Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aoidh

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

Aoidh

Final (228/2/1); closed as successful by — xaosflux ^Talk at 23:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

Aoidh (talk · contribs) – Greetings, all. Today Vanamonde93 and I are eager to nominate Aoidh, an editor here since 2010, to serve as an administrator. Over the past several months, Vanamonde93 and I had independently reached out to Aoidh, asking him to consider this possibility. But our convergence upon Aoidh was hardly a coincidence: we had both observed in Aoidh that peculiar combination of versatility and equanimity which makes for a great administrator. Indeed, he has done much more good for the site than I have, and over a wider range of areas, and all that in less time! And his mistakes, which are on the whole quite infrequent, clearly reveal his humility and conscientiousness. Now, when I had first contacted Aoidh (in August 2022), I had expressed my main concern over his résumé: an editorial gap ending in May 2022 (not that I should be one to complain about editorial gaps!). But after 9 consecutive months of fruitful contributing, I can no longer hold even that against him. I think we would be remiss to not to trust Aoidh with the tools corresponding to his character and experience; so please join Vanamonde93 and I in recommending Aoidh for adminship. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

I am a frequent closer at AfD, where Aoidh came to my attention as an editor whose comments are always carefully considered. Upon investigation I found a well-rounded user who can make productive use of the admin toolset. Aoidh has a history of solid contribution at AfD, where his comments have often helped shaped consensus. His participation there also shows an ability to self-reflect and re-examine evidence, a key trait in a successful admin. In conversation with me Aoidh made the wise observation that AfD is more in need of participants than closers: nonetheless, giving a frequent participants the ability to close discussions is a good thing, as users like Aoidh are best placed to see when discussions have run their course and can be closed. Aoidh has also found time to patrol recent changes, with nearly 700 reports to AIV, RFPP, and ANEW combined. And he's shown he's comfortable with content work, having accumulated six GAs and at least 25 DYK credits in a variety of areas. Since he returned to full-time activity after a lengthy hiatus, I believe he will be a clear net positive with the tools, and I hope you will join me in supporting him. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and sincerely thank the nominators for the kind words. I also can attest that I have never edited Wikipedia for pay or compensation of any kind, and the only other account I have edited with is User:Aoidh (Away). This account was known as User:SudoGhost and I accidently made a single edit under that name after the name change because I switched from Commons to en.wiki and didn't notice it logged me into en.wiki as SudoGhost (name changes weren't universal at the time). - Aoidh (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: The spark of interest was lit when Arbitrarily0 asked me about it on my talk page. It's been in the back of my mind since then and I've read every admin/RfA essay I could get my hands on. When I then came across Signpost article called “Admins wanted on English Wikipedia” I felt I should volunteer to help, because I do genuinely enjoy helping, especially with the clearing out of backlogs (more on that in my second answer). What interests me specifically with being an administrator would be working in areas such as AIV, RFPP, and AN3. I feel that AfD needs more participants than closers at the moment, but I wouldn't be opposed to helping close such discussions when there's a backlog. I have also been learning the process of promoting DYK hooks and while I'm still very much in the learning stages of that process, I would like to eventually be able to help with the admin side of DYK once I have more experience in that area.

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

A: I'm very happy with the articles I've created such as Leafpad and Gwinnett Environmental & Heritage Center, and articles I've expanded such as Buford, Georgia and Ball Ground, Georgia, but I think my “best” contributions are the anti-vandalism/spam work I've done over the years, especially reverting the subtle, purposefully incorrect additions (hoaxing vandalism) and spam. I was also one of the editors who took part in the drive to take Category:Biography articles without living parameter down from 10,000+ entries to 0 and I still keep an eye on it and empty it out from time to time. I've also cleared out Category:Unassessed Buddhism articles and Category:Unknown-importance Buddhism articles from however many thousands of entries they had (and the same with the WikiProject Linux counterparts), and while those categories aren't very front-facing, I do feel clearing out things like that and being able to have a better picture of what needs addressing does matter. I've also created some templates that are used in Twinkle and other tools for warning editors that tend to have a focus on being less WP:BITEy, such as Template:Uw-ewsoft, Template:Uw-notvand, and Template:Uw-middlepost.

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: When I first started editing Wikipedia I had very thin skin. For example, in 2012 an editor called me a “grammar nazi” and I went to go straight to AN/I and was unhappy that my grievance was not handled in the way I wanted. It was not an overnight thing, but the way I've dealt with that is just to come to the understanding that editors are going to disagree, and they may say things you don't like, but it really is better to just focus on the content than to make a big deal out of a single less-than-ideal comment. A much more recent example of a stressful conflict is when I got into an edit-war over (ironically) Template:Uw-ewsoft. In short, there was a misunderstanding about content added to the template. When I realized that I was the one in the wrong and realized that I was edit warring I self-reverted and apologized to the other editor. What I took away from that is that it's critically important to stop and get the whole picture before hitting undo, even if you think you know what's going on, and if they're referring to something you don't fully understand, to get a full understanding of it first.

---

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 questions from Dreamy Jazz

4. Thanks for going for RfA. Feel free to skip my questions if you desire.

Would you consider being open to recall?

A: This is the one question I was expecting so I've already given it a lot of thought. The recall process set forth at User:Worm That Turned/Recall process is reasonable and I would be open to recall under that criteria. - Aoidh (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

5. An editor makes 4 reverts on an article to remove unsourced controversial allegations about a living person and a different editor has made 4 reverts to re-introduce this information. One of the editors brings this situation to WP:AN3. You decide to look at this report in an administrative capacity. What would you do in this case?

A: In a situation like this the details affect how best to approach it. The WP:BLP policy's position of unsourced controversial information is very important, so the highest priority would be to protect the BLP article in that regard. Were they warned about 3RR/EW or should they have reasonably known about it? Whether there is an ongoing discussion at the talk page and/or WP:BLPN would factor into how it should best be handled, but depending on the content itself the edits removing the unsourced information might be considered an exemption under WP:3RRNO #7, so that should be taken into consideration as well. If there's an ongoing discussion and depending on the level of activity on the page itself it might be best to either protect the page or WP:PBLOCK one or both of the editors to allow discussion to continue. If that doesn't seem feasible and the editor adding the unsourced information isn't discussing anything, a block of some kind would likely be warranted. However, making sure the article remains WP:BLP-compliant is paramount, and making sure that the edit-warring does not continue is part of that. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Dolotta

6. Of the places you plan to work in as an administrator, what area do you have the least experience in?

A: I did touch on this above, but I do eventually hope to use the administrative tools in the DYK area, but I am presently far from experienced in that area (this aside there are still many practices that aren't necessarily documented). Even if I become an administrator I fully intend to get a much better grasp on the DYK prep/promotion process before even thinking about using the administrative tools in that area. As for administrative actions I'd use sooner, possibly AN3, since WP:PBLOCK is a relatively new thing that I have limited experience with, and partially blocking is a newer thing that I'd have to remember to consider when reviewing reports. - Aoidh (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Robert McClenon

7. What experience do you have with resolution of disputes or conflicts on Wikipedia?

A: I have fulfilled a small number of WP:3O requests but I'm certainly not the most active editor in that area by any means. I do however think it's important that outside editors be available to provide input in a dispute when requested. - Aoidh (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from EchidnaLives

8. If you could change anything about the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, what you change?

A: I know it's a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but Wikipedia:Red link used to say the following: "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided, particularly when the name is used in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual. Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name." This wording was replaced a few years ago with WP:REDBIO, which allows such red links and places the onus of checking incoming links on the editor who creates the page with that name, something they may not know to do. I wasn't aware of the discussion and didn't notice the change right away, but I don't necessarily agree with that change; I'm not a fan of the idea of "They were murdered by John Murderer" being placed in an article and someone else coming along and creating an article about an artist with that same name, and now when you click that link in the sentence it seems like the artist committed that crime. If it were entirely up to me (I'm glad it's not, consensus is important) I would restore the previous wording and expectation so that potential WP:BLP issues with incoming links could be avoided more easily. - Aoidh (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Crazynas

9. This is a follow up to your answer to Q3. This edit summary seems pretty clear in indicating an established consensus. I'm curious (and I realize it was a while ago) What was going through your head before you decided to undo it again? And what changed in the six minutes before you reverted yourself? Does the fact (as you state in answering the second question) that you created the template have any bearing on your reactions in the dispute?

A: In my apology to the editor I do explain my thought process, essentially I thought that initially they were referring to the ongoing discussion that I had started that was currently on the talk page. I didn't realize that the wikilink in this diff wasn't a link to the talk page itself but a link to an archived discussion. If I'm remembering correctly, I was looking at their edit summary going "discussed extensively"? I thought "There's a discussion but it's not extensive" and clicked on their link as a shortcut to take me back to the talk page only to find that it took me to an entirely different discussion that had already happened, and that I had erred. That I created the template didn't concern me so much as the fact that it was a page with few watchers but frequent use through Twinkle. Unless the page is specifically in my user namespace then I have no expectation that it will be unchanged or unaltered (and even then there are situations where edits from others might happen). I'm happy to have created the template because it fulfilled a need, and while I disagreed with the changes, they didn't remove the solution to that need so that certainly wasn't the issue. - Aoidh (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Hipocrite (talk)

10. You stated you’ve given “recall” a lot of thought. I have as well. Given that your proposed criteria allows for a majority vote, is it specifically designed to prevent accountability, or is that an accidental side effect? For instance, if 400 editors sign a petition detailing specifically how you are abusing tools, but 401 say “nice guy, would like him to owe me a favor,” your criteria aren’t not met. Still further, since no recall criteria can ever be binding, how can we trust that you are actually open to recall, and not just playing to the crowd, especially given that people who oppose you are indef banned for their opposes?

A: The concept of recall in all its current forms are an imperfect solution to a real problem, but in RfAs and elsewhere it seems to be the most-frequently used example of an attempt at ongoing accountability for administrators outside of ArbCom. There are issues with each method of recall that I've seen, but I do believe that if an administrator does something egregious enough to warrant a recall process that having some editors that they are on friendly terms with will not offset the very real concerns from other editors. I also think it can be skewed by off-wiki canvassing towards one way or the other so I agree there are concerns there, but this looks to be the best system in place for a recall and if initiated would ideally properly reflect whether the concerns raised warranted a desysop. That's my hope, at least. As for playing the crowd, I've seen RfAs where nominators suggest they are not open to recall and a few editors oppose on those grounds, but I haven't seen an RfA where those opposes were enough to tip the scales in a serious way, so saying I'd be open to recall dishonestly wouldn't be worth it, not at the cost of my integrity. Further, if a recall process was initiated and succeeded, and I were to suddenly go "Well its non-binding so I'm ignoring those results" that would completely erode any trust the community had in me as an administrator, and the entire point of being an administrator is because there is an element of trust there. I could go on all day about my honesty but those are just words that any one can say so instead I'll point you to the best assurance I can: when I mess up, I make a point to (1) figure out what I did wrong, (2) fix the mistake, and (3) make sure it doesn't happen again. If you look at my contribs or ask other editors they will tell you that is my MO when I have erred. If a recall succeeded, it means I have made a serious mistake that other editors are seeking accountability for, and I have to fix the issue. Dodging accountability isn't who I am and isn't part of how I edit Wikipedia. If you don't mind, I'll answer the indef banned/oppose comment below since it ties in to that. - Aoidh (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Rosguill

11. Since as of this writing you've received one oppose directly taking issue with your lack of comment regarding Synotia's oppose and subsequent drama in absentia, would you like to give an opinion regarding expected decorum regarding opposes at RfA, either in general or with specific respect to examples from this RfA?

A: Thank you so much for asking this question. Before I started this RfA I was given advice (not from the admins that nominated me) to not respond to any comment, oppose, support, or even off-topic, unless there was a question directly asked of me. This was in the interest of avoiding unnecessary drama and to keep it as professional as possible. Maybe that's not the best way of doing that in hindsight but I have looked at past RfAs where the noms were responding to individual opposes for example, and it did not go well. I have been watching the Synotia situation unfold with a great deal of discomfort. For one thing, I'm just happy to (currently) be out of the discretionary range (or worse), so the difference between 100% and 99% means nothing to me. It's at best an ego boost that I don't need. Synotia obviously shouldn't have been blocked, and their comments should not be stricken. Their comments will be weighed accordingly when it gets to that point, and in my mind that's as far as that needs to go in this particular RfA. If their non-candidate-based opposes are a pattern across multiple RfAs (I don't know if that's the case) then that can be discussed as a potential issue, but not here. Concerning decorum regarding opposes at RfA, I do have concerns about how supports make their comment and move on, but the opposes receive significant pushback in a very disproportionate way. Clarifying questions or a short comment to their oppose comments is one thing, but oppose comments turning into these large threads of that nature would make some hesitate to even make an oppose comment, and I don't think someone should become an admin simply because editors didn't want the hassle of how their oppose comments would be addressed. Oppose comments also often have insightful feedback and critiques that are perfectly valid that should be considered by the nominator whether their nom is successful or not. - Aoidh (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Genome42

12. We desperately need new administrators with expertise in the sciences in order to help resolve disputes over scientific facts and scientific consensus. I'm not convinced that we need more administrators who are not knowledgeable about science and technology. Do you have any experience in any area of science?

A: Unfortunately my answer is that I am not an expert in that area. My knowledge of science is mostly limited to what you would learn in high school and college (without pursuing a science degree). - Aoidh (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from The void century

13. Can you expand on your views about wp:civil and what behavior you'd consider worthy of ANI? The void century (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

A: Civility is critical on this project, so much so that it is WP:5P4, the fourth of Wikipedia's five fundamental principals. Without civility this project wouldn't work. What I said in Q3 about "thin skin" I meant that in the past I would allow a single uncivil comment to derail a consensus-building discussion; basically what WP:FOC hopes to avoid. I used the AN/I diff in Q3 in part because I couldn't find a diff of the scenario I just described. As far as being "worthy of ANI", I think there's two ways to read that so I'll answer both. Worthy of bringing it to AN/I? Evidence of the problem the form of a diff or diffs and preferably an attempt to discuss the issue with the editor beforehand is all I would reasonably expect to make it worth bringing it to AN/I. It may not be actionable in the way the editor wants if it's a single diff depending on the circumstances; maybe it's an unfortunate one-off situation where things got too heated and they said something they shouldn't have. A word or warning to that editor might be warranted but it depends on the circumstances and what was said as to exactly what would be done, but it's certainly "worthy of ANI" in that scenario even if it doesn't result in more serious action being taken to resolve it. Likely to be actionable at AN/I in the form of block, ban, topic ban, or other? That would probably either need a series of diffs showing an ongoing pattern of incivility, or a diff showing an egregious comment that crosses the line past incivility and straight into the deep end of WP:NPA such that it is clearly unconscionable and unacceptable in a way that requires immediate action. It's happened plenty of times, and isn't tolerated. To be clear, my thin-skin comment was directed at myself and myself alone, the advice I would give to a new editor would be that if they feel that incivility is occurring on a talk page, to continue to focus on the content on that talk page while also bringing up the incivility at a more appropriate venue such as WP:ANI or with an administrator. - Aoidh (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from DarklitShadow

14. The use of OpenAI is becoming common enough to warrant discussion on Wikipedia. I have added my thoughts on this topic. What is your opinion on the usage of OpenAI assisted editing? (I'm specifically asking about your opinion(s) on OpenAI as an editing aid.)

A: I have seen things about OpenAI that concern me (and I'm referring to things in general that use the OpenAI API, not just ChatGPT). This technology is not without its flaws, often in ways that strike me as bizarre. It comes across to me as a novel thing that has potential, but not immediate applicability for all things because its potential has not yet been fully realized and is unreliable in many ways. I could see a use where someone has trouble figuring out how to best write a section of prose in an article, having OpenAI write an example, and using that as inspiration to help guide their own writing, but I would think it highly unwise to rely on or trust that the output is reliable and needs no spot-checking or to copy-paste its output into articles. While OpenAI itself says it does not copyright the output of its API, there are still potential legal/copyright concerns surrounding it. Between the fabrications it outputs and the ongoing legal concerns, I think it best to let the dust settle a bit so that we would have a more informed discussion about its use on Wikipedia, but I don't think reliance on it is ideal at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Aoidh: Aoidh (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Aoidh can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support, naturally, as co-nominator. My first time being first :) Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
2. I meant to ask you about this but forgot to… Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Good content work, good demeanor, it’s a yes from me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

   I totally agree with you on that Iszik Newton (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

4. Support; After reviewing the users edits, history, and answers to above questions, I see no reason not to support. Illusion Flame (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Support - I have collaborated on many articles over many years with this editor and, without any reservations, I think he would make an excellent admin. - Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
6. Salvio ^giuliano 21:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
7. Support for their calm and sincere statements. --Egeymi (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
8. Support alone for the thoughtful answer to Q3. Learning from one's mistakes, recognizing and not repeating them is an admirable trait. The fact they did so and have used it to help with disputes later on tells me they have the mentality to serv well as an admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
9. Of course, will be a great administrator! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
10. Support as one of the editors who helped to get Category:Biography articles without living parameter down to 0 a while back, I have interacted with this user before. I trust the nominators and their answers are well written / thought out. Here's to (hopefully) the first successful RfA of 2023! Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

    That's a grim statistic that I hadn't kept track of...breaking that streak would be quite nice! Vanamonde (Talk) 21:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

11. Delighted to support. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
12. Support Will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
13. Support omg Aoidh. SWinxy (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
14. Support: has clearly thought out answers to questions and has made substantial contributions to both content creation and anti-vandalism work. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
15. Support I wasn't expecting you to run anytime soon. I'm glad you are though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
16. Support! Tails Wx 22:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
17. Support Gusfriend (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
18. Support as co-nominator. Thank you for your openness to adminship. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
19. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
20. — hako9 (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
21. Support. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
22. Support -- Absolutely no qualms from me. -- Dolotta (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
23. I've seen Aoidh's name around for nearly 10 years now and am glad that he's finally running for adminship. In my opinion, he's a good fit for the tools. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
24. Support Excellent candidate for the mop for all of the reasons enumerated by the nominators.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
25. Support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
26. Support no concerns here – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
27. support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
28. Support No concerns from me. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 23:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
29. Support Good luck, Aoidh! --Vacant0 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
30. Yup Andre🚐 23:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
31. Support I have no concerns —Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 23:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
32. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
33. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
34. Support A quick scan through some of Aoidh's talk pages show me what I like to see in an admin: helpful, rational, willing to admit when he's goofed, and calm (even when he's talking with someone who...isn't.) Joyous! | Talk 23:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
35. Support - No concerns at this time, and appreciate the answers to the questions so far. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
36. Support. Seen him around, entrust him with admin tools. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 00:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
37. Support, seems good. SVcode(Talk) 00:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
38. Support I've seen Aiodh around, and like what I've seen. Will make a fine admin. Miniapolis 00:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
39. Support – looks to be an excellent candidate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
40. Support - I don't see why not. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
41. Support. Excellent candidate with solid AfD, anti-vandalism, and content experience; no concerns. VickKiang (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
42. Support. Beccaynr (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
43. Support notwithstanding that I have had no interaction with the candidate, and I have some serious reservations. As the candidate admits, their edit history confirms that early on, they had a very short fuse, and there are dozens of edit summaries that can most charitably be characterized as snippy, less so as bitey, and downright abusive if not so charitably inclined. But there's little of that more recently, so perhaps they'd matured. My impression of their furious pace of editing the last year plus seems mostly gnomish, with little content added, not that gnomes aren't needed here. Which takes me to my third point, that I see little need for the tools given what they actually work on. The answer to question #1, when you read between the lines, is really "I want to be able to block people". Frankly, that seems to be the subcontext of many successful RFAs, so that's not sufficient reason to oppose. I just wish that candidates would be honest and forthright about it. I've seen lots of obfuscation by candidates about that with convoluted but transparent explanations about all the things that they need the tool for; when promoted they do virtually nothing with the mop but go on a blocking binge. I expect the same in this case, but I'm supporting anyway.Banks Irk (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

    This reads more like an Oppose than a Support. Are you scared to post under Oppose? If so, I don't blame you. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC).

44. Support notwithstanding nothing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
45. Support 👍 X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 02:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
46. Support NOBIGDEAL, not a jerk. HouseBlaster^talk 04:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
47. Support Looking good. Sheep (talk • he/him) 04:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
48. Support NOBIGDEAL, no issues in the past few years. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
49. Support: NOBIGDEAL, net positive, why not? Hey man im josh (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
50. Support --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
51. Support: no reason not to. Bestagon ⬡ 04:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
52. Support – no concerns. –FlyingAce^✈hello 05:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
53. Support: Meets my criteria. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 05:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
54. Support. I thought you already were an admin and was wondering when you were going to finally promote a DYK set to Queue, because at the rate we are going, we will burn out the two admins who have taken on a disproportionate load over the past few months. The need for admins who are willing to perform specialist tasks is real, and I can't wait until you can help in a broader capacity. I have seen you run toward difficult topics that other editors would shy away from; volunteer for obscure tasks when few other editors were willing to; make massive mistakes, own up to them quickly, and fix them; check main page candidates meticulously; ask for feedback and input when you have been unsure; but also act decisively and confidently on more familiar territory at AfD. In my book, knowing what you don't know and maintaining respect for other editors even when you disagree are important qualities in an admin, and I can say firsthand that even that one time we disagreed, I did think you were being a bit heavy handed, but I never thought you were being disrespectful or mean, and I learned things from you. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
55. Support —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
56. Oppose for A3, in which the candidate breaks the time-honored RfA tradition of insisting that you are utterly infallible and crossing your fingers no one calls you on it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

    For those who, like me, don't get jokes: above is support !vote, not oppose. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 09:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

57. Support. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 09:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
58. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
59. Support - I have encountered this thoughtful editor at AfD and appreciated his contributions there. Elinruby (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
60. Support No issues -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
61. Support No issues Thingofme (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
62. Support Volten001 ^☎ 10:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
63. Support Looks good to me. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 11:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
64. Support, no problems here. Graham87 11:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
65. Support per the excellent nomination statements provided by Arbitrarily0 and Vanamonde93. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
66. Why not? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
67. Fantastic, Challenging content creation, a wealth of relevant experience and a good temperament. Thank you for standing! — Bilorv (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
68. Interesting; i remember the candidate's previous account/name quite well, and would definitely have expected to oppose had that account ever come here, and yet...yet here i am happily in this section of the Request, brought here by the nomination statements, my looking around his contributions, his answer to Q3 (this link in particular), and the opportunity to see our admin corps grow by one more quality member. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 13:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
69. Support, we can't go wrong with an admin whose name is easily recognizable, even if you can't pronounce it. Besides, it is customary for the community to elect admins who work quietly in the background, and don't cause a fuss. However, to Aoidh's credit - GAs!! Yay!! Atsme 💬 📧 13:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
70. Support we need more active admins. Lightoil (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
71. Support Everything seems good. Wishing good luck! Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 14:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
72. Support- I have a generally good impression of this editor, one reinforced upon further review, and feel confident they will make a good administrator. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
73. Support No red or yellow flags that I could find. Looks like they have a clue and a history of positive contributions. G2G. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
74. Support Clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
75. Support, demonstrates a need and appears to have a clue -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
76. — Trey Maturin™ 16:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
77. Support. From my experience with Aoidh in AfDs, they make really good arguments. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
78. Support I am not sure but we have interacted before, a good one probably and every other thing seems fine. you seem to be supporting and a tireless contributor. Also you are getting a good amount of support so yeah it pretty much guarantee your Adminship. Good luck. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
79. Support Solid contributions, unlikely to abuse the tools or delete the Main Page. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
80. Support Excellent candidate, no concerns. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
81. Support --DB1729^talk 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
82. Support, well deserving of the tools. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
83. Support – Popo Dameron talk 22:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
84. Support - Trust nominators, no concerns, net positive. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 23:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
85. Support because Vanamonde93 is the first support. Oh yeah, and because of Q3, nomination statements, positive intended use of tools, edit history, CLUE, and very strong history of helpfulness/NOTJERKiness for an uninterrupted and significant length of time. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
86. Support per Q6 :) solid candidate, looking forward to seeing them get some more hours in in DYK's backrooms! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
87. EpicPupper (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
88. Support Excellent contributor. Access to the admin tools will allow them increased abilities to improve the encyclopedia. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
89. Support - They seem like a trustworthy and competent editor with a good disposition and temperment. I think they will make an excellent admin. Netherzone (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
90. Support Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
91. Support. Looks good to me. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
92. Support Trustworthy candidate who will benefit the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 05:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
93. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 05:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
94. Support --TadejM ^{my talk} 06:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
95. Support. Misunderstandings, such as the one I had with Aoidh referenced in A3, are inevitable from time to time on a shared project. Clearing up the issue and bouncing back to collaborate productively, as then happened in that case, is exactly the sort of behavior I'd expect from an editor ready for adminship. Overall, I'm seeing no red flags, and it seems like they'd have clear use for the tools, so pleased to offer my support. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
96. Support Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
97. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 07:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
98. Support. From all indications Aoidh is a very good candidate! Need more like him! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
99. Support Why not? -FASTILY 09:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

    Not the best sentence to say before voting. Synotia (moan) 18:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

    @Synotia: see WP:Why not? -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

100. Support. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
101. Support Cabayi (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
102. Support – Ammarpad (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
103. Support, has clue. --Mvqr (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
104. Support -- LGTM, Drummingman (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
105. Support Zsinj^Talk 15:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
106. Support -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
107. Support thank you for volunteering ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
108. Support. Seen you around. Trusted noms. Thank you for running. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
109. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
110. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 16:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
111. Support Good candidate. Emptying those maintenance categories is particularly laudable. More folk would ideally work on them but it is thankless work but essential. scope_creep^Talk 16:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
112. Support Not enough admins currently, and maintenace help always appreciated. Have seen around, no concerns. Agree with Novem Linguae; thanks for taking the risk of running. Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
113. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
114. Support Legoktm (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
115. Support I've never !voted in an RfA and I've never encountered this particular editor so I looked over their contributions, talk page, logs, etc. They appear to meet the expectations laid out at WP:MRFA and clearly they have a WP:CLUE. They regularly use edit summaries and regularly cites relevant policies and guidelines when making edits. They appear to care about archiving sources and combatting link rot. They are knowledgeable enough to use multiple automated tools and scripts. They have contributed to DYK on a few different occasions. They've had articles make it through the AfC process and very few of the pages they've created were deleted. They've gotten multiple articles to GA status. They've received multiple barnstars on their talk page and the interactions I'm seeing with other editors appear to all be constructive. Their general stats such as their live edits versus deleted edits look good. Their AfD stats are outstanding in that they almost always conform to community consensus. Based on the spot checking I've done, Aoidh appears to be a cautious, level-headed, and thoughtful editor. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
116. Supportcharming nomination and no worries with someone who cleanup a buddhist category.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
117. Support Terasail^[✉️] 21:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
118. Support beyond extremely competent editing, the variety and quality in their content creation is a good sign that this editor will make a well-rounded admin. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
119. Support no concerns. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
120. Support for no reason other than to counteract the hostage-taking opposition vote. Largoplazo (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

     Supporting a candidate "for no reason" because one dislikes an opposition vote is something. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

121. Support, looks like a great candidate for admin. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
122. Stephen 00:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
123. Support, I've been impressed when I've encountered him at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
124. Support I read through the RFA and I checked your contributions. You are the right editor for the job. I am active in DYK as a reviewer, contributor, and prep promotor. It is a fun area with many editors who are eager to help. I am so glad that I discovered it. I welcome you into the best area of the project! Bruxton (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
125. Support This is surprisingly, the first time I've cast a !vote at RFA. However, the person requesting is incredibly experienced and competent, and why not? Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 02:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
126. Support thanks for volunteering your time with Wikipedia jengod (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
127. Support Impressed by what I've seen of them on patrol. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
128. Support Thanks for the detailed answer to my question. No concerns from me, thanks for putting your name forward! echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
129. Support Sennecaster (Chat) 03:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
130. Support, have seen many positive contributions. CMD (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
131. Support - Well qualified. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
132. Support. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
133. Support, with enthusiasm. I'm a fan of their level-headed approach to contentious talk page disputes and their well-reasoned third opinions. More DYK admins are needed, and I appreciate Aoidh's determination to beef up their experience in that area before using the tools. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
134. Support Solid editing history. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
135. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 06:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
136. Support - Whenever a long-time editor comes up for admin, I consider the old saying about the difference between having ten years of experience and having the same year of experience ten times. Looks like Aoidh has learned a lot over the years and continues to grow as an editor. I am also heartened by LindsayH's evaluation. So, sudo usermod -aG sysop Aoidh. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
137. Aye. No such user (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
138. Support - We need more admins. FOARP (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
139. Support - Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
140. Support, no concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk • contribs)
141. Support, editor appears to be a good addition, don't see any problems that I really think are earthshattering or worth really bringing up again. Pear 2.0 (say hi!)
142. Support - Appears to be a positive contributor to the project, a trustworthy user with a good temperament who would benefit from access to admin tools. WJ94 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
143. Support The fact that after scrutiny by many, the only opposing reason about them so far was for saying "don't sweat the small stuff" clinched it for me.  :-) North8000 (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
144. The nomination statements present the type of editor I like to support at RfA, they have a great depth of experience, and their answers show the right disposition. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
145. Support – good judgement, experienced enough, civil etc. I have encountered this editor several times by now and they are fantastic. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 16:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
146. Support I think the candidate will make a fine addition to the admin corps. They are a content creator and I think they will protect content and content creators. Lightburst (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
147. Support Per noms.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
148. Support per me. We need more admins to take care of so many things. I am not ready to take this load, and I'd appreciate Aoidh taking it. Per so many others, and why not? ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
149. Everyone makes mistakes, they only becomes errors when you refuse to acknowledge or correct them and you seem ready willing an able to do that. Best of luck! Crazynas ^t 20:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
150. Seems qualified and no red flags I'm aware of.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
151. Support Per noms, without hesitation. BD2412 T 21:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
152. Support All good — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
153. Support Great to see such a good exemplar of community membership. Wonderful work with the Buddhism category in particular! - 25Means 23:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
154. Support. I haven't interacted much with the candidate, that I remember, but a nomination from Vanamonde counts for a lot for me. I think the answers to questions show a lot of good judgment and maturity in demeanor, and I believe that the candidate has conducted themselves well during the RfA process. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
155. Support per the excellent answer to Q3. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
156. Support Per noms. I remember this user mainly from AfD, and the impression is quite positive. —Alalch E. 23:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
157. I don't see anything to make me believe that this editor will abuse the tools, if granted. SQL^{Query Me!} 00:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
158. Support generally, and particularly because of the answer to Q11. Schazjmd (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
159. Support. Temperment and judgement are fine. Thanks for volunteering to wield the mop. Loopy30 (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
160. Support. A quite level head, in my experience. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
161. Support We haven't interacted much, but I was impressed by his thoughtful responses, especially to Q3 and Q11. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 02:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
162. Support, making this change is sensible. Dekimasuよ! 03:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
163. Support No concerns. Acroterion (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
164. Support, per the answer to Q11. Vadder (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
165. Support looks fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 06:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
166. Support - no concerns. Thanks for offering to help. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
167. Support — Looks legit. Musashi1600 (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
168. —Kusma (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
169. Nihil obstat. Courcelles (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
170. Haven't seen any good reason to oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
171. Support - based on review. Kierzek (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
172. Support based on discernible sensibility. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
173. Support Good editor who is willing to take up the mop; great response to questoin 11. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
174. Support. Looking at this editor's contributions (particularly in project namespace) assures me that they're a good fit for the tools, but I mainly want to add that I also approve of the answer to Q11. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
175. Support No concerns. Denisarona (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
176. Support - per Chess. nableezy - 17:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
177. Support -- per SQL, no concerns. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
178. Support as my default option, as I do not remember having interacted with the candidate, and have no reason not to support. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
179. Support has clue, not a jerk, no big deal. Opposes have zero sway — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 21:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
180. Support Clearly qualified. From my interactions with Aiodh (mostly on Discord) I've found them to have good judgement and in general the sort of temperament I would expect from an administrator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
181. Support, this editor has always impressed me with their thoughtfulness. I find the oppose statements entirely unconvincing; like it or not, admins do need a pretty thick skin. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
182. Support Lack of scientific knowledge concerned me a bit. The answer to my question eliminated those concerns. DarklitShadow (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
183. Not a jerk. Has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
184. Support -- No concerns. The candidate is reasonable and I believe they will be a helpful administrator. Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
185. Support Clearly qualified. The void century (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
186. Support - Proven capability over a long period of time MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
187. Support Heck yeah! Seems like a good contributor. We need more admins now than ever. You have my support. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
188. Support Clearly a good candidate. As an ex-administrator, who retired because he was getting too old, may I say that we are making becoming an admin too difficult. We might finish up with not enough admins. --Bduke (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

     Agreed. I wonder how stressful it is to be an administrator these days. 900 admins dealing with 45,000,000 users. Must be a lot. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

189. Support. I only know Aoidh's participation at AfD. Hisresponses demonstrate equanimity, and thoughtful, reasoned arguments — qualities not only of a good contributor, but also of a well-qualified admin. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
190. Support. Ample evidence of competence. Maproom (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
191. Support. Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
192. Support. good luck! :) — sparklism ^hey! 09:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
193. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
194. Support - Sufficiently qualified. On a not directly related note, while I can sort of understand some people's urge to argue with the few oppose voters, it is probably one of the least productive ways one can spend their time, and nothing would happen if those opposes were ignored. It really doesn't matter whether the candidate passes with 100% or "merely" 98% support.--Staberinde (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
195. Support. Seems like a good egg, I much appreciate the answer to question 11. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
196. Support per above noms and commentaries, answers look good and constructive.--A09 (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
197. Support --jni^{(talk)(delete)} 11:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
198. Support I wanted to stay out of this debate because I've done a bit of clerking and thought it best I avoid giving an opinion, however I can't avoid endorsing the answer to Q13 : "Clarifying questions or a short comment to their oppose comments is one thing, but oppose comments turning into these large threads of that nature would make some hesitate to even make an oppose comment, and I don't think someone should become an admin simply because editors didn't want the hassle of how their oppose comments would be addressed." It's one of those bizarre things in life that a controversial candidate will get opposition that mostly passes without comment, but a good candidate will generate pages and pages of hot responses over a single oppose. As for how trustworthy and qualified this user is to use the admin toolset, pretty much everyone above has already said everything I need to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
199. Weakest of weak Oppose due to the potential for inadvertently causing serious harm or death to random wiki users (see off–topic question in general comments below regarding name pronunciation), fully Support for any other reasons.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
200. Support. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
201. Support. Good track record of dealing with vandalism and reverting edits where necessary. SpookiePuppy (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
202. Support Qualified, even-tempered, and good article work. ceranthor 17:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
203. Support I've seen this user's edits here and there and have no concerns. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
204. I fully support! I looked at the user's contributions and saw the Q&A and I am impressed. You have my 100% support! Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 00:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
205. Support - sound history, sound practices, good judgement; worthy of the Mop-and-Bucket. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
206. Support. Kind of reluctant, because I greatly prefer candidates who offer recallability and a reasonable method for triggering and doing it. But, I mean the guy is great. I'll eat my hat if candidate ever justifies recall. So, as practical matter, and no point is beating a dead horse, support Looks like he would be a good AfD closer which occassionaly we do get bad results IMO. I trust the candidate; I trust the candidate to be a fine admin. I trust everybody. But I still cut the cards, you know? It's just good practice. OL I'll pipe down now, support, and godspeed. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
207. Support. Looks good. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
208. Support His contributions speak for themselves. Nocturnal781 (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
209. Support. I've had some editorial disagreement with this editor in the past, but I find myself impressed with the honest sounding answers they have given here. The experience they have is worthy of holding the tools. Huggums537 (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
210. Support. Reading the nominee's answers gives me a high degree of confidence that they will be an excellent administrator. The opposes are unconvincing and unfortunate. Cullen328 (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
211. Support Civil, has clue. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
212. Support Very helpful and i have seen many edits that have helped the wiki Nagol0929 (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
213. Support, a strong candidate. Nsk92 (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
214. Support I don't see why not - we need more admins. If anyone is bold and confident enough to step up on the RFA and have no major problems they should be voted in. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
215. Support for sure. Stable, responsible, reasonable. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
216. Support. I've run across the candidate in the scope of editing, and I have no reservations about their ability to wield the mop. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
217. Support Seen around a fair bit, contributions and temperament look good. ^Complex/_Rational 20:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
218. Support I'll share the burden of eating User:Herostratus's hat if this editor ever becomes a net negative to Wikipedia. The nominee has had plenty of opportunity, and so far, so good. No fear they'll delete the mainpage. I agree with many others this candidate demonstrates reliability and good sense. Their answers help me understand their wiki view. Ready for the mop. BusterD (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
219. Support – No concerns. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
220. Support – Good editor.definite net positive.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
221. Support I have no negative feelings about this RFA. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 04:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
222. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
223. Support per noms ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
224. Support - I'm late to the party, apparently. casualdejekyll 16:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
225. Support no negative impressions and only positive ones so looks good. Skynxnex (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
226. Support per above, this candidate seems like they deserve the mop. Rollidan (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
227. support. my previous interactions with Aoidh have been favourable, and nothing in this rfa raises any serious concerns for me. dying (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
228. Support Excellent candidate. Curbon7 (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Nothing personal but I will systematically vote against any admin election as long as the system is not reformed with a direct procedure for desysopping like is the case for example on the French, Portuguese or Chinese Wikipedia, and some sort of term limit/revoting. --Synotia (moan) 17:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC) -

2. Oppose based on A3 (per User:Tamzin). The ANI thread against User:Tarc the candidate started in 2012 was justified imho. I would say calling someone a "Grammar Nazi" is a personal attack. "Wiki-Retardation" was certainly a questionable term he also used, and the same for referring to others as "yahoos". Sure, you (the candidate) were wrong in the dispute over the category, but you took away the wrong lesson here about behaviour. Your belief appears to be that you should've just grown a thicker skin and just ignore these mild conduct issues (not even a warning or trout for Tarc?)
   But if you look at Tarc's history on wiki, they're the perfect example of why you can't just ignore these mild civility issues hoping they won't spiral. Tarc only got worse over time, being mentioned by name by ArbCom in 2013 as engaging in "inflammatory and disruptive speech" over the Manning name dispute, being banned from transgender subjects. [1] Tarc continued being toxic on wiki (see their user talk page archive) until 2015 when they were indeffed by ArbCom for off wiki harassment. [2]
   As an administrator, you can judge conduct issues. You will be in a position where your words are very influential. If your advice to a new editor who is upset they were called a "grammar Nazi"/yahoo/other mild insults is to just grow thicker skin, you shouldn't be an admin. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose per above, and particularly the lack of any attempt to get oppose defenders to quit escalating (see talk page). Between the talk page discussion and AN/I discussion, they had plenty of opportunities to interject to try and de-escalate what eventually culminated in a (short) block for simply !voting against the mob. An admin not willing to speak up when they see something wrong isn't someone I'd want to be an admin. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Changed to Weak Oppose per answer to Rosguill's question —Locke Cole • t • c 23:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC) After further considering candidates response, moving to Neutral. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

   I've held off of responding to other inanities above, but RFA candidates are strongly discouraged from responding to !voters, and are routinely opposed for doing so. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, I suppose. And people wonder why RFA is considered an unpleasant environment. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

   I think this very much depends on the type of reply: arguing with an oppose voter? Yeah, very bad idea. Trying to curtail a mob mentality from spiraling into a (however brief) indef block? I'd admire that behavior. Quoting Elie Wiesel: We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

   Are you really trying to apply a quote from a holocaust survivor to this minor Wikipedia scuffle? It's not that serious. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

   @FormalDude: If you say so. I'm trying to give an insight to how I think editors should conduct themselves, especially editors looking to be administrators. You're more than welcome to miss that point and get hung up on your perceived misuse of a very good quote to live by... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

   And I'm just trying to give an insight to how I think editors should not distastefully throw around holocaust quotes so as not to imply that Wikipedia editing is anywhere near as important. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

   FormalDude, is my understanding that you believe the same quote should have different meanings in different situations that depend upon knowing if the quote came from a holocaust survivor or not? In other words, I'm trying to understand why it is you think this quote is so "distasteful". Is it because it came from a holocaust survivor? You called it a "holocaust quote", but I don't really understand what that is? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I kind of agree with Locke Cole that the quote is a very good one to live by that kinda makes sense here as it would in many other ordinary situations, and if someone had no idea the quote came from a holocaust survivor, then they would not have anything "distasteful" to compare it to so the fact we are even bringing that up at all is probably more distasteful than anything. Does that make sense? Huggums537 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

   The only person bringing up the holocaust here is you. And that is distasteful. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

   I didn't bring up the holocaust, but I think the whole thing was a big misunderstanding as I explained on my talk page. I was actually in favor of your quote and thought FormalDude made a mistake by bringing it up in the first place. Huggums537 (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

   Also, nobody has responded to my recent post there yet, so I think we should give each other the benefit of the doubt before jumping to any conclusions about what is distasteful. Huggums537 (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral per my struck comment above. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• Off-topic question for the candidate - how do you pronounce your username? Is it one syllable or two? —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  It is admittedly not an intuitive word to pronounce in English. I've got a userbox on my user page explaining the pronunciation but for those not familiar with IPA, if you kind of say something between "aye" and "oi" it's about like that and it is one syllable. - Aoidh (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks! IPA, regrettably, is Greek to me. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  We, Slavs, read everything (almost) as it's written, so I can't stop pronouncing it as /aojdx/, sorry./lh a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 09:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I...raised Texan now living on a Dutch island...swallowed my tongue when I tried to pronounce it. Second attempt sounded more like "oy vey"...but then, I also have to fake tying a cherry stem with my tongue. Atsme 💬 📧 13:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  ...and here I was pronouncing your username as wi∂. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• Thanks for the answers to my questions. You have my support even more than before . Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• Off-topic comment - I'll never forget that SudoGhost was the first editor to post a real message on my talkpage diff - an unwarranted warning in response to my sincere first edits on Zen, the topic most dear to me! Luckily, his mistake was soon resolved, and quickly followed by the first barnstar I received, also from them diff. Wishing them all the best with their nearby new responsibilities! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• I don't think it reaches the level of WP:POINT, but Q10 might be one of the most contrived questions I've seen at RfA. You could trivially flip the assigned arguments ("401 baselessly say meanie with tools", "400 point out they did nothing wrong") and conclude that it's biased against the hypothetical admin on trial. Never mind that a simple majority is a lower standard of agreement than we expect for pretty much any decision-making process on Wikipedia, from content to ARBCOM, that clear-cut cases of abuse of authority can be brought to ARBCOM for de-sysop, or that we rarely see 400 editors show up to a discussion, let alone all 400 to a side agreeing with each other. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree and have, for some time since that question or a variant of it has been regularly asked, thought that were i ever put in the starting gate for an RfA i would simply answer "mu". How can there be a "right" answer, or even a meaningful one, to such a question? As it's optional, i encourage the candidate to ignore it. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – For maybe ten years, RFA has been a toxic process, with particular hostility directed toward candidates who either didn't meet a standard set of criteria of content creation, or who had offended someone, or who were on someone's enemies list. The antidote to that toxicity is to stop being hostile to imperfect candidates. This RFA seems to illustrate an attempt to counter that toxicity by fighting fire with fire, and by being destructive to No voters. Neither attacking the occasional No voters nor blocking the occasional No voters will clean up the process. Now RFA is a toxic process for a candidate who isn't a content creator, and is a toxic process for an editor who casts an eccentric No vote. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  The process does not involve voting. That can be hard to remember, given the number of editors who believe that preceding the word with an exclamation point makes it a different word. One can only hope that bureaucrats, at least, understand that this is and never has been a democratic process. ~TPW 14:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  The process very much involves voting, which is pretty obvious just from looking at the fact that we keep track of percents here, and the outcome is almost always based on the percent of people who pick one option over the other. Compared to deletion processes, for example, RfA is significantly less of a !vote and significantly more just a vote. There's nuance. And besides, if it quacks like a vote... was there ever even a !vote? casualdejekyll 16:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps we haven't read the same requests for comment if that's what you think.~TPW 17:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• On-topic off-topic comment. We should eliminate RfAs. I propose a quarterly lottery, the loser winner of which is automatically promoted to admin. Any editor with 0 or fewer edits may buy a lottery ticket (see my Talk page for details as to price, etc.). An alternative proposal is for the crats to get together every quarter and use a ouija to determine who should be appointed that quarter. These sessions must be supervised by a functionary from the spirit world (these are usually appointed by the WMF, or World of Medium Functionaries). The details of the sessions shall not be disclosed; however, any clairvoyant editors (I believe we have three) may vibrate what occurred at WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  I notice you didn't specify whether the account with 0 edits needs to be blocked or not, so we could end up with a bunch of vandalism-only accounts whose only contribution is to trip the edit filter ten times. Well, I suppose it's a change. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'll take that as an endorse of the first proposal, thanks, Ritchie. In all changes to the RfA, uh, system, two editors constitutes a "community".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Bbb23, pretty interesting. This "outdated community" needs to be "updated", ouch.. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  (Not an expert in game theory, management, or related fields) Within a game theory-like approach, we explore different promotion strategies and we find, counterintuitively, that in order to avoid [the Peter principle] the best ways for improving the efficiency of a given organization are either to promote each time an agent at random or to promote randomly the best and the worst members in terms of competence (Pluchino, Rapisarda, and Garofalo 2010). The Peter principle probably doesn't apply at RFA, and to my knowledge, no organization actually follows Pluchino et. al.'s advice, but I thought you would enjoy noting that "use a ouijia" is simultaneously more and less of a joke than perhaps Bbb23'd anticipated. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am not participating in the process, but I need to thumb up this comment. I am likely to use it in some unrelated discussion in the near future. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (I typed it by hand). --Ouro (blah blah) 15:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think I read about this in middle school English class... casualdejekyll 16:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

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