phase and slapped up a userbox on their Wikipedia profile for a few months. This reveals, to me, either a serious lack of a sense of balanced proportion — which is necessary for an admin — or a statement of ritual contrition done merely for the benefit of the !voters. I'm almost certain the passage of time will smooth these rough spots. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC); edited 16:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Oppose mostly per the well-articulated opinions above on how on copyright/copyvio issues (apparently the main topic of interest for administrative work for Vami) he has been too quick to leap to judgement, too slow to admit the possibility of nuance or gray area in the interpretation of our rules, and too slow to repair the damage afterwards. In particular, like others above, I am troubled by the answers to #7 and #19, and by the Heaney affair. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Reluctant oppose - I fully expected to be in the support camp for this nomination, but I can't bring myself to vote accordingly. I'm giving zero weight to the above complaints about their past political affiliations and I agree with Floquenbeam's analysis entirely. Many people go through the "I just discovered politics" phase and attach themselves to a viewpoint that they may not be fully historically knowledgeable about; that's called maturing, and I could never fault one for doing just that. The reason I'm reluctantly opposing is because of the way the user dealt with the CommanderWaterford incident during and after the fact. The ANI discussion quickly devolved into little more than an attempt to irreversibly tarnish an editor's character, which was definitely not the initial intent. The comment of "Enough is enough" was unnecessary; Vami had already given a valid explanation earlier and it gave the impression that their goal was little more than to unapologetically get rid of an editor. They're still human and we should be obligated to show everyone respect. This concern was only substantiated by their grave-dancing comment here posted after their mentee and two respected editors expressed regret at the outcome. I believe an administrator should always demonstrate maturity, especially when dealing with overeager but otherwise constructive editors.

    I'm also struck by the fact that Vami was incredibly determined to get CW banned for copyright violations when they themselves don't seem to entirely grasp the concept. The oppose from DGG, the initial answer to Q7, and the answer to Q19 all leave me concerned. We definitely need more admins that care about copyright violations, but we don't need admins that will, on a whim, delete sourced block quotes added by experienced editors and then take them to CCI without first discussing it with them. I simply believe that at this juncture, Vami has demonstrated that they would be too heavy-handed in their approach to administrative duties. There are many editors in the support column whom I respect, and if this RfA does pass, I sincerely hope Vami takes to heart the valid criticism from the opposition. If it doesn't, I look forward to supporting a future run. Anarchyte (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  29. Oppose I'm sure they are an excellent content contributor, but I'm unconvinced by the (now changed) answer to #7 (and #19) and the fact that they do seem to be uncertain on certain areas of policy. The answer to #20 is incorrect as well - whilst you might think about pressing the button for a few seconds longer (and you might post a review of your block afterwards), if an admin is doing something that would get a non-admin blocked, then they should absolutely be blocked as well. Also, a blocked admin cannot abuse their blocking rights - the block disables all admin actions as well. Black Kite (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just about Q20: I know people like to say this, but when is an admin ever unilaterally blocked these days (and not just for being compromised)? Despite what people answer at RfA when this comes up, blockable conduct by admin users is never in practice responded to with blocks. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, although arguably it would cause more drama than just taking it to ANI, but it's just convention, so I don't really see why we'd want candidates to pretend otherwise at RfA just to look better. ProcSock (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can't remember the name, but I have a memory of an admin getting a 3RR block when they refused to stop after a final warning. I agree it does not happen often. It does not happen often not just because admins are hard to block, but the fact is that most admins know when to stop. For what it is worth I also believe admins should be blocked for the same behavior as anyone else. I myself came close to doing so getting as far as a final warning. It is not fun. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ProcSock, See User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 103. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @HighInBC: I can think of a couple of edit wars from different admins within the past 12 months. Some were reported or reviewed by other admins, none resulted in blocks; ironically many of the admins that stand by once upon a time answered in their RfA that they would take action. In this discussion for example, several non-admins took concern with admins forcing through a disputed change into a guideline page, but couldn't do much about it. In an unrelated discussion with another admin - in the context of enforcing an AE ban - the admin said they weren't sure whether they'd take action (about a hypothetical violation) themselves but would at least tell the Committee. Admins absolutely have a different line for unacceptable conduct. They probably shouldn't, but they do, and the RfA of a candidate isn't going to change these practices.
    @Ritchie Fair enough, but that seems to be a then-current arbitrator (perhaps in their individual capacity but still) enforcing an ArbCom remedy. I don't think it's comparable to a random admin unilaterally blocking another random admin for something. ProcSock (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Oppose I am reluctant to fall here, so much so that for a good couple of days since i first read this request and came to a conclusion i have avoided RfA all together. Nevertheless, i have to say i have doubts about the candidate's suitability for adminship currently; there are several users whom i respect with opinions stated above i concur with ~ Cullen328, DGG, & FeydHuxtable among them ~ and i find myself questioning the candidate's maturity. Very sorry to be here; happy days, LindsayHello 09:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Open support for Donald Trump and other far-right politicians or movements is an automatic strong oppose from me. The fascist userbox is completely unacceptable. Acalamari 09:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Extended discussion moved to the talk page. Anarchyte (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Oppose, largely per Johnbod. The Seamus Heaney copyvio report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 May 27 is a red flag for me at the moment, I'm afraid. Vami suspected copyright violations in the article, and they rightly therefore raised a report on it, but that report contained no actual evidence whatsoever. The sole explanation given was "This article has a history of copyright violations and has a lot of it now. Deletion may be required, and a rewrite certainly will be." This was accompanied by an immediate blanking of the entire article. Johnbod questioned this as premature and also pinged me on my talk page to have a look at it. I noted that Earwig's tool did flag it as a "likely violation", but raised the point that no explanation of the alleged copyvio had been provided. At this point Vami replied that they had overreacted in blanking the whole article, but there was still no detail provided on what they thought was wrong. As it turned out there were some smaller violations that needed resolving, and The Earwig went on to fix those, but the original assertion that "Deletion may be required, and a rewrite certainly will be" was shown to be incorrect. The most important takeaway here is that copyvio reports must be backed up with genuine evidence, and that doesn't mean just the raw numbers from Earwig's tool. It's good that Vami acknowledges above that this was an error, but this was just a week ago and I'd like to see a track record of getting this right before I would support adding the deletion buttons to your toolset. On the other issues raised, I am in agreement with Cullen and DGG that Vami's interpretation of block-quote policy doesn't seem correct. The fascism thing doesn't bother me, particularly as they've now disavowed it as a mistake of youth. People's personal opinions and political viewpoints are irrelevant here, as long as they don't spill over into WP:NPOV concerns in their editing or pushing of WP:FRINGE theories not supported by reliable sources. Finally, please don't take this and other opposes badly. This RfA may succeed, but if it doesn't I hope you'll be back here again. It's obvious your heart is in the right place, and none of the concerns raised are remotely permanent in nature. As someone who's a fan of admins that create content, I look forward to welcoming you to the corps at some point in the future, when the above-mentioned issues are put into the rear-view mirror. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Oppose per Cullen and Johnbod. And I'll point out that having a supporter badger an oppose vote by implying that the opposes are from "people digging up their every word to accuse them of being a criminal fascist" isn't a good look for the support folks. However, that wasn't what got me over into the oppose, it was the copyright issues with being dogmatic without really having a clue how to use the tools for checking copyright. Ealdgyth (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Again with worrying about what's a good look. It doesn't matter. People - admins - are digging up Vami's every word to paint him as an explicitly criminal fascist and are refusing to listen to reason. I think it's acceptable for !support-ers who have explicitly taken Vami's past fascism into account to feel their intelligence a little bit insulted by that. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 11:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Extremely regretful oppose. We've seen evidence that certain online forums have proposed inserting sleepers into Wikipedia in a long game to create admins sympathetic to their cause. That seems so pizzagatey that I just can't believe I'm even thinking it's'd have to work so hard and pretend so long. And then I remember that admin from maybe a year ago, can't remember the user name, who was banned because it was discovered he'd been running an entire sock farm just for fun. I do strongly believe people can change, especially young people, and I do believe someone who enthusiastically supported an extreme position at 16 can find it abhorrent at 22. I've actually seen similar transformations in all three of my sister's children as they went through college. But unfortunately I just don't think we can take the chance when desysop is difficult. This is a case in which, if we had a temporary sysopping alternative, I'd support for that. I'm sorry, Vami. —valereee (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think you're thinking of Edgar181. – Joe (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Valereee: I don't think that this is an acceptable accusation to make against any editor, even if it's an accusation you're making half-heartedly. Despite your polite tone, this boils down to a massive personal attack and BLP violation (a blockable one if made by a non-admin somewhere other than RFA), not to mention an implied insult against those of us who have vouched for Vami's rehabilitation. I respectfully request that you redact some or all of your vote. It's enough to say, like Acalamari, that you just think more time is needed to confirm rehabilitation, rather than to (by your own admission) conspiracy-theorize. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 11:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tamzin, sorry, I'll try to make it clearer: I do not think it's likely that Vami is still a fascist. Apparently they've behaved very well, and I think it's really hard to keep up a pretense of not believing what you actually believe. I think the reason Edgar181 (thanks, Joe) got away with it for so long was that he wasn't trying to pretend he believed things he didn't believe on his main account. I do not think it's likely Vami is a sleeper infiltrator. If sysops had to be periodically re-evaluated to retain the permissions, I'd have supported this candidate. —valereee (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, I think it'd still be better if you could reword your initial comment, but, fair enough. On that note I think I'll unwatch this mess. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm currently undecided on this RfA, but to me this claim is ridiculous. Moreover, I think it's clear that the Committee will not hesitate to desysop administrators. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Sdrqaz, if you can clarify, I'm willing to discuss. Might be better at talk, though. —valereee (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. A number of concerns sum to an oppose !vote from me. The copyright issues would not be as much of a concern to me if he had not declared he intends to be a "copyright admin", but he has, and so they are. Joe Roe articulated my concerns about his "cringe" statements better than I was able to; I did a lot of "cringey" things as a teen as well, but declaring oneself a fascist, while certainly attributable to a teenaged lack of understanding of history and an "I just discovered politics" phase as Anarchyte aptly put it, is something I would expect a mature person to reflect upon as more serious than a trivially "cringe" phase. I also most recently encountered Vami during the CommanderWaterford incident, and was left with a bad taste in my mouth after his reply to a handful of editors who had left kind notes on the page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Oppose per Q19, either because of copyright or temperament. To elaborate, I will go in chronological order.
    IMO, the initial removal of the quote from Special:Diff/1019965424 was proper, or at the very least arguable. I would defend it by saying the controlling factor is not the number of words in the quote, but whether the quote brings a useful illustration of a viewpoint, and this quote in is mostly rhetorical flourishes, so it is better to use a succinct paraphrase (the previous sentence in the diff does a fairly good job already).
    When asked Q7, they chose a different line than the above. Their first answer to Q7 was roughly "long quotes are forbidden" which I think is a bit too general when asked about a specific instance. They later chose to struck that answer and post an apology saying "this is not copyvio" (also, the link to NFCCP has dubious relevance). OK, they might have changed their mind; the apology was IMO overboard but this is RfA so understandable. So on the whole, Q7 makes me a bit uneasy but no dealbreaker.
    However I find the first sentence of A19 much too wishy-washy; I have multiple hypotheses to explain it and all are dealbreakers to me. If it was a conscious, RfA-spotlight-induced choice to not give much detail about their decision-making, to me it is a giant red flag per WP:ADMINACCT. If it was induced by stress/fear of being pinned down on a point of detail they lack familiarity with, well, that is a problem for a copyright-admin candidacy. Finally, they might have a strongly established opinion on the matter, but decided to back down from the confrontation - in which case, I would say their skin is not thick enough to be an admin.
    Just to be clear: changing one's mind when confronted and trying to de-escalate situations is better than redirecting all complaints to ANI and enjoying flamewars, but I think the candidate goes too far out in the other direction.
    Finally, I do not care much about extreme political opinions of Wikipedia editors, but I still feel uneasy about the previous self-ID as fascist, because of its implication of authoritarianism. Admins are supposed to "rule" with the continued consent of the community, which does not square with a political philosophy where the mob must be kept in check by enlighted enforcers. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Oppose The last thing the Wikipedia needs is an injection of authoritarianism into the admin ranks. If they are a great content creator, cool, they do not need to be an admin to continue that. ValarianB (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Oppose Numerous concerns mentioned above including copyright issues, support for fascism (formerly, although not that long ago), and the nuking of the userpage history right before the RfA presumably to hide something from the community. Sorry, but this is too much for me. NoahTalk 12:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Oppose After further consideration, I feel that I can no longer support. The comment on CommanderWaterford's page is very unbecoming of a would-be administrator. Vami, you do good work, but I cannot support you at this time. Try again in a year or two. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Oppose Mainly per Cullen - if a candidate says that they will be active in just one area, we need to be sure that they are shit-hot in that area and this discussion has shown that not to the case. I've also found concerns in other answers. Q20 - If an admin account is behaving like a vandal, adding BLP violations, copyvio or whatever then they should be blocked immediately and there is no need for community consensus. Being an admin gives you the ability to block, but it does not and should not make you immune from being blocked. Q21 - violation of WP:V - No this displays a fundamental lack of understanding about what WP:V means - information must be verifiable, but not necessarily sourced. SmartSE (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Oppose Q20 gives me pause. The administrator rights should not give any one user the privilage of being treated differently when a block is needed. Although a new administrator may not feel confident enough in blocking an administrator, there should not be a major difference. If the admin is vandalising, violating BLP, consistently copyright violating or abusing multiple accounts, community consensus should not be needed to block them. Blocks are not permanent and their use may prevent a comprimised admin account or an admin who has decided to distrupt Wikipedia from causing further damage. Furthermore, the admin toolset is so much more powerful and Main Page edits by vandals who have comprimised admin accounts have been major issues in the past. Therefore, in cases of apparent comprimisation of accounts, comprised admin accounts need swift blocks to ensure no issues. Furthermore, the issues around what they want to work in with an admin hat give me further pause. My oppose is not based on the userbox or anything which isn't recent. On balance of my thoughts and the !votes above, I don't think I can support at this time. I would say that Vami IV has done some excellent content work and my oppose is because I don't think they are ready yet. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Oppose. While the candidate is clearly a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, I am concerned that their temperament is not suited to the admin role at the present time. Sorry. — sparklism hey! 13:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Oppose. The pro-fascist userbox on his userpage in his userspace just 3 months ago is a problem for me. As a side note, RFA makes me sad in general; I don't think we're doing a good job with this. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Dank: Just to get the facts straight, Vami removed the userbox from his page in August 2017. DanCherek (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    FTR, it wasn't on his userpage 3 months ago. It was removed from his userpage in 2017. It was a userbox he'd created which three months ago he requested be deleted from the project. —valereee (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, sorry, that's what I meant ... struck and replaced with "in his userspace". I'm an admin so I can see the page. It's a problem for me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Given that he also left a copyright violation around in his userspace from a few years back until mentioned in this very RfA, I would assume he doesn't keep track of all the pages there. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Oppose Per many concerns, mainly those raised by Cullen, Johnbod, and Amakuru. GrammarDamner how are things? 14:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Oppose: Besides all the concerns raised by other editors, I'm not sure why this candidate would need the admin tools, because content creation does not need admin tools. --littleb2009 (she/her) (talkcontribs) 15:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Littleb2009: As specified in Q1: "I intend to be a copyright admin, investigating and cleaning up copyright violations." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ritchie333: The {{db-copyvio}} template is a way for users to easily request deletion of a page due to copyright violation. On second thoughts, we might want to create a "deleter" permission, grantable by admins at WP:RfP, that allows deletion of pages and revision delete. --littleb2009 (she/her) (talkcontribs) 16:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Littleb2009: Interesting, see here. ——Serial 16:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: I've seen it already. I'm not about to attempt to instate this permission, since I know it has like a 99% chance of failing. --littleb2009 (she/her) (talkcontribs) 16:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Oppose. I've never opposed an RfA before, and I am sorry to do it now. I do not believe that Vami IV has the right temperament for adminship. He reviewed an article I had put up for GA last year. During the review, I felt that his communication with me was brusque, bordering on supercilious. As a new-ish editor, I found it intimidating. I visited his talk page - I thought that it might just be his style of communicating - and recall thinking that it seemed markedly different from the warmth of language he used with the more experienced editors. I consider a mature communication style essential for admins generally, but it is even more important when dealing with copyvio issues, which in my experience can turn into a tool for disputes too. Vami IV, I wish you the best as a contributor and a successful re-RfA when you're ready . Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Oppose. Not, for clarity's sake, based upon political affiliation or beliefs, especially when those were past ones which have since changed. However, given that this candidate has expressed the desire to work with copyright issues, I do not feel that they yet have the necessary grasp of how we handle copyright matters on Wikipedia to successfully do that. If they can demonstrate improvement in that regard, I may well be in the support column next time around, but I need to see that first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Oppose. Initially looked promising with evidence of content creation, collaborative behaviour, etc, but the tendency for the candidate to hold strong/extreme views and opinions is not helpful for the role of admin where we expect someone to be neutral/balanced/nuanced/hold the middle ground of consensus. Evidence of poor judgement, clumsy attempts at deception (covering up mistakes in the past rather than being open about them - that someone held (or holds) fascist views is a personal matter, and we are not the thought police; it is the attempt to cover it up that is the concern), and insecure knowledge of areas they assert dogmatically they are knowledgeable about, such as copyvio, are additional concerns. The example that User:Possibly found, of a sentence error in a statement about being a grammar pendant which was repeated around twenty times, is by itself quite minor, but quite telling. I think Vami IV has much to offer Wikipedia, they are clearly very keen and hard working, though they would benefit from some self-reflection. Too early to say which way this RfA will go, but whichever way it does go, I hope it will provide the self-reflection that will allow Vami IV to mature into the role of an admin. SilkTork (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Oppose per other voters who have noted serious concerns with NPOV and extremist views. ST47 (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Oppose. Too many concerns. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Moved to oppose, sorry.) Obviously the Seamus Heaney farce was quite unacceptable; I'm glad the candidate acknowledges this. Only eight days ago, too? I note that they also think a referenced block quote is a copyright violation; I'm yet to see them distance themselves from it. Bizarre. Having said that, anyone who can respond to the kind of foolishness we regularly see at AfD without bursting their spleen with laughter clearly has something praiseworthy in their temperament. Good luck.
FWIW, I'm also interested to know the answer to Cryptic's question, for obvious reasons. ——Serial 16:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Where is the "referenced block quote" link meant to point? I'm not seeing Vami at a glance? -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 17:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that ~80 word referenced-block quote is what they believe to constitute a copyvio; it would be useful to hear from them in this regard. ——Serial 18:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You won't hear anything unless you ask, so I've asked. (Though my own opinion is that this is reasonable to link in CCI when searching for a general context of copyvios by a user, that we should be stringent with long quotes and that there's certainly not sufficient reason for using such a long quote rather than picking snippets and/or paraphrasing.) — Bilorv (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Neutral: I'm actually pleased to see someone in copyvio work. The issues from [1] with VAGUEWAVE comment discussed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 May 27 would have been an oppose by me if the candidate had not brought it up themselves at Answer 3. In general I'd support removal of copyvio's first and ask questions about it later but was this over the top. The risk of Red mist, and a couple of other points which may be giving me very slight twinges combine to making me sit on the fence, certainly for the moment. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (move to oppose)Neutral Their response to Cryptic's question concerns me. This is not because of current or past political beliefs; there's no political belief that should be disqualifying to adminship, provided it doesn't influence one's editing. My concern is that they seem to be going through some sort of personal identity realignment that they're working through via Wikipedia which I'm not sure is conducive to good adminship and opens the potential for drama. I'm not going to oppose, though, because I'm not sure sure I can more aptly quantify a reason to do so. I suppose I just find the confessional tone of the reply rather off-putting. I always welcome an explanation of past edits when there's a question about their purpose or intent, but this is more of a "begging for forgiveness" vibe which I find slightly immature. Perhaps I'm misreading it. I'll ruminate on this a few days. Chetsford (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC); edited 06:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I guess I'll make a rare comment in the neutral section, because I have conflicting opinions. I'm incrementally encouraged about the future of the world on the rare occasion when someone with icky political beliefs grows out of them. Perhaps because, a gazillion years ago, as a dumb teenager myself, I held politcal beliefs that I'm ashamed of now (not fascist-level, but still embarassing). I managed to grow out of it. I'm a little saddened that this renounced ickiness as still being held against them. But I'm discouraged that the fascism userbox wasn't dealt with openly and honestly, instead of waiting for an admin to notice it in deleted contributions. You were once on the dark side and now you're not. Own it. Additionally, I welcome more copyright admins, but am concerned about the specific example discussed in the oppose section. Not oppose-level concerned, but concerned. And I am further concerned that the candidate asked a crat to remove a question (see talk page of this RFA). If a candidate doesn't think a question is appropriate, I'd love for them to have the courage to step up and say "I do not think this question is appropriate for the following reason, and am not going to answer". It was kind of a dumb question; my opinion of the candidate would have grown if they had done that. But, with the way RFA works, we often don't reward courage, maybe that's too big an ask when one dumb oppose cancels 3 smart supports. From the answers to the questions, they seem like a decent sort; we could use more of those. This still looks like it has a good chance of passing, I suspect they'll still be a net positive, but I hope the candidate will meditate on these concerns if they are made an admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hey Floq, this is a good rationale and I respect you for sharing it. That said, I'm confident from my interactions with Vami on the matter that the matter of HighInBC's question removal isn't best conceptualized as being afraid to answer the question -- rather as wanting to end the rather heated argument between BC and Valereee about the question's existence. I'd tend to raise an eyebrow myself at a candidate having questions removed in most cases, but here I can see why, as a matter of wanting to spark less heat compared to light. Vaticidalprophet 18:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. I land here for the wishy-washy answers to the copyright-violation questions, which are somewhat surprising to me. --Izno (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    #Neutral not yet decided. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 07:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moving to oppose. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral Parking here for now, may have another question. Thank you for answered Q21, alleviates a potential worry that I had. — xaosflux Talk 10:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I think there's a lot of stuff in this RfA. Much of it is not particularly concerning, is largely historical, and there doesn't seem to be anything the candidate can do to 'fix' it much further. However, as Signal points out, well-crafted answers can sometimes mitigate the damage. There is other stuff that does cause more concern (eg parts of GorillaWarfare's comment). I think there were a number of missed opportunities for the candidate to demonstrate proficiency in their speciality (copyright work) through perhaps lengthier, more elaborate answers to some of the copyright questions. As for conduct: I'm not particularly concerned by the candidate's onwiki behaviour, and my experience with them overall is that they're a sociable person who can be engaged with and can handle conflict well. Before this RfA I wasn't even aware of their political views, before people cherry picked them from isolated Discord messages. I don't consider them disqualifying; even though I disagree with many of their views I'd argue that this is not relevant to the question of whether the prospective admin will meet the responsibilities and expectations outlined in the WP:ADMIN policy. Indeed, there are many admins whose political views I find more disagreeable; Wikipedians are allowed to hold opinions. Anyway, all in all, it's too difficult to feel confident about supporting this specific run, even by my comparatively lax standards for RfA. There is nothing really egregious here, but there's a gut feeling since the start that I just can't shake off. If this RfA doesn't succeed, I'd be excited to see a second run after the candidate has taken time to work on the relevant portions of the feedback at this RfA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. (moved from support) Neutral I don't care in the least about their political positions, as no evidence of it affecting on-wiki work has come forth. But I am concerned about their views on copyright and the disappointing answers to questions. The answers to Q8 and Q7 (including the correction) indicate a black-and-white understanding of the copyright policy. Regarding answers to Q9 and Q20, I think it's fine they don't plan to close controversial discussions or to block an admin, but when asked in an RFA one could least make an effort to say something that sounds like "yes if really needed". Overall, I'm not convinced they would be able to clearly articulate rationales behind admin actions and abide by WP:ADMINACCT. Won't oppose on account of the stellar content creation record, and open to supporting a future run. – SD0001 (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • And FWIW, I can assure you that Vami has, in all interactions I've seen on the Discord server, uniformly, without exception, expressed his remorse about the userbox in particular and his fascist views in general. Also, as he's replied to Cryptic, we don't have to take him merely at his word that he's changed - his edits speak for themselves. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 18:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
👍 Like Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I am uncomfortable with how an editor who's not here is being discussed at Q6. I note that the question was not asking for specifics about the case or the editor. This comment made well after TPA was revoked was already inadvisable IMO. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • IMO, it was inadvisable for two editors I otherwise respect to write multi-paragraph defenses of an editor who was harrassing me offwiki. If Vami's response was inadvisable in turn, it was because it was responding to comments that shouldn't have been made. Vaticidalprophet 18:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I agree. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 18:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      What do you agree to, The owner of all? Please be specific. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 19:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Regarding the fact that an editor other than the one standing for adminship is being discussed. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 19:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Well, it was more "discussing the editor who is standing for adminship's interactions with someone else" - which I think is reasonable. Nearly everything on this site is an interaction with someone else, after all, so a hard-line standard here would prevent diffing pretty much anything. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I strongly agree that the comment you link to was undesirable. AFC is now on life support without this editor, and I am really disappointed that there was not a better outcome. This was one of a couple of places where I've found I personally disagree with Vami IV, and nonetheless I was a strong support, because I don't think this relates to misuse of admin tools or conduct that's beyond defensible. I guess I'm one of the editors that Vaticidalprophet is referencing above—shoot me an email if you'd like to talk about this privately, or for me to explain why I made the comment. I am sorry that you've been harassed off-wiki, and I wasn't aiming to defend or undermine that. — Bilorv (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • As someone who deals with AfC regularly (IRC help) AfC has been on life support looooooong before this person was banned. I doubt this had much of an impact. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Question for Elli regarding their question: How does retaining copyvio content in an article, "make the encyclopedia better"? Why would that be justification to invoke IAR? ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 19:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @The owner of all: I asked the question for Vami to answer - I'll be happy to explain my reasoning after he answers (in fact, I will in my !vote), or if he chooses not to answer, after the RfA ends. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Elli, you've asked an experienced copyright editor a question that most copyright newbies could answer without having to look it up. I really think you should strike it as not really adding much to the discussion. Your second question is no great shakes, either. If I were you I'd consider striking both and just spend a few months listening at RfA, see if you can pick something up. —valereee (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • All three of the copyright questions are rather bad, but shouldn't be too hard for Vami to answer.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          I agree, but why add silly questions into the mix for no good reason? Every silly question requires the candidate to spend time and energy during a highly stressful time. You don't want to just say, "Of course not. IAR has no place in CCI." So you have to think, compose, maybe research to get your statement right. It's not helpful to the process. —valereee (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John M Wolfson: I know my question is bad. I am asking this question based on an experience I recently had with him. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Duly noted.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Scorpions13256, actual concerns are never bad questions. If you have an actual concern your question addresses, that is a good and relevant question. —valereee (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Valereee: I will explain after he answers. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course. —valereee (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John M Wolfson: @Valereee:, he answered satisfactorily, and I explained my reasoning for asking the question. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Vami didn't remove the fascist userbox from his user page until August 2017,[2] six months before he appointed himself the coordinator of WikiProject Germany.[3] I'm not sure whether that says more about him or us, but I'm surprised that this particular revelation hasn't provoked more comment. – Joe (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm disappointed that you chose to make this comment with an edit summary that accuses Vami of a crime. I invite you to self-revdel it. ♠PMC(talk) 21:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Have to agree here. I’m also not entirely sure making a comment along the lines of “why isn’t this getting more attention” is particularly helpful. There is a whole question and response above about the userbox, so it’s hardly flying under the radar. firefly ( t · c ) 21:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I gave serious consideration as to whether this was eligible for R2 revdel and decided it isn't but agree that the edit summary came out in a way I am guessing Joe did not intend based on the contents of the edit itself. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Barkeep49: I left a message on Joe's talk (but not here) explaining why I made an R2 redaction of the edit summary. I agree that the content itself isn't at the same level, so I left it alone. To avoid further digression, anyone is free to raise concerns on my talk page. Wug·a·po·des 03:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not as disappointed as I am that the majority of the great and good of this community are apparently more concerned with the minatuae of copyright law than having an administrator that a few years ago openly espoused fascism. The use of fascist symbols outside of education etc. is a crime in Germany. That is a fact, not an accusation. And presumably the Coordinator already knows that. But again our priorities have become distorted to the point that it's apparently more important to quickly expunge uncomfortable truths rather than discuss, say, what might happen if a journalist finds out about them. – Joe (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The key point here is that Vami has quite obviously done some deep soul-searching introspection and realised that their prior views were wrong. They are now no more a fascist than any of us - their content work alone is proof of their changed perspective, to say nothing of their answer to Cryptic's question. With regard to quickly expunge uncomfortable truths, I presume you are referring to the revision deletion - revdel was applied because Wugapodes felt it was a BLP violation eligible for revdel under RD2. That is not expunging uncomfortable truths, that is simply Wug following policy. Regarding "journalists finding out", not only is that an extreme hypothetical, I would argue that someone genuinely changing their problematic views, expressing profound regret for them, and being respected and lauded by the community for doing so is precisely the sort of thing Wikipedia should be known for. We must allow for, and indeed even celebrate, people changing their minds. firefly ( t · c ) 12:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You did not simply say X is a crime in jurisdiction Y. You said, unequivocally, that non-public figure A is guilty of a specific crime despite that person having never been convicted (let alone charged) of that crime. As I said on your talk page, that is a bright line violation of WP:BLPCRIME. While we are on the subject of crimes, homosexual activity is illegal in many countries and in some cases punishable by death. At my RfA, no one thought I should be held to the legal standards of countries I do not live in despite me, a homosexual, being in violation of the laws of multiple countries. Why? Because whether I might have violated the laws of other countries is at best irrelevant and at worst grasping at straws. If we want to talk about things that are crimes, remember that defamation is also a crime, and unlike the laws of Germany or Saudi Arabia, it is a crime in your jurisdiction, Joe. Privacy and the avoidance of defamation is what motivates our BLP policy, and RfA is not a free pass to charge people with crimes for rhetorical points. No one has removed your comments raising concern about the candidate's past beliefs, and editors have asked about and discussed the particulars of fascism on this very page without violating BLP. Despite your hyperbole, you are free to do so as well. But do not confuse the point: you are not being criticized for "uncomfortable truths", you are being criticized for a bright line violation of our BLP policy. Wug·a·po·des 20:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wugapodes: Your analogy with homosexuality only works if I picked a jurisdiction at random. Obviously I didn't. I mentioned Germany because Vami has repeatedly referenced his leadership of WikiProject Germany in this RfA and, as I said, he became the coordinator of that project just months after he apparently stopped calling himself a fascist. For historical reasons, Germany—and words cannot express how astonished I am that I have to spell this out—is especially intolerant of fascists.
And what part of that factual statement is defamation, exactly? Any admin can see that Vami's user page once contained a fascist eagle, accompanied by the words This User Identifies as a Fascist. Plz no discriminate. He doesn't deny it. A statement has to be false to be libel. But good job tackling the real problem here: not talking about whether we're happy with our community's abject failure to confront an open fascist, but making sure that edit summaries referencing pseudonymous editors on project pages conform precisely to our biography of living persons policy. Real defender of the wiki stuff. – Joe (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Joe, it is defamatory to state, as you did in your now-removed edit summary, that someone has committed a crime. Full stop. I find it hard to believe you can't see that, and harder to believe that you are actually choosing to double down on it. What do you mean that Vami has "apparently" stopped having fascist beliefs? Are you suggesting that it's impossible that a teenager on the internet could fall into reactionary beliefs and then reconsider them with age and maturity? Do you think Vami's answer to Q4 is a lie? ♠PMC(talk) 21:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Apparently" as in Vami might well have abandoned his beliefs before he removed the infobox from his userpage, but that's the only data point we have. Apologies for the ambiguity there. As for the rest, I'll just reiterate that something has to be false to be defamatory. I don't doubt that Vami has matured and changed his mind. I haven't even formally opposed this RfA yet. The question I was raising was whether, given the chain of events and his continuing involvement with WP Germany, he has matured enough, plus whether we as a community are happy with our failure to deal with an open fascist four years ago. It is very, very disheartening to see that editors respect instead would prefer to talk about petty CCI disputes or wikilawyer BLP to take the sharp edges off the real-life implications of espousing fascism. – Joe (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos and PMC: Also I feel like I have to point out, as with Chess/Wugapodes below, that defamation is a crime where I live, so this comment would appear to be doing the same thing that you're saying I shouldn't have done. Can we not agree that it would be better to focus on the substance and spirit of what each other are saying, rather than playing wiki- and IRL-lawyer? – Joe (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The irony of Wugapodes talking about how bad it is for an editor to accuse another of a crime onwiki then in the same comment accusing an editor of criminal defamation is not lost on me. Hypocrisy at it's finest. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not say Joe committed defamation and I challenge you to quote where I did. I said, as a fact, that defamation is a crime. I never said anyone defamed anyone else (unlike what Joe said about Vami) Wug·a·po·des 21:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh huh, saying "defamation is also a crime, and unlike the laws of Germany or Saudi Arabia, it is a crime in your jurisdiction" is 100% not an accusation because you didn't say the magic words. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To quote Joe That is a fact, not an accusation. But nice try! It's funny that when asked to say specifically where I made an accusation, you try to hide your failure by sarcastically pointing out that you couldn't. I know you say it with sarcasm to try and make it seem like you're clever and "won", but is 100% not an accusation because you didn't say the magic words is actually a very important aspect of what distinguishes an accusation from other kinds of statements and even Joe acknowledged that when he distinguished stating facts about laws from making accusations about breaking them. Now of course I'm just a lowly linguist who teaches how language works to university students, so I'm sorry if my understanding of speech acts is not up to your level, but merely reminding someone of what is and is not a crime is not an accusation that they are criminally liable, particularly in the context I used it: the very next sentence is about how defamation as an abstract concept informs our local policies and why we should therefore take that policy seriously. Defamation is a crime in pretty much every jurisdiction, so unless you think "Robbery is a crime in your jurisdiction, Chess" is also an accusation, you'll need to work a little harder than a proof by sarcasm. That will be hard, of course, as we both know you're blowing smoke and scrambling to save face now that you've been called out in public for baselessly accusing me of hypocrisy. Unlike Joe, I didn't point out a particular law that was broken. I didn't even say Joe broke a law. Unlike Joe at no point did I say that anyone committed any crime, and your sarcastic admission of your failure to quote an actual accusation when I asked shows that. But sure, keep trying to both-sides this by willfully misreading what I said so that you can win an argument on the internet. Wug·a·po·des 06:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has Chess now committed the crime of defamation by falsely accusing you of falsely accusing me of defamation? Have I by asking this question? Will we be able to stop this spiral of libel-inception before the whole wiki is revdel'd? Help us, oh mighty linguist who teaches how language works to university students. – Joe (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're not playing a game of Cluedo where you have to say "I accuse Reverend Green of personal attacks in the RfA with the candlestick". If you want to go into a semantic diatribe over the exact meaning of the word "accusation" I'm not going to deal with that (you're probably right over the exact meaning of the word "accuse" given your status as a lingustics expert) but I will say that you strongly implied that another editor committed the crime of defamation which is hypocritical given that you got angry over an editor accusing another of a crime. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I can tell, neither the Italian or Spanish fascist symbols fall under Strafgesetzbuch section 86a. —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the Nazis also used the eagle symbol. In any case, as should be obvious to anyone reading my comment with an ounce of good faith, the point was not to play lawyer, but to point out the embarrassing fact that at one point we had an American teenager who recently called himself a fascist "coordinating" our coverage of Germany. And raise the question of whether we are happy to give that same person the bit just a few years later. – Joe (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your comments are rising to the level of sealioning - "just asking", oops, nothing bad meant, just raising a little eensy question - never mind that the question of Vami's discarded beliefs has been asked and answered at Q4 right from the start. ♠PMC(talk) 21:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly didn't mean to do that. As you can see from the flak I've already gotten, it's hard to be direct on this issue. But to clarify, I am indeed saying that it is very bad that Vami had a fascist userbox on his page four years ago, very bad that he shortly thereafter became the coordinator of WikiProject Germany, where hypothetically to the best of my knowledge etc. etc. displaying that userbox would be a crime, very bad that this is trivialised in Q4 as a "cringe belief", very bad that you or the other nominator didn't even mention it, and very bad that few people here seem to care much about any of this. It was a question in the sense that I assumed my comment would provoke some good faith discussion of this – apparently wrongly. – Joe (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joe, If you had stuck to the language you used in any of the actual edits you've made we would be discussing Vamis userbox to the extent we were discussing anything at all. But you went a good deal further in the edit summary and accused a teen, who was perhaps a minor at the time, of a crime. Like an actual specific statutory crime. That's why you are getting pushback and Cryptic who asked the actual question is not. I think I did extend good faith in my response above and would ask you to consider in good faith the concerns others have and consider in good faith that others are considering whether they trust Vami given the totality of their record. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Barkeep49: What interests me is whether you, or anyone else "pushing back" at me on this, actually thinks what I said was incorrect. – Joe (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incorrect factually? IANAL let alone a German one so I have no idea. I am a little sad that you choose to ask me a question rather than deal with the substance of what I wrote. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am. Whether or not the statement is true or not is surely a factor in whether it's acceptable, no? – Joe (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's wrong for a person on the internet to state, as a fact, that someone committed a crime based on their original research. I think it's irresponsible for someone in a position of authority/power/leadership to do it. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At WikiProject Germany, Vami hasn't displayed any fascist tendencies or sympathies. When he wanted to be coordinator, we all said "meh, sure, whatever, go for it" so he was kind of elected unopposed (see here if you really care). —Kusma (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally speaking, I feel like the community just obsesses over RFA’s so much so that some editors would look for something/anything to pillory the candidate over even when the basic requirement for “passing an RFA” is having a clue about how Wikipedia works and a need for the tools, but somehow everyone wants to just air an opinion no matter how irrelevant obtuse and counter productive it may be. Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • HighInBC I'm not sure that's a relevant question for someone currently going through RfA. What exactly are you trying to learn about the candidate? —valereee (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am trying to get a sense of what they consider to be unfair or excessively harsh. I think this is very relevant to an editor's ability to be an admin. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are trying to make a point, I think is what you mean. —valereee (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please assume good faith. What I said is what I mean. You and I may disagree about if considering what you consider unfair or harsh has an effect on being an admin, but that does not mean I am not being honest. Please argue the points I make and not make comments about what you think my motives are. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That question is coercive and pointy re: your bludgeoning at WT:RFA. I'm going to remove it. Please let's discuss at talk. —valereee (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The question has been removed at the request of the candidate, and the talk page discussion closed. Primefac (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Leaving this here as I'm not voting yet but I don't like how the CCI Bingo has "Indian subcontinent" as a square. It's not OK to promote stereotypes based on geographic location and I would hope then if the nominee continues to work in CCI as an admin (which they're clearly planning to do) that they don't stereotype based on geographic location. It's also annoying to see the nominee's userpage call out a living person for "possible racism" under the subheading of "kill-on-sight sources". The intersection of violent rhetoric with living people onwiki should be avoided and unsourced claims that a person is possibly racist probably violates BLP. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Leaving aside the rest of your commentary, I find it hard to take the phrase "kill-on-sight" as "violent rhetoric" when used in reference to written sources. If you do an onwiki search excluding mainspace there are plenty of examples of well-respected users using it in discussions to refer to similar things that they don't like and wish would be removed. It's certainly a bit expressive, but violent? No. ♠PMC(talk) 05:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To recognise that the Indian subcontinent generates proportionately a more serious amount of copyright/COI/spam problems than other places isn't stereotyping... it's true. 27 cases out of 200 at CCI are explicitly subcontinent-related, possibly higher than any other single geographical entity. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 15:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI, If you consider that India a population that is +/- 250 times that of Norway, you'd have to conclude that CCI cases of Norway related subjects (1) are at least ten times worse than India's (21). Vexations (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) How at all is 27 out of 200 cases (13.5%) disproportionate when the Indian subcontinent has a population that's 22% of that of the world? – SD0001 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vexations, SD0001, the WMF in 2011 measured Indian contributors to be only 3% of all Wikipedia editors across all languages. The metric is indeed old, but I have no reason to believe we are 22% of the English Wikipedia editing population, the same as the general population. Comparing the English Wikipedia population to the world population is fairly useless - even the Brits outnumber the subcontinent's editors despite having only a twenty-fifth of the population. Remember also that we're talking only about CCI here, where cases are only opened for long-term copyright issues. As someone who roams a lot in India-related topics, I assure you that plenty of small-time editors add a ton of copyvio to a depressingly large number of articles. Copyvios are a chronic, festering disease in subcontinent-related articles. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Despite composing 3% of the editing population, the Indian subcontinent commits 13.5% of the copyright violations". While the stat may be true, it ignores the actual root causes. Specifically that we haven't done a good job at turning Indian editors into productive editors or accepting them and our general lack of "good" coverage on India related topics. Throwing in a cavalier reference to Indian subcontinent = CCI ignores the root causes and feels like stereotyping without any context. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The context here is that when we get copyright violations on the Indian subcontinent, it is more often than not extremely blatant, spammy, and the sources copied from tend to go dead faster. I really fail to see how this is stereotyping without context considering that this same trend is seen in anti-spam work. As Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI said, we see a chronic issue with copyright violations. Opening CopyPatrol will inevitably drag you to the subcontinent. This isn't something that Vami in specific can or has to solve/work on fixing to get the mop. I also fail to see how this shows that he is untrustworthy of the mop, considering that the policy is the same for every editor who commits copyright violations; preventatively block if they don't understand. No admin is going to specifically target Indian editors because of a known and acknowledged trend in copyright cleanup. Sennecaster (What now?) 11:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have generally seen the same issues with articles on the Indian subcontinent. They regularly appear at CAT:CSD, often tagged as A7 or G11, and this is one of the reasons I would personally like more Indian admins to help sort out the wheat from the chaff so I don't make a mistake and speedy something that's actually notable because of past experience. And highlighting this issue is not "racist" at all, in the same way that it's not at all racist for Sitush to go around fixing up a bucket load of caste articles, complain about the quality and sourcing of them in occasionally blunt terms, and get all sorts of grief from people because of it. For another example, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vanamonde93, there were quite a few people in the "oppose" camp who appeared to be based in or around India and who appeared to have a score to settle - and again, some of these were called out by Sitush. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With all due respect, anecdotal is the worst possible kind of argument in defence of stereotyping, perhaps save "I do it too". It is racist, and I am surprised that the first response when this was brought up was not to nuke it immediately with "to be safe while I take a moment to figure it out", if not an unreserved apology and commitment to do better.
What non-racist purpose is it supposed to serve? If it has no actual purpose, its complete purpose is to denigrate an entire group of people. And, if its purpose is to help copy-patrolling, it's obviously advising patrollers to go in with a prejudice against the Indian subcontinent. How is that supposed to work? You hit next random AFC submission, and if the article is an Indian subcontinent topic or the major contributors are, you check earwig on those ones? You go through contributions history of editors from the Indian subcontinent hoping to catch someone? We have a name for it, and an article.
I am seeing percentages being thrown around. First of all, they are outdated even assuming they were reliably calculated. Secondly, conclusions being synthesized are nonsensical regardless. Thirdly, it doesn't matter if it's true. Suppose it is true. Does that mean I have less of a right to be AGFed? Am I fair game for WP:FOLLOWING? Or maybe I could apply for the "trustworthy Indian" flag? Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, I am not questioning intentions which I'm sure are completely noble from all concerned; I am talking about what it is. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's assuming that we vigorously check every new contributor and that we consistently ABF on Indian subcontinent editors. Any reviewer of a GA, FA, NPP, or AFC needs to check for copyright violations without prejudice, on every article. Does it get done? No. But if you care about copyright, it should. If you want to criticize the response, I actually welcome you to. I think the assuming that AFC/NPP/copyright immediately sees a vaguely indian-subcontinent editor and then immediately assumes bad faith is incredibly wrong, however, and not representative of how any of those processes work or how those editors actually feel. And fwiw, this is now exploding into a broader issue that needs to be addressed under some other venue than one specific editor's RfA if you're going to question a belief and behavior of multiple editors. Sennecaster (What now?) 19:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Haleth - do you have a specific example of what you are suggesting here? This feels very much a "have you stopped beating your wife" leading question. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I am not sure how specific I should go without searching for specific messages from Discord, and then copying and pasting them here. The purpose of the question is not to trap the candidate or make them look bad in any way, or even to defend the editor(s) who have been ostensibly badmouthed or bring it to their attention. What I am interested to know is whether Vami is ever self-conscious of their public behavior and if so, whether they are open to adjusting or regulating instances of off-the-cuff behavior once they've become an admin, even in off-wiki contexts like Discord chats. And again, it is an optional question. If you and/or Vami think this question is out of line, it doesn't need to be answered. I just think it is perfectly reasonable to scrutinize an admin-to-be's behavior whether it is on or off wiki, which in turn may inform their behavior and MO as admin. Haleth (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I get scrutiny, but "whenever you openly denigrate another editor", suggests to everyone that they have done exactly this. I can't say I've seen anything of the sort, so the question has come out of left field as far as I am concerned. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ifnord Is this meant to include any time the candidate has done something rude in the history of their life, or just in the context of Wikipedia? If the latter, it might be useful to clarify. jp×g 19:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hear Vami doesn't inline cite everything he says offwiki. Vaticidalprophet 19:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait wait wait... Ifnord is at worst asking if Vami has ever done anything uncivil in their entire life and at best in the last 6 years?? What is going on people??????? Aza24 (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Charitably, I would assume that Ifnord is asking about off-wiki but Wikipedia-related forums, like WP:IRC, WP:DISCORD, and the like. Presumably we aren't requiring everyone wanting +sysop to be the Uncondemning Monk. Vahurzpu (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I imagine to be the hardest thing in RfA is that candidates are not able to respond to opposition. Haleth's question raised the spectre of potentially incivil behaviour off-wiki. I do not care if the candidate is in an angry debate with someone over politics at some discussion board, I do care about name calling and such if they mention Wikipedia users by name and use it as a circumvention to our civility policies. I will clarify, but this (optional) question will allow me to make my own assessment if the candidate is, or is not a jerk. This seems to be a new criteria for RfA. Ifnord (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would there be any objections if I restored the history of User:Vami IV up to the revision of 1 August 2018, at 06:53? I don't believe there is anything in any of those revisions that would meet the outing policy - if there is, could a fellow admin please mention the diff number so if we do restore, that can be immediately revision deleted. I think the time has now come, for people looking at the RfA to get the full facts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ritchie333, yeah, I want to say something first. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 16:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am open to this; please see the talk page. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please talk page for more about this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interestingly, since it's been brought up that Vami has had a stellar history on discord of apologizing for his past extremist opinions, I'd like to bring up some of Vami's stellar comments on discord in re whether the violence of the IRA and various Palestinian organizations were justified in actions:

It absolutely was justified. Do not misunderstand me. Oppressors exist to be killed by the oppressed... Friendly reminder that Palestine and Northern Ireland are struggles by a colonized oppressed against their colonizing oppressor.

This was on May 22nd, 2021 in the #offtopic channel of Wikipedia discord. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is somewhat misleading - the "..." represents multiple intermediate messages by him and others, and this also doesn't include the context before and after the message. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the ellipses were because Vami was replying to another message; the messages quoted were sent on the same day with only two intermediating messages. Would you care to elaborate on the magical context that would somehow make these commments OK? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just pointing out your representation is misleading, for one. Secondly, expressing a political view in an off-topic channel is not something I take a problem with - I have seen no evidence that this has impacted his behavior on-wiki. What next, he swore in a direct message? Going through chatlogs to dig up dirt on people is... low. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usually I don't really give a shit about what people do on Discord. If he talk about how he's an authoritarian communist or talk about how he hates himself for being white I don't really care. But (BLP violation removed)? That's something that isn't OK. I'd also like to bring up that several support votes (including yours! "I met Vami in the Discord server and he's always been kind in my interactions with him.") brought up Vami's actions on Discord so it looks to me to be fair game. Also, how is this "misleading"? You keep saying that it's "misleading" but you don't elaborate on how this is misleading. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not see him in any way advocating for terrorism in that comment. And I've explained exactly what is misleading - presenting the comments out of context, and as if they are one comment, instead of being separated by multiple messages. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be perfectly clear, the first two messages I quoted were sent at 6:25 AM and the last message quoted was sent at 6:27 AM. I apologize for not making it clear that these were a series of related messages sent at around the same time and not a single long message. But all three of the messages were sent in the same place, within 3 minutes of each other, and were in the same conversation. And I don't believe I have misled anyone about the actual content of the messages themselves. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am looking at the Discord comment now, and I am not seeing any context that would make that comment acceptable. It sounded serious. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You really need to actually read the entire conversation to see the context. One user: "America honestly seems pretty ripe for a communist revolution" Vami: "I honestly hope not [...] Not because I don't want it. [...] But because it would be violent." ([...] indicates messages by other users) Later, a different user mentions "Lots of young people seem to justify violence when it comes to bringing a revolution. There are people saying the violence of the IRA was justified for gaining back Northern Ireland." and Vami responds to that saying that it was justified. He's clearly not advocating/supporting violence here. Would you say that Martin Luther King was "advocating for terrorism" by saying "a riot is the language of the unheard"? Elli (talk | contribs) 21:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did read the entire conversation. He seems to be against the Communist revolution, but not the actions of the IRA. I'll strike my comment because it may have been a little premature. I am not calling him a terrorist. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not justification what MLK said; MLK said it was understandable that people would riot if they weren't heard, not that rioting is a good thing. The nominee said "Oppressors exist to be killed by the oppressed". This is directly advocating violence and I don't see how it can be interpreted in any other way. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition to the above, I'd like to bring up what the nominee has said about Israel. Note that the nominee has said in #wpengineering, a channel purportedly for Wikipedia-related engineering and infrastructure discussions on roads and trains and what not:

my favorite part about disneyland america was that historian who compared the park to israel and called the existence of both "intolerable".

This was in reference to a discussion about Disneyland. I specifically bring this up because it adds context to the above. This advocates for the destruction of Israel. In conjunction with the statement that Palestinians are struggling against a "colonizing oppressor" and that "oppressors exist to be killed by the oppressed". It's clear that the nominee advocates for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Israelis (likely not in general; but any of them that are "oppressors" would by my guess). This is not an appropriate position to take in a discord server called the "Wikimedia community" where your discord account is linked to your onwiki account. Will Israeli editors or anyone supporting the existence of Israel now be wondering if they're an "oppressor" that Vami IV believes deserves death? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It actually sounds like the comment is about how he likes the turn of phrase, and you extended that to "advocates for the destruction of Israel". Where, exactly, is the advocating in the sentence, Chess? Are we seriously okay with people having carte blanche on this page to just make shit up like this? Chess gets to just plainly say "ah well sounds to me like this guy just thinks murdering israelis rules" and somehow we all nod and go 'well I guess so!' This is getting pretty disgusting. Parabolist (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Calm down, and check the talk page. The discussion is still ongoing and not everyone agrees with Chess. And please drop the personal attacks. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 10:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments about posting Discord log moved to talk page Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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