Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vami IV: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→General comments: come on, we’re better than this
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 165: Line 165:
::* Agreed. Totally uncalled for. [[User:Scorpions13256|Scorpions13256]] ([[User talk:Scorpions13256|talk]]) 21:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
::* Agreed. Totally uncalled for. [[User:Scorpions13256|Scorpions13256]] ([[User talk:Scorpions13256|talk]]) 21:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
:::* 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. [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 21:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
:::* 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. [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 21:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
::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 [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany/Archive_22#Project_Coordination|here]] if you really care). —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 21:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
::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 [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany/Archive_22#Project_Coordination|here]] if you really care). —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 21:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
*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 it may be. '''[[User:Celestina007|Celestina007]]''' ([[User talk:Celestina007|talk]]) 21:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded. -->
<!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded. -->
<!-- Place a horizontal rule (----) between separate discussions for organization. -->
<!-- Place a horizontal rule (----) between separate discussions for organization. -->

Revision as of 21:43, 5 June 2021

Vami IV

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (43/1/1); Scheduled to end 16:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination

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]

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 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[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]
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]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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:
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]
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]
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:
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:

Discussion

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

Support
  1. Support trusted user, demonstrates a need for the tools. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 16:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[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]
  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]
  4. support Net positive, seems to be a good editor for adminship! 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[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]
  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]
  7. Support Vami is an important contributor at CCI, a place where he demonstrably has a need for the tools. He knows (and follows) rules and customs, and (afaict) is civil and can introspect. He will do well with the bit. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Not a jerk; has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, trusted contributor and shows a need for the tools. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 16:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 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]
  11. Support. Trusted editor with a need for the coveted mop. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. MER-C 17:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 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]
  14. Support. Looks like a great candidate. Best of luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I have full confidence in Vami. Their GAN work is particularly praiseworthy. (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 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]
  17. Support Net positive. Has a clue, not a jerk. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 17:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 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)[reply]
  19. Support Net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 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]
  21. 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]
  22. Support Looks good to me. – SD0001 (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support as nom, obviously. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Had good experiences with him since our first interaction. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Passes my RFA criteria. Clovermoss (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Have only seen good things from them. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  28. 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]
  29. 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]
  30. Support. Is competent, has a need for the tools. Good luck! ~ANM🐁 T·C 19:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. 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]
  34. 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]
  35. 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]
  36. Support Very familiar with Vami from GAN, definitely has the head to be an admin. Kingsif (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support 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)[reply]
  38. Support - has the right attributes. Cabayi (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  39. 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]
  40. 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]
  41. Support, user can be trusted with the admin mop. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 21:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  42. 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]
  43. Support Not a big deal, one asks why not? - TNT 💞 21:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. 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]
@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]
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]
I understand, but I'd like to let you know that I am conservative too. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Neutral
  1. 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)[reply]
    @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]
    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]
    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]


General comments
👍 Like Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[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]
    • @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]
      • 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]
        • 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]
          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]
@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]
Duly noted.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[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]
@Valereee: I will explain after he answers. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. —valereee (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[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]
  • Vami didn't remove the fascist userbox from his user page until August 2017,[1] six months before he appointed himself the coordinator of WikiProject Germany.[2] 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]
  • 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]
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]
  • 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 it may be. Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Vami_IV&oldid=1027061008"