Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tamzin

Tamzin

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (310/81/11); Scheduled to end 02:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

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

Co-nomination

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

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

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

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank Drmies and BDD for their nominations and their kindness, and accept those nominations (and forgive the lack of cetaceans). All necessary disclosures can be found at User:Tamzin/Disclosures and commitments. As a subsection of that page's accountability section, I've explained under what circumstances I would submit to a reconfirmation RfA. I thank the community for taking the time to consider my candidacy. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: I would like to give back to a project and community that have become a very important part of my life. Most of my projectspace activity is at RfD, where I am a regular participant and closer, and SPI, where I am a trainee clerk. As an admin I would be able to close RfDs as delete and block identified sockpuppets, and would be better-equipped to respond to SPIs involving deleted evidence or overlapping with other sorts of policy violation. (With four active non-admin clerks at the moment, often such cases sit waiting for attention significantly longer than others, even when all that is needed is "Yep, that's the same draft all right".) I would also like to help out in standard administrative work at AIV, RFPP, CAT:CSD, revdel requests, and AN(I), all of which I have a fair amount of experience with. Once I've had some time to get my sea legs as an admin, I'm also interested in working CAT:UNBLOCK and participating at AE.

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

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

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

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

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

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

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Barkeep49

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

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

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

Optional question from Volten001

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

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

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

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

Optional question from Nosebagbear

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

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

Optional question from RoySmith

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

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

Optional question from Colin M

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

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

Optional question from ArsenalGhanaPartey

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

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

Optional question from PerryPerryD

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

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

Optional question from Lkb335

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

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

Optional question from Liz

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

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

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

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

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

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

Optional question from GeoffreyT2000

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

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

Optional question from User:Ad Orientem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Optional question from User:Fakescientist8000

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

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

Optional question from 511KeV

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

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

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

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

Optional question from Andrew D.

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

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

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

Optional question from Sdrqaz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Optional question from Itcouldbepossible

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

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

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

Optional question from CactiStaccingCrane

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

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

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

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

Optional question from Mhawk10

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

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

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

Optional question from ProcrastinatingReader

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

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

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

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

Optional question from Paradise Chronicle

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

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

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

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

Optional question from 78.26

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

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

Optional question from North8000

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

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

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

Optional question from Ixtal

27. Would you recuse yourself from Requests for permissions?

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

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

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

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

Optional question from Rin

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

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

Optional question from theleekycauldron

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

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

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

Optional question from Mhawk10

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

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

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

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

Optional question from Q28

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

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

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Has my trust, support without question. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Support without hesitation. I'm happy to see this, but it's four years overdue! -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
13. Support - seems to have sufficient good sense and experience, and I've seen nothing to indicate they'd abuse the tools. Thanks for volunteering. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

14. Support Have had nothing but good interactions. Should make an excellent admin. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
15. Hands down. Nardog (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
16. Support Having seen Tamzin around, I tend to think of Tamzin as a thoughtful and conscientious editor. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
17. Support Long solid history of editing and interactions with others. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
18. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

19. Support - she already does a lot of admin-adjacent work and has a track record of thoughtful and valuable contributions in this capacity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
20. Support Thoughtful, experienced and competent. Would make a good admin. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
21. Support strongly. I've interacted with Tamzin frequently, and they're a classic admin without tools—highly competent, thoughtful, pleasant to be around, and overall deserving of the community's trust. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
22. Support has a need, not a jerk. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
23. (Editing to Weakest support23:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)) I found this by chance shortly before the transclusion, was ready to jump in! Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC) I jumped in after I found the page by chance the morning before transclusion. I don't know about our interaction, but as a lurker by habit, I have seen you a bunch, Tamzin, and believe you want the best for Wikipedia. Someone below pointed out I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter - and my instinct was to Oppose. And if this were just an RfA for someone I hadn't seen I'dve. But I believe you've done good, and more importantly, I believe in WP:1Q. I am an American who did not vote for Trump (either time), but I cannot stress how much I hate this statement. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
24. Enthusiastic support. Nothing but positive interactions. Checks all the boxes and then some. Will be a great fit. El_C 05:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
25. Support. Trusted user, need for the tools. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 05:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
26. Support - I'm happy to see this user asking for the bit. I'm familiar with their work, cluefulness, and demeanor. Would make a good admin! - tucoxn\^talk 05:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
27. Support completely. Tamzin would make a great admin. ––FormalDude talk 05:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
28. Tamzin is among the most thoughtful and eloquent editors I’ve had the pleasure of coming across. This is a no-brainer. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41. Support Yeah! Viewer⁷¹⁹/_Contribs! 09:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
42. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
43. Support She seems to be a bit of a worker bee which is a good thing in this day and age. I don't see anything that tells me she wouldn't make a fine admin and a welcome addition to the corps. scope_creep^Talk 10:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
44. Support - Use for tools, has my trust, fits what I expect from a candidate. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

53. Support - based on their SPI work I am happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 11:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
54. Support – very thoughtful responses to the questions so far and clear need for admin tools. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
55. Support Answered my question intelligently and either way, I believe she will make a great admin.Volten001 ^☎ 12:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
56. Support -- lomrjyo ^🇺🇦 12:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
57. When I saw this was Tamzin, obvs I thought, ah, the wannabe admin; I'll sit this out. but—but—when I realised this was &, who was fantastic many moons ago, then it was a dead cert. Didn't notice the years-long gap in editing in that time though. Hope it was life-upturning times! This is also, explicitly, per Drmies's nom. Cheers, SN54129 12:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

64. Support - I feel comfortable that they wouldn't abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
65. Support No qualms about Tamzin's suitability for the toolbox. Schazjmd (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
66. Support Welcome to the mop corps. Katie^talk 14:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
67. Complete Support Tamzin is a very trustable user to have the tools. They and other users helped me get through my sockpuppetry block. They show that they can handle the tools even while they weren't an administrator. Congratulations and thank you! SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 14:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
68. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

92. Support seen them around a lot, they would make an excellent admin. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 17:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
93. Support - A solid admin candidate with a broad range of skills, the right temperment and the need for tools. Great work clerking at SPI. A trustworthy member of the community and a pleasant, thoughtful presence. I have a lot of respect for her work here. I've been hoping she would run, so very glad to see this RfA. Netherzone (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
94. Support No issues as far as I'm concerned. Will wield the mop for good, rather than evil IMO.   Aloha27  talk 
95. Support - Happy to trust the judgement of old Adminosaurus Rex, aka "Doc Mice". But I've even read the questions and answers (as far as they've got) this time. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
96. Support. I am late to the part! I would've supported sooner had I known!! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

97. Support Great work at SPI and extremely strong noms (plus, who in their right mind, would dare oppose a Drmies/BDD nom!). --RegentsPark (comment) 18:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
98. Support Looks like a good choice. Happy (Slap me) 18:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
99. Support Clearly qualified. ceranthor 18:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
100. Support I have interacted with Tamzin quite a bit and have a high level of confidence that she'll be a good administrator. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108. Support. Regarding my question #7 above, I wasn't expecting anything sinister; I was vaguely aware of this, didn't know the details, and this seemed like an appropriate time to ask. In any case, my interaction with Tamzin has been mostly at SPI where they are a clerk trainee, and doing an excellent job at that. From time to time, they get to tell grouchy old me that I've screwed something up, which they always do with tact, politeness, and a total lack of drama. The ability to do that is an important skill for an admin. I'm looking forward to the day when they no longer need to use {{SPI case status|admin}} and can start using {{Adminshirt}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
109. Absolutely! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

120. Support even though I have had some strong disagreement with them on one particular topic. They generally seem intelligent, competent, and trustworthy enough to hold the tools. Disagreements sometimes happen, and that should not be enough to prevent us from getting more admins/editors that we need. Huggums537 (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
121. Support – I trust Tamzin to use the tools with care and sensitivity. Thanks for stepping up ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
122. Support Good answers to questions, exhibits competence, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Lkb335 (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

134. Support. Looks like a great candidate, no concerns. Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
135. Support. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
136. Support. Seen her around a lot, I'm confident she'd be a great addition. Yeeno (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
137. Support. There is great need for people like Tamzin to be given the mop. – Anon423 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

154. Support. Has done good work at SPI and could use the tools to further help both there and at RfD. Loopy30 (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
155. Support Recently interacted with them for the first time not to long ago, they are a kind competent user. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
156. Support. Wait, Tazmin wasn't an admin already?? Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
157. Support I have no reason to oppose and see no reason not to give them a shot. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
158. Support I have no reason to believe that the nominee would misuse the tools. --Jayron32 14:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
159. Support, as clear evidence of previous good work in relevant admin-related areas. Bibeyjj (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
160. Support - Húsönd 16:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
161. Support Based on the nominations and answers. The percentage of nominated articles for deletion that were kept I think is a bit high, but I am sure that as an admin will also improve in that area. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
162. Support. Tamzin is great and I am happy to see she is willing to take on more responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎StarryGrandma (talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
163. Support I was wondering when Tamzin would be nominated for adminship, I couldn’t pass up on voting, Tamzin is a great editor and does a lot of work with the edit filters and in SPI. Zippybonzo | talk 18:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
164. Support. Whenever we've crossed paths at AIV or the odd occasion I venture into SPI, you've seemed level-headed and sensible. Just remember Coren's advice about balancing back-end functions like SPI with things that more directly affect the reader. With respect to the opposers, I do look for some track record in the mainspace from an admin, but mostly to demonstrate that they understand the key policies that they'll be charged with upholding, rather than to produce something flawless and immaculate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
165. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

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

166. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
167. Support. I thought she already was an admin (and a good one at that!). JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
168. Support: No concerns. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
169. Support have run across Tamzin's contributions and comments on several occasions and always found them to be clueful, as is also evidenced from their answer to Q11 and third bullet-point here. Abecedare (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
170. Support . Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

177. Support wholeheartedly. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
178. Support Epicgenius (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

196. Support I thought Tamzin was an admin already! --Jack Phoenix _(Contact) 08:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
197. Support. A win for SPI and other areas. MarioGom (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
198. Support. Qualified candidate to undertake mopping. :P _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 10:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
199. Support - contrary to the assertion in oppose number 3 below, the candidate doesn't have "absolutely zero content creation experience"... she has in fact pointed us in the direction of some pages she's written in question 2 above. As such, with no skeletons found in the cupboard, lots of experience and the aforementioned content pedigree, I see no reason not to support. Good luck, and welcome to the corps!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

201. No reason not to support. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 13:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
     • Support. No obvious red lights and so WP:NOBIGDEAL. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Regretfully moved to Oppose. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
202. Support. Tamzin's lack of substantial experience writing articles isn't ideal (for those questioning which this matters, I can recommend User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content), but her technical proficiency, experience in a range of behind-the-scenes processes, and obvious trustworthiness more than make up for it. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
203. Support. Thanks for volunteering. Vexations (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
204. Support No reservations. Every interaction has been a pleasure. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
205. Support Approved for 12 years + Good user. - CafeGurrier66 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
206. Fuck sakes, I'm really not paying attention, far too many days late in expressing my support. Nick (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
207. Support, obviously. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
208. Support I have no qualms throwing my support in Tamzin's direction. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
209. Support Absolutely, yes. Operator873 ^connect 21:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
210. Support - Looks like a really good candidate who will be a welcome addition to the team. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
     • Reaffirm - Just commenting to note that I reaffirm my support upon review of the controversy over Q14 and the relevant context. I love being a reactionary as much as the next guy, but I really cannot convince myself to buy into the opposition from an ideological or rational perspective here (“ideological” referring to Wikipedia’s ideology). Thinking logically, it’s unsurprising and unconcerning to hear that a “disabled queer trans leftist Jewish woman” would be this vehemently opposed to Donald Trump and what he and his supporters objectively stand for. It’s a mainstream belief shared by much of the US, much of the West, much of the English-speaking world, and much of the world at large. I am sorry for those who hate to hear that, but that is a fact. As someone who is trying to not let political beliefs influence their perspective, that is my most objective assessment. If there is no evidence that the nominee is or will act in a morally corrupt manner, the fact that they hold fairly common political beliefs should not matter. I have read every single oppose and I see no evidence provided that they will misuse the tools. If you (the community) disqualify this user from adminship, you’re making a statement that you’re willing to disqualify a “disabled queer trans leftist Jewish woman” for simply stating her beliefs, which are, again, whether or not you agree with them, literally just normal views for many around the world. The notion that a Wikipedia admin must never acknowledge their belief that Trump was a malicious fascist is as patently ridiculous as the notion that no Wikipedia admin can be a Trump supporter (who would likely hold equally aggressive views about the other side). Being even more frank, I might point out that a “disabled queer trans leftist Jewish woman” is expressing her opposition to a camp that does include many who literally wish to either rescind her existing rights or even exterminate her. This is…widely accepted and verifiable fact that is reported by this project itself. Jesus Christ people. The opposition strikes me as a fairly shocking reactionary backlash. It is a troubling sign. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
       • Thanks for the clarity of your reaffirm, User:Swarm. As one of those who has opposed, I just wish to reassure you that I did not vote against a “disabled queer trans leftist Jewish woman”, I voted against a Wikipedia user named "Tamzin" who brought politics into a neutral arena and advocated for a form of segregation or apartheid. Part of the reason for my oppose vote is so that we don't have divisive conversations in which a person's politic beliefs or whether they are disabled or queer or trans or Jewish, etc are brought up. One of the significant advantages of the internet is that here we are all equal as nobody knows our gender, race, political beliefs, etc, unless we decide to make them known. And when we do make them known we should not be treated any differently by anyone. It matters not to me what Tamzin's gender or religion is, but it does matter (a lot) that they are advocating unpleasant views on Wikipedia. I wish to affirm again that I am not opposing Tamzin's gender or religion, just their advocacy for segregation. SilkTork (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
         • Again, she said this (hyperbolically) about a camp that includes those who want to exterminate her. On a human level, that shouldn’t be disqualifying. But what do I know? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
211. Support No concerns. XOR'easter (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Addendum after reading the opposes: First, I don't think that getting stamps of approval like GA/FA is a good way to gauge how active an editor has been at "content creation". I myself have put a lot of work into articles that I've never bothered to nominate for GA, because the topic area seemed too niche and I doubted that I could find a reviewer both knowledgeable and enthusiastic enough to complete a review. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to collect trophies. Second, it's a plain fact of life that some political ideologies are simply incompatible with building an encyclopedia, because they are fundamentally anti-journalism and anti-education. Such an ideology could be found on the left, the right, or even in the political center (the home of pathological both-sides-ism that is completely at odds with what we mean by neutrality). Wikipedia is a fantastic opportunity for people of different persuasions to come together and create something good, but to make it work, we have to recognize some harsh truths. In Tamzin's statements and clarifications, I see a mature recognition of our unhappy reality. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
212. Support and thanks for all the work already at SPI. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
213. Support Shows excellent judgement and conduct. Llwyld (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
214. Support - No concerns per above -- Tawker (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
215. Support - User can be trusted with the tools. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
216. Support per my trust in the nominators, the nomination statements, several reasons stated above in particular HJ Mitchell's. Good answer to Q14. Remains civil and calm in the face of shenanigans, yet shows firmness as necessary. example. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

221. Support all places I have seen Tamzin on wikipedia, she has been a positive contributor. I have especially seen her work at RfD and while I do not always (but often) agree with every close she has made; there's always good rationale for it and none that I would ever feel worthwhile reopening. From my interactions at RfD especially, adminship is more than logical. TartarTorte 13:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
222. Support Established good editor, hard worker for the community, no red flags, instant adminship. — The Anome (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
223. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
224. Support I've seen Tamzin's contributions a number of times and it's always been positive. Reviewing more, both in Tamzin's edit history and in the sections here, only confirms it. Skynxnex (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
225. Obviously. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
226. Wasn't going to participate in this RFA (or any future RFAs), but I feel the strong need to counteract the recent opposes. KICK BUTT TAMZIN!!! Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
227. Support Falls into the "I thought they already were an admin" category for me. Thy are a long time productive editor. The mop and bucket will be in good hands. MarnetteD|Talk 22:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
228. Support good content creation Jno.skinner (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
229. Oppose them not having the tools per the wise people above. But seriously, this RfA is going to pass and at this point I'm just piling on. My support isn't done blindly though. I worked with Tamzin supporting the response to the botnet vandalism attack earlier this year and they proved their capability. I trust them, and them not having the tools is a big deal. They are exactly the kind of user who should have the admin bit. Lets wrap this up Seddon ^talk 23:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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

230. Support. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
231. Strong Support. I've been waiting to !vote support when someone starts a RFA for Tamzin. Rusty4321 ^{talk contributions log} 01:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
232. I’ve had positive experiences with Tamzin. Diligent and possesses good judgement. Was slightly concerned with regards to DS enforcement, in which I think impartiality (and the appearance of such), diligence, and experience as a content contributor in these areas, are all important. But, in short, am satisfied with Q23. Good luck. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
233. Support per most of the opposes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
234. SupportI guess this is the most transparent RfA I've experienced. Her opposition to a threat to democracy like Trump, and her defense of it is just great. That's the kind of admin we need. Other admirers of threats to democracy should be opposed as well. And for the future successful SPI clerks I suggest some kind of a SPI Barnstar of the equivalence of the GA or FA so your admirable work gets better recognizable.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     To restate, reaffirm, and recontextualize:

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

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

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

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

249. Support Was already an AWOT. I did have to do a double take of "wait, weren't they already?..." and then "oh yeah". Definitely needs the tools too, given their activity in areas where the tools are needed to take any action. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
250. Support. Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
251. Support after reviewing the context of the controversial comments etc. (Apologies for some incoherence, please see note on my talkpage). To get the important thing out of the way: as other users have said, particularly RoySmith & Girth Summit, I think giving Tamzin, an active SPI clerk, the tools would be great for the work that they intend to do on-wiki. Obviously, Q14 etc. gave me some pause. But I also remember how heightened the tensions were during the RfA context in which they were written. And like Vermont, I also wouldn't want to see anyone in a position of power (including an online position of power) who frankly doesn't believe in my right to exist as a queer disabled woman. There are right of center people w/ whom I get along; they are capable of eloquent conversations & they generally respect the right of others to exist. There are also groups of people who have threateend my health & well-being over things beyond my ken. I'd prefer not to see the altter category in positions of power. Just... my rambles I guess. I trust Tamzin. — GhostRiver 16:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
252. Support — What again are the unwritten base requirements for passing an RFA? Let’s see; A clue as to how the collaborative project works, competence, civility and a clear need for the tools, and I see all four being met. I’m afraid I do not truly understand "the oppose" Furthermore Drmies & BDD are part of a very select few I respect, thus if they are endorsing you I invariably would as I trust their judgment. So yes I’m supporting Tamzin. Celestina007 (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
253. Damn, I look away and Tamzin is running for admin? OK then--support. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
254. Support from what I understand, Wikipedia has a shrinking number of admins and we need more. I don't think that Tamzin's stated political opinions will cause them to misbehave as an admin, based on their behaviour on Wikipedia up to now. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
255. it's been around 24 hours since it came to light and I haven't seen or found any diffs that indicate Taxmin's political opinions had a negative impact on the project. Instead, the level-headed reponses from the candidate so far has been rather impressive. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
256. Support After reading this RfA I have seen no good reason to oppose this candidate. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 18:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
257. Support - Trusted user, demonstrated dedication to the goals of the project. The response to Q14 is unusual in that it explicitly names and criticises modern political beliefs - something unusual on here - but Tamzin's follow-up statements and explanations are logically sound, and I do not see how the views expressed will harm the encyclopaedia. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 18:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
258. Support candidate is more than qualified and nothing here would be disqualifying in my mind --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
259. Support It's unfortunate that this RfA has devolved into a political debate of sorts as opposed to (in my opinion) focusing on Tamzin's history on this project. Has she, in 9+ years, demonstrated that she can edit productively, civilly and cluefully? I believe she has. Will providing Tamzin with the tools improve Wikipedia as a whole? Based on her history and, more specifically, her extensive work at SPI, I believe it will. With nearly 32,000 edits worth of evidence available, I see no reason to believe that Tamzin would be anything less than a helpful admin, let alone abuse the tools should they be granted as seems to be implied by some of the opposes.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
260. Support. A trusted editor who would make good use of the tools. As a minority who lives in a country that has been going through a right wing wave, I understand their concerns and comments, even if I might not share in their points of view entirely when it comes to Wikipedia. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 20:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
261. Support – no sign of any editing activity that raises any red flags. Clueful and has a demonstrated need for the tools. --bonadea contributions talk 20:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
262. Support No concerns.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
263. Support: I don't believe that an editor expressing their political opinions should void their candidacy for adminship. Easy support. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 21:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
264. Taking notice of the canidate's compelling answer to Question 11, I must offer my strongest possible support. HiDrNick! 21:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
265. Support I vote aye, so to speak. →StaniStani 22:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
266. Support per SoWhy and Ponyo. Tamzin has done excellent work at SPI, and I trust her judgment - including to recuse where appropriate. GAB^gab 23:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
267. Support, per Beeblebrox and Ponyo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
268. Support. A strange, wonderful, and straightforward person, and a committed and versatile editor. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 00:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
269. Support (moved from Neutral) per FeydHuxtable. The vast majority of American Wikipedia editors are already politically left of center. Tamzin’s candor with her views is a net positive. Many editors are not as frank about their political positions. I stand by what I said in the “neutral” section. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 02:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
270. Support. I find her clearly supportable. Some of the objections worry me. I became an admin long ago and I am surprised by the discussion here. When I reached the age of 80 I resigned as my memory is less good than it was. It is clearly now much harder to become an admin, and I think this will discourage applicants and the number of active admins will seriously decline. Being an admin is supposed to be no big deal. The discussion here suggests that is no longer the case. We may well move to not having enough admins to maintain quality in WP. --Bduke (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
271. Support I suspect there are a large number of editors who would be swayed by political biases in the event of, for example, an open Trump supporter at RfA. The only difference is that Tamzin is not hiding their bias, which all editors have. SK2242 (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
272. Support Appears thoughtful, concientious, and skilled - all qualities that Wikipedia needs for its admins Somej (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
273. Support What Beeblebrox said. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
274. Support I have been impressed with Tamzin's professionalism at SPI, but what really motivated me to !vote here (my first ever in an RfA) was reading their extended response to Question 14. We need more admins who have the maturity to balance professionalism with humanity, and who have the courage to be candid about it. Generalrelative (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
275. Support — Candidate has history in the areas that they would like to contribute to as an administrator, particularly AIV, RPP, and UAA – so I'm very happy with that. Candidate has no history in the political edits that they're being !opposed for, despite holding political opinions (oh, the horror!). More to the point: they're trustworthy, have experience with content creation, and I don't believe they'll misuse their tools. Tamzin good luck and all the best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
276. Support Quite frankly I do not understand the outrage about Tamzin's political opinion. It's her political opinion which she is entitled to. You can have your opinion, but I think that her justifiying distrust in users who protect and defend someone who incites violence and is a hypocritical liar is valid. If sysops defend a person who has been shown time and time again to be wrong, and continue defend someone who attempts an insurrection, is outwardly racist, how do we know they are trustworthy to see the correct facts regarding a block? ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 05:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

285. Support. I am impressed by the nominee's openess about their own biasses. And while I did not like all the answers they gave in the questions section, I think they are aware of many of their shortcommings, and that's all I ask for. I also liked their comments about WP:NOTTHERAPY. Renerpho (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
286. Strong support. This is one of those cases where I see a name at RfA, and go "wait, I swear she was already an admin." Your nuanced and well-thought-out comments here only reinforce my opinion that you're clearly worth of the mop. Gaelan 💬✏️ 15:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
287. Support. Although I agree with several sentiments expressed by opposes, I fail to see how Tazmin's biases (and biases are unavoidable; it's impractical to disqualify a candidate on the basis of having biases) or ideas might overly influence her actions as an admin to make her unsuitable (indeed, as an editor she's been excellent). A candidate need not be perfect or very close to it to make a good admin. Tazmin is otherwise an excellent candidate. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
288. Support, despite the objectionable political comments. I hope she has learned from the furore, and let's face it, the problemmatic issues don't come up very often. It doesn't really matter what other candidates she would not vote for, and when was the last RFA with a self-declared continuing Trump supporter candidate? Yes, there was Vami4, but look what happened there (not just for political reasons). Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Support. A good history and good replies to the questions make it clear this candidate is well-suited to the role. Absconded Northerner (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per my criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 03:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

   Update - on reviewing the articles that he has worked on, the first one Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013) has major problems. Although the talk page states that is uses the Bluebook citation style, it does not, and it's impossible to tell which one is being used. The title of the article does not follow the MOS:LAW and should be titled Lozman v. Riviera Beach (2013). It is correctly evaluated, but an Admin should be able to follow the rules on writing content, otherwise how are we supposed to trust him to handle content disputes? I will note that the second Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) is better, but has some of the same referencing problems.GregJackP Boomer! 04:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

   Hi, GregJackP. Not at all trying to argue with your oppose, but since I always want to address any concerns about my work: I put "City of" in the title to match articles like Kelo v. City of New London and Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. As to the citation style, when I wrote/expanded the articles, {{bluebook website}} didn't have all of the necessary parameters to explain some of the archival/paywall situations. I hadn't noticed that Wugapodes had pushed the changes I'd suggested that address that issue. Now that they have, I'll update both articles in just a moment. Thank you for pointing this out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

   (Oh, also, I take no offense to an honest mistake—per my own essay—but just so you know I take she / her or they / them pronouns.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

   If you are using Justia as your source for case opinions, they normally title the case correctly, so they use Kelo v. New London and Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah. There are always exceptions (IAR) to case names, but there should be a good reason for not following the MOS. Another good site for Bluebook rules is [2]. I'll use the proper pronouns in the future. Regards: GregJackP Boomer! 05:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

   FYI, Bluebook rule 10.2.1(f) provides: "Omit 'City of' ... unless the expression begins a party name" and gives "Butts v. City of New York" as a citation example, so the "City of Riviera Beach" article titles are in correct Bluebook/MOS form as is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

2. Oppose Willbb234 15:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   Move my !vote to Strong oppose. I understand that my previous oppose came with no explanation. As I have already stated, I have my reasons for opposing and the reason why I did not wish to share this reason is because I believed it was cause more trouble than it was worth. To make clear, it was certainly not a case of 'I don't like it' or whatever has been implied on the talk page. I was curt with other editors because I believe that the belittling of opposing users is rude and I do not enjoy responding to such rudeness.

   Anyway, the reason I move my !vote to strong oppose is due to Hammersoft's reasoning (of course, alongside my previous reasoning, which I believe is inferior to this new rationale). I hope that other users understand. Please do not chase me to my talk page regarding this matter. Willbb234 16:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

   Oppose per GregJackP's initial criteria. I've perused the 20-or-so most recent pages (500 edits per page mode) of this user's contributions, and there appears to be absolutely zero content creation experience, from what I've seen. Lots of minor punctuation changes via bots, disambiguation fixes, some page moves. In fact, I've seen very few substantive edits to mainspace at all. Content creation is not a requirement for adminship, but I would like to see some experience in content creation before supporting because I believe it is of fundamental importance that all proposed admins have an understanding of Wiki policy. Their response to question #11 about Wiki policy leaves a lot to be desired. Responses to questions 8 and 9 made me question this user's interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS—which left me scratching my head. Also, there is nothing in the nomination statements explaining why this user needs the admin tools. Could they not continue as they have been? Sorry, but I have to pass—for the time being, at least. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

   I take all responsibility for any deficiencies in nominating statements. As others have noted, Tamzin's work at SPI could greatly benefit from the tools. -- BDD (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

   Just to make this a bit more clear, when a non-admin SPI clerk analyzes a case and comes to the conclusion that a block should be issued, they need to round up an admin to do it. If I'm going to be that admin, I need to re-do a fair amount of their work to convince myself that the block is justified because it's going to have my name on it. Certain kinds of case merges also require a non-admin clerk to enlist an admin to do a histmerge. So it's not just that she'll be able to do her SPI work better, it's also that the rest of the SPI team will be more efficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

   As someone who has been in disagreement with this candidate regarding their interpretation of consensus, I can tell you that it might have been a concern of mine as well if it weren't for the fact that not only did I hold the minority view (so she had the numbers right anyway), but she also stood up for IP users (something I believe in) even though she is a regular at SPI. I think one of my main concerns was the reasoning behind the consensus rather than the consensus itself since the way something is closed is often more important than the fact that it has consensus or not. This part was never resolved. However, I still support the candidate anyway. Huggums537 (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

   Echoing what RoySmith said above. An active SPI clerk has a clear need for the tools. Having worked in that arena alongside them for months I have a high degree of faith in Tamzin's judgment, and it would clearly (in my view) be of benefit to the project for them to have the technical ability to implement the decisions they make. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

   I'm striking this oppose. Responses here and to subsequent questions posed to the candidate addressed all of my concerns. I believe they have the relevant content creation experience and the right temperament to be an admin. I really don't know what to say about the subsequent commentary that has unfolded here these past few days, but I don't want my voice appearing in this echoplex. Would probably add to the neutral section, but am graciously stepping away now. Kind regards, and wish everyone here peace and love and happiness. Hope I formatted this appropriately. Please reformat if not. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   clearly. One more administrator without tools who wants to become one more administrator with tools. 🌳 Σούρα Αρκ 🌳 (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

3. Oppose Toad40 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   @Toad40—I can understand if you do not want to explain your oppose, but if you do, then why did you oppose? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   If three or more people oppose, then I oppose as well. That's my rule of thumb for when I vote. Toad40 (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   @Toad40—Noted, thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   So if I understand correctly, we're not allowed to make fun of this rationale? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   @Floquenbeam—I mean, I cannot stop you, but others have their own rationales. While I think the rationale is somewhat unreasonable, you have to respect others' feelings. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   You can make fun of it, it just won't have any positive effect, since it's obviously silly. The RFA is going to pass, and no one is going to be swayed by the impeccable reasoning of "three people said a thing therefore I must also say it." It's not a borderline case where explaining a different point of view on a set of facts could convince people one way or another. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   Sorry if it's silly to you, but it's just the way I vote. Toad40 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   it's just the way I vote - under which account? AFACT you've only participated in two other RfAs. a neutral that adds nothing -- not even a vote that counts and this silliness. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   I'm still new to voting in RFAs, you don't have to bite my head off. (Also I don't know what you mean by "under which account?", I vote under this account.) Toad40 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   Procedural "calm down, folks, you don't need to fight every person that disagrees". Think of it like a "how many jelly beans are in the jar" contest; people are going to have their average estimates, but there will still be people that wholeheartedly believe there are either 40 or 13,000 beans in a small jar. There is no point in bickering with them on why they are wrong because, well, they're going to be wrong either way. Just take the 20 dollar gift card for being right and exit the scene.

   In attempt to justify said strike, it could be seen as "I don't really know this user, but if three or more users oppose the vote then I should take that as a sign I shouldn't fully trust them." There are currently 258 beans in the jar, Toad has guessed 4, and we should leave that as is. Panini! • 🥪 12:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

   Thanks for sticking up for me, Panini!. However, after some thought I realized that they are kind of right. Sure they were rude about it, but they were kind of right. The way I voted is kind of dumb/weird, so what I decided to do is look at most of the Support/Oppose votes and why they voted that way, and after looking at all the votes I'm probably still going to stick to oppose. Here's why:

   Good things about Tamzin: Trustworthy, Nice, Most support

   Bad things about Tamzin: Bad page writer, No creation experience, Political bias, Thinks Trump supporters can't be admin

   I don't know if this way is better for voting, but I do have to admit, it's a lot better than "Opposing because 3 other people opposed". Toad40 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

4. Oppose Anybody who believes that half of the population of the United States can't be a Wikipedia administrator, shouldn't be a Wikipedia administrator. Tamzin wrote, "I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter." (I'm not an American or a Trump supporter myself). Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   Where exactly was this written? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   Up at Q.14, [3] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   Further discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

5. Strong, unequivocal oppose I normally don't vote in RfAs. But, I can't let this one slide, even if it is a massive landslide in favor of this candidate. In Q14 above, Tamzin attempts to clarify what they intended with this comment on another RfA. Instead of smoothing the waters, this is in effect a double down support for this statement. In particular, in their response to Q14 Tamzin says that "[a right-of-center admin candidate] is something that would make me tend against supporting". Further, they go on to state that "Political views are one of the best measures of someone's character". This lock-step belief that a person can't be trusted if they have political views opposing the candidate's isn't just troubling, it's disgusting in the extreme. That we would embolden a member of this community with such despicable views is horrifying. An administrator must be able to be dispassionate in their assessments. This candidate clearly can not be so. And no, I am not a member of nor align with any particular party. You could swap in "a left-of-center admin candidate" above and it's just as appalling. This sort of extremism is to say the least dangerous to have among the admin community. Tamzin, you're going to become an admin barring some massive outpouring of opposition in the last half of this RfA. I implore you to rethink your approach to being a member of this community. As an admin, you could cause massive damage with your heavily polemic views. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   I don't think so and I'm suprised. There is no correlation between what a person thinks, a persons views and how effective they would be an admin. They're is no research and there is nothing from corporate world that would suggest such a thing. Every candidate has baggage, but not in any single instance does that reflect how capable they are as an individual. Using a recently history as a metric, there is many examples of this. That is not say, us, as a beacon of light and fredom we are, would enable us support people like that. That is not what is happening here. It is the mere whisper of things to come in America, an expression of worry, that is sliding of America into authoritarianism that worries folk, and that is what it is. That doesn't reflect on years of excellent service. scope_creep^Talk 19:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   Scope creep bias (especially as strong a bias as Tamzin's answer indicates) can definitely affect one's actions. Many admin actions are not checked by others as there is implicit trust that actions are taken by competent editors in good faith (the system works). However, we thankfully have a very long track record in Tamzin's contribution history and a willingness to recuse themselves from the Trump topic area so I don't see a reason to worry in this case. They are highly competent, eager to collaborate, and highly transparent. However, There is no correlation between what a person thinks, a persons views and how effective they would be an admin would be a leap of logic in my opinion if one generalizes it as you have. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   So they would recuse themselves from American political topics but not politics elsewhere, yet have a serious problem with people who have right of center political views, and does feel it appropriate to judge a person based upon their differing political views? What will they do with French political topics, such as Marine Le Pen? There are many other examples outside the U.S. They've not stated they would recuse from political issues as an administrator. I stand by my oppose. As a worldwide encyclopedia, we are going to have people of all sorts of different views, including the candidates. That's perfectly fine. What is not fine is discriminating against people who disagree with you. It is that very disagreement that makes Wikipedia strong. The openness of thought is critical to our success. Personally, I would prefer the candidate have some self awareness and withdraw. The sort of polemic attitude expressed is wholly incompatible with adminship. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   This may not matter to your stance but I believe Tamzin's opinion was limited to whether or not she could support an RfA candidate who was STILL a Trump supporter. It was in the context of assessing her trust in their character. She didn't say her political opinions would affect her editing or her interactions with editors in any other context. It was limited to whether her own political views would influence her voting in an RfA. To generalize this limited incident to editors in general from all over the world and editing in general, is a big leap that I don't think is fair to the candidate. Again, this distinction may not matter to you but I think everyone, admins or editors, has their own biases and we try not to let them influence our decisions. Tamzin is in a rather unique position of making her views on this subject public while the rest of us do not feel obligated to disclose where we fall on a political spectrum (or whether we are completely apolitical). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

   Liz, I considered that. However, what broke it for me was "Political views are one of the best measures of someone's character, and should not be off-limits in assessing people." combined with their prejudicial negative view on anyone whose political stance is right of center rather blatantly cinches it for me far beyond just an RfA. No. Just no. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

   @Tamzin: I noted above that I would prefer you to withdraw this candidacy. The performance of this RfA since then has cemented that opinion. Since the first oppose based on your political bias came in April 28 at 15:37, there have been a net 52 support and net 64 oppose !votes cast. If this RfA were to start over with this revelation in place, I dare say it's clear it would not pass. Sure, there's a little over one day left in this RfA and if you don't withdraw it's going to pass. But, do you really want to be an administrator given that the community, since the revelation, is clearly not supporting you? Please withdraw this RfA, if not for the community then for yourself. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   This presumes that everyone who supported before Q14 took this page off their watchlist and is oblivious to subsequent events. I doubt that. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   Actually, no, that's not correct. All it is noting is the performance of the RfA since the revelations, not an analysis of what people who haven't visited the RfA since have or have not done. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   Does it include the early voters who re-affirmed their votes after Q14? No need to discount early !voters just because of when they first commented. Politanvm ^talk 21:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   "If this RfA were to start over with this revelation in place, I dare say it's clear it would not pass." is absolutely an analysis of what people who have already voted would've already done, don't be coy. Using the stress of RfA to try and end-run the results by pressuring the candidate into withdrawing by telling her that even if she wins she shouldn't have is shameful. You need to back off. Parabolist (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   Agreed. Additionally, if we are assuming that editors who supported prior to Q14 and haven't edited since are the result of an independent random selection, we would need to adjust those supports by taking the fraction of supporters who have come back and reaffirmed versus the fraction who came back to move to neutral or oppose, then apply that fraction to the ones that did not come back. Given that a nontrivial portion of supports have reaffirmed, this would skew it even further. (but obviously the premise here is silly, see WP:SILENCE for example, if someone makes an edit and doesn't come back, we actually can dependently strongly assume that they stand by it as an effect of that prior that they saw this page in the first place) Leijurv (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   +1 to that. GAB^gab 22:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   By my count as of this edit 50 editors who cast votes prior to the first oppose for Q14 have reaffirm, while 15 have struck their support (with most moving to oppose, but some ending as neutral). If crats are going to consider the "momentum" of this RfA, I would hope (actually expect) them to consider those numbers as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

   @Hammersoft: I realise I'm just a run of the mill editor, but I strongly urge you to strike this comment. This is tantamount to bullying a candidate to withdraw from an RfA because they've expressed an opinion that you and a minority of other voters/commentors have disagreed with. This comment falls far below the standards expected of admins, as well as the separate points raised on your own userpage. I urge you to remember that there is a person at the other end of the username, and that your choice of words can have real and serious consequence on that person's physical and mental wellbeing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   Hammersoft, a request. Please take a look at entry number nine on your userpage. Look at everything you have said here, particularly words like "disgusting" and "despicable". And then please, tell me with a straight face that everything you have said so far would be acceptable at a large meeting of professionals in a conference room. There are plenty of ways to have expressed your feelings without resorting to borderline personal attacks. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   With respect, no I will not withdraw the comment. It might be a fine line, but I am commenting on their views and how they have and will affect this community. I stand by them. I am not commenting on the person in particular. And no Sideswipe9th, it is not bullying. It is calling it what it is. The sort of view expressed is antithetical to what we are supposed to be. If we accept the sort of attitude expressed, we might as well close down the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   First, you opined off the cuff that Tamzin should withdraw. That was one thing – benign and hardly reprehensible in and of itself. To follow it up by pinging her in a blatant attempt to pressure her into withdrawing? Clearly I am not alone in finding such behavior to be completely unacceptable. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 23:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   You are welcome to your opinions as I am to mine. Any further discussion of my behavior is welcome on my talk page. Here, it's inappropriate. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   Should Hammersoft's oppose be moved to talk? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 00:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

   In all honesty it probably should (ideally with Hammersoft's ping of Tamzin disabled), but I wouldn't feel comfortable moving it myself having commented. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 01:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

6. (edit conflict) Oppose due to I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards, said here. Wikipedia editors come from a wide range of backgrounds and cultures, and administrators should respect that. Right-of-center editors have just as much of a right to contribute to the project of creating a free encyclopedia as do left-of-center editors. Endwise (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   @Endwise Besides Tamzin's political views, is there anything that you think disqualifies them from being an admin? SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 17:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   I'm not at all opposed to her political views. I'm opposed to her views on who can and cannot contribute to this encyclopedia, and think they would be problematic to hold for someone with administrator privileges. Endwise (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   It appears you have completely misunderstood her statement. It was not who could edit to this encyclopedia. it was who SHOULD in HER OPINION be an Admin on wikipedia. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   Which, depending upon the circumstances & what they were doing before the desysop, could significantly reduce the parts of the encyclopedia they work in. If past situations are any indication, unfair desysoppings frequently lead to the editor in question leaving the encyclopedia in general, which is generally a net loss (unless they truly were awful, which cannot be deduced solely by supporting a real-life presidential candidate.). Rin (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

7. Weak oppose changed from support, per some of the above oppose rationales. I'm not thrilled at some of the recent political revelations above. WP:NONAZIS being an unofficial credo of the admin corps is one thing. But actively discriminating against political viewpoints in the course of administrative duties is highly problematic, especially considering the intention to be active in areas such as SPI, AIV, and ANI, all of which have a tendency to become particularly politically charged. Of course, she has since endeavored to correct this line of thinking in the course of this RFA, but as they say - "nearer the heart, nearer the mouth." --WaltCip-(talk) 16:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   I appreciate the concern here, and I fully agree that actively discriminating against political viewpoints in the course of administrative duties would be highly problematic. But I think what's needed here is to take things a bit more literal. Tamzin said a right-of-center admin candidate [...] is something that would make me tend against supporting. But voting for or against an admin candidate is not an administrative duty. I think that a lot of current admins, as well as a lot of other editors here (including me), would tend to be less quick in supporting an admin candidate with whom they have serious political differences than one with whose political views they fully agree. Not as a matter of principle, but as a matter of the inescapable correlations between one's political preferences and the kind of attitudes one hopes for in an admin. Tamzin is perhaps just a little more straightforward about this than most others, as she is about most things. Is there really a reason to believe that, unlike most other valuable editors whose preferences in admins tend to correlate with their political preferences, she would also let her political views interfere with her good judgment in conduct issues or evaluation of consensus? I personally don't think so. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   They did say I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards (although I wouldn't vote against someone solely on that basis).[4] I'm not certain if I'm going to strike my support at this point, but there's no reason to lighten the language that was used. Above she also said above I would recuse from topics within American politics that I've expressed opinions about on-wiki, which as far as I can recall is a class of one: my opposition to Mr. Trump Seeing as she's clearly expressed opinions of those with right-of-center views, I would certainly be more comfortable with full recusal from political topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   Your point about literal interpretation is well-taken, though we recognize that being an admin, even if it's no big deal, carries with it a degree of respect and trust held by the community of one's judgment. So whether intended or not, that judgment holds a degree of weight, which in a voting/consensus-based process, may influence those who are perhaps undecided in their views. True, there may be some lousy admins out there whose judgment might be considered questionable, but in general this principle tends to be present. Secondly, although honesty and frankness about one's political viewpoints, as well as how they might affect their judgment, is to be lauded, we are still left with the uncomfortable realization that such an open disclosure of this bias might impact one's actions and the perception of one's actions. From now on, any decision being made by Tamzin in the American politics space will inevitably be scrutinized more than usual by right-of-center Wikipedia users because of this openly declared bias. It's a Catch-22, to be sure. We were all left shaken and sore by Jan. 6; you'd have to not have a pulse to feel otherwise. But taking it a step beyond that and using it as an openly declared factor in making decisions on Wikipedia is not something that is easy to swallow. WaltCip-(talk) 12:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

8. Weak oppose — Regrettably per Hammersoft. I admire your contributions to Wikipedia and I believe that you have the potential to become a fine administrator. I expect your RfA to pass but I hope that you will reflect upon why is it that your approach of evaluating people who do not share your political opinions is being criticized. Reading that you would "tend against supporting" an adminship candidate simply because they were politically "right-of-center" was appalling. It would have been just as abject had you said the same about a "left-of-center" adminship candidate. My opposition is not based on how you evaluate hypothetical adminship candidates; I take objection to you conflating political opinions in your evaluations of an editor's performance and track record on the site. You have expressed a clear bias — and we all have our biases — but it is disconcerting how strongly you would let them influence your decision-making. My concern is that you might extend that same approach when dealing with heated or contentious situations in your capacity as an administrator, and that you may not be able to exercise discretion that comes with being an administrator dispassionately and impartially. To clarify — I am with you on your comments in "Point 1", and I do believe that harboring extreme political opinions should be a clear enough reason to outright oppose a hypothetical adminship candidate, regardless of their performance and track record on this site. My issue with your original comment and answer to question–14 is about you (strongly or lightly) allowing your political opinions cloud your perception of an editor when their political opinions fall slightly or moderately on the opposite side of the spectrum. — The Most Comfortable Chair 19:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Adding that this is a "weak" oppose since most of it is derived from hypotheticals. — The Most Comfortable Chair 20:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
9. Oppose (moved from Support). Regrettably due to the candidate's lack of political neutrality, further aggravated by their answers to Q14. THe candidate clearly fails to understand that Wikipedia is not a project exclusively for those "left of centre". Also, supporters of, say, Iran, Israel, Russia, etc., are certainly welcome to get a mop here regardless of the degree of oppression and far-right influence in these countries. Just as welcome are editors who peronally support Donald Trump or any of his predecessors, virtually all of whom in the last three decades have committed much bigger crimes. So – personal political views are one thing, and declaring that personal political views will influence own administrative work on Wikipedia is quite another thing. The latter is disqualifying in my view. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
10. Oppose (moved from support), per Hammersoft and her answer to Q 14. Sea Cow (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
11. Oppose. I respect having strong political views and being actively involved in politics. I respect honesty about one’s core beliefs. While I disagree with the sentiment, I respect that people may use political beliefs as a "measure of someone’s character" in their personal lives, and that is none of my business. What I cannot support, though, is the notion that we can assess fitness for advanced permissions on Wikipedia on the basis of the candidate’s political beliefs. To me, there’s no difference between this and using religious beliefs as a criterion. And to the extent that the candidate has indicated that they believe political opinions are a valid basis for the assessment of permissions requests, I must oppose. JBchrch talk 01:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Per Hammersoft. I too don't normally vote in RFAs, but this really bothers me. MB 02:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
13. Oppose I'm against discrimination based on political opinions. Banedon (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
14. Oppose Given that Wikipedia is left-leaning, I suspect that many !voters won't be bothered since the candidate's controversial remarks aren't directed at them, but I'm very uncomfortable with granting advanced permissions to someone who openly favors this kind of political discrimination in the RfA process. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    @Lepricavark: rather suprised to read your comment ...Given that Wikipedia is left-leaning.... Wikipedia should be neutral. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). Sorry but I cannot find your question to Tamzin. Thanks. Lotje (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Yes, I'm aware of our policy on neutrality. But I think we all know that the editor base is predominantly left-leaning. I'm not interested in debating whether or not the bias of the editor base has seeped into the content; my point is that most editors probably won't be too bothered by Tamzin's remarks since they would never be personally affected. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

15. Oppose with sadness and reluctance. Anybody who knows me off-Wikipedia will attest that I am forcefully and vehemently anti-Trump when I am not editing Wikipedia. I disclose my real world identity so that is easy for anyone to verify. But here on Wikipedia, I judge editors and prospective administrators based on their substantive content contributions, not on their userbox style declarations of political affiliations. Among the edits that I am most proud of are reverting unsourced or poorly sourced BLP violations on articles about far right figures I personally disagree with deeply. I remember many years ago reverting an edit to Callista Gingrich, and this was years before Trump was a credible figure in U.S. electoral politics. Somebody was trying to add negative information about her husband's alleged misconduct that occurred before they had ever met into her biography. There have been many other instances where I have defended BLPs of right wing figures against left wing POV pushing, even though I am pretty left wing myself. Admistrators need to be rigorously neutral in such matters and I cannot fully trust this editor's neutrality based on what they have said in their own words. This quote, I imagine my views on the intersection of far-right politics and adminship are more extreme than Joe's: I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards (although I wouldn't vote against someone solely on that basis) How about a Trump supporter who is scrupulously even-handed and neutral in their editing? What about a Trump supporter whose content contributions are outstanding related to butterflies or nuclear physics or the history of spaceflight or the physiology of earthworms? How about a far right of center editor who expresses support for Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger? Are they to be exempted from the blanket opposition to right of center editors because they criticize one man? Do all candidates for administrator need to be investigated, purged and ousted if they once said that they voted for Trump? I hope not. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    I understand your desire for political neutrality, but is it that unreasonable for someone to be uncomfortable with those sitting in judgement over them being people who, on-wiki, signal support for a system that seeks to persecute them? I do believe you are misreading Tamzin’s comment, to an extent; her Q14 answers are far more nuanced (and consistent with Wikipedia’s principles) than your comment here would imply. This has nothing to do with simple voting in an election; Tamzin’s issue, and it’s one that I share, is with editors whose fundamental beliefs undermine their ability to be respectful to their colleagues, who affiliate with beliefs that, off-wiki, are associated with real and direct harm of the editors they are supposed to make decisions over. I know for me, if I saw someone with a “This user opposes LGBT rights” userbox, that would heavily influence my vote. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

16. Weak oppose per Cullen328. Unfortunately, political neutrality on Wikipedia is quite a big deal. While I'm not American, I do believe that political advocacy must stay out of the encyclopedia and that political views should not influence an editor's decision-making, be they an administrator or a regular user. Purging administrators on the right wing of the political spectrum (even Trump supporters and the rest of the MAGA crowd) is not a good idea, as long as their political views do not influence their editing. Saying this as a (somewhat) centrist. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
17. Oppose Per Cullen328, Noel S. McFerran and Johnnyconnorabc, who all brought up a really good point. All administrators should be fair and equal in respect, regardless of political preference, or they should keep it to themselves and not bash others. I say this as I can already tell that Tamzin will possibly not be reviewing issues in an neutral point-of-view and could instead be taking things out based on someone’s personal beliefs, be it in or out of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the only website that has an issue with political discrimination, as it seems to have become the norm on the internet, which is a serious issue that is becoming already as bad as it is, however my concern here is that having Tamzin promoted to an administrator could damage Wikipedia further. Not only does this concern me for the handling of political matters, but also religious ones. If an individual is going to biased against someone and take sides, then they shouldn’t be an admin to begin with. I don’t care which side your for, but that kind of toxicity is uncalled for and it will end up straining the relationship between users and the site’s administration even further and will result in further distrust among users which can lead to disasterous consequences. SlySabre (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
18. Oppose Per above. Rin (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
19. Oppose per Cullen328 who puts it far better than I could have. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Cullen328, Hammersoft, and lack of content contributions. All I can judge on is the statements made by the candidate, which I find chilling in their lack of introspection on why people are opposing. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

21. Oppose - My heart is heavy after reading the response Tamzin gave to Q14 and her follow-up. I am very apolitical but I believe you judge the character of a person based on their actions, either in words or deeds, and not whom they support for a political position. I supported Tamzin, not for her political views but because I believed she could be fair and consistent in her decision making across the board. It was rather unfortunate that the question came up and I appreciate her honesty and that she can be true to herself. I believe in being true to the colors that make you who you are. But that does mean that, in doing so, it might disqualify you from holding certain positions. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia in which anyone can edit. Being an admin, while important, is not a position higher than editor. An admin is supposed to support EVERY editor equally, the exception being if they part with policy, no matter their political position and it is expected that an admin will respond to EVERY situation even-handedly and dispassionately. As admin, the community already rules over you. The community is the highest governing body, even ARBCOM is supposed to be there as a support function for the community. Holding the position of admin is not governing over anyone. It is a position of service but is a position given certain tools that can hurt or help the community and it is crucial that we can trust every action taken by an admin, not before they receive the mop but after they receive the mop. While she limited her initial response to that of an RfA because that is the specific question that was asked. Her clarification further cast doubt because she is emotionally and passionately connected to the issue. She personalized it because it is very personal to her, understandbly so. After seeing Tamzin's clarification I no longer feel that it is possible for her to be objective and dispassionate in all areas of the encyclopedia and that's okay. It does not make her wrong but, in my opinion, it does disqualify. I still believe, based on her history, she has been consistent and a very outstanding editor and I would trust her with 99% of the situations she would encounter but that one percent leaves doubt. And that one percent WILL happen eventually. I support Tamzin 1000% in what she does currently and I will continue to do so but I can't lend my support here when that doubt is brought forward. --ARoseWolf 14:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
22. Oppose (moving from support) per most of the above but in particular JBchrch and Cullen328. Just way too many problematic affirmations by the candidate of deep political biases which they openly admit to influencing their opinions of other candidates and their suitability for advanced permissions. JBchrch's observation that there isn't much of a gap between opposing someone for political reasons and religious, was I think, highly perspicacious. This is one of the most disappointing !votes I can remember casting in an RfA as I really wanted to support this candidate. Their history here has been nothing less than stellar and to call them a net positive for the project would be an understatement. FWIW I expect them to pass their RfA. I've never seen one with this level of support turn around. But I hope they will take the concerns being expressed by numerous editors in the oppose section seriously as they go forward. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
23. Oppose I was very impressed overall that this candidate has and elucidates well developed wiki-analysis and wiki-skill capabilities and an excellent approach towards the role and intended work. But what I see as clear cut acceptance of domination of what happens in Wikipedia based on political views is a fundamental and serious problem. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Oppose Well, the behavior speaks for itself here, doesn't it? Like User:ARoseWolf, I recognize that there are emotional dimensions to writing an encyclopedia. Is it the case that "any supporter of" Trump is "on board" with oppression, "indifferent to it", or "too clueless to be aware"? (See response to Rin above.) Maybe. But I certainly wouldn't be comfortable ascribing motivation or thought process to my colleagues with such a high degree of confidence based on that alone, let alone saying it to them; for example, sincerely-held religious or ethical beliefs, while often offensive or used as a cudgel, can still be sincerely-held, and anyone (Trump supporter or not) is capable of grace and a deep commitment to rooting out injustice (and there are many ways Trump supporters can do this). I planned on opposing this nomination before the political opposes came to light, anyway; content writing is an issue and you can read my thoughts on Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns on my talk page. I'd suggest that once the nomination succeeds, the nominee not work at WP:PERM. BTW: I don't "edit under the adminship" of anyone, and am not "governed" by admins. Urve (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    I would not want someone who believes I do not deserve rights to be an admin, regardless of how sincerely held those beliefs are or how eloquently it is written. And I do not think that Tamzin espousing those views is remotely sufficient to prevent her from helping the project. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Okay? This does not follow. Urve (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    I have seen the addendum to Q27 and don't find it convincing. Reiterating my oppose and my wish that the nominee not work at PERM. If there are concerns about editing "under the adminship" of anyone, surely there must also be concerns about editing "under" new page patrollers, or "under" page movers, or anyone else who has a sizable impact on the community through their determination of consensus and editorial control. Saying that it's a purely clerical task may or may not be accurate, but I fail to see how that can be squared with either the concerns that the nominee has raised about working under others, or that some permissions (like page mover) are gated behind the language of being a trusted user. Urve (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

24. Oppose: I had initially voted support, seeing Tamzin's contributions. But seeing the issue raised above by other editors has changed my mind. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
25. Oppose Per Cullen328 and Hammersoft. I don't think I've ever opposed a RFA, but the problems that Cullen328, Hammersoft, and others have bought up are just too much, and I have to regretfully oppose. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 15:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
26. Oppose per Cullen328. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
27. Regretful, weak oppose Per Cullen. I'm no fan of Trump and have only supported maybe a couple Republicans ever in my life, but refusing to support anyone right of center for admin is an indication that she'll put political views ahead of helping the encyclopedia. Wikipedia has done a better job than most places in minimizing the effect of partisanship, but it's still a lingering issue. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
28. Per Hammersoft. ansh.666 16:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
29. Oppose(moved from support) I'm not going to pile onto what the others said too much, but the answer to Q14 dissapoints me and I believe everyone should be treated the same no matter what politician they support. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
30. Oppose Quoting Q.14 point #3 "Without turning this into a polemic, see generally the aftermath of the 2020 election and the events of January 6th, 2021." The use of the word "polemic" and then the following polemic statement is not admin material. You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
31. I'm concerned that in her answer to Q14, Tamzin fails to display the necessary soft skills for the role. Tact and discretion when dealing with good faith editors aren't optional in a sysop, they're must-haves.—S Marshall T/C 17:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
32. An apolitical oppose. Without invalidating the candidate's fears of oppression (which I understand and respect), RfA is a place where we ought to assume good faith (cf the Vami IV comment) over the impact of an editor's personal conviction on their Wikipedia edits. Also, what if you have a pro-Trump admin arguing that Democrat-leaning editors should be denied the mop? Not a famous person, NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
33. Oppose (moved from support) with regret, due to further information that has come to light. At issue is the reply to SmokeyJoe above ... it seems most people here agree that it's reasonable to not want admins who support oppressive regimes. Along the lines of the Gerald Seymour quote "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", I simply have not had the frame of mind nor the ability to reach definitive conclusions regarding the definitions of these weighty matters. I also do not believe that it is my job as an editor to sit in judgement of my fellows as to their suitability to be editors here due to their varied political and religious beliefs, our candidate included. And since I have found, after a bit of soul searching, that I do not belong in the category suggested above, I feel that I can no longer be a party to this nomination. Havradim leaf a message 17:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Moved to neutral. Levivich 17:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    Weakest possible oppose - I was originally going to move to neutral but I realized that I could not in good faith trust the character of someone who in light of the community response to their answers, cannot recognize their need for the tools as an SPI clerk as more important than the ability to grant permissions. If Tamzin saw their role as an admin as SPI first, rest of the tools second, I'd be more willing to support but their bad judgement in responding to the politics discussions in the way they have and strong refusal to recuse themselves from WP:PERM means I feel ethically compelled to oppose for now. I seriously hope for the benefit of the wiki that Tamzin reconsiders and decides to recuse themselves from PERM. If they don't expect this area to take up much of their time I cannot see what the big deal is. Administration is a duty to be undertaken with great respect and awareness of one's limits, and if they can't recognize where their usefulness starts and where it ends, I must oppose. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 17:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Having broken several of the promises I made in my own RfA, I find it refreshing when people do not make promises that they are asked for. Promises made here are not enforceable. —Kusma (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Kusma promise or not, their unwillingness to see how their own biases can affect administrative decisions as well as their conduct in the RfA is what is leading me to oppose as of now. PERM would just be the area I'm most worried of admin misconduct on their part. Additionally, there's plenty of admin candidacies I would support if their behavior in the thread matches the narrow nomination (e.g. theleekycauldron once they run again). Tamzin is "being sold" to us mostly as an SPI clerk sorely in need of admin tools to be better at their SPI tasks and an RFD regular. I trust their conduct and judgement in that area without doubt. However, if it is clear that the community sees their perspective on Trump supporters as problematic and they repeatedly argue for their right to judge permission requests based on political ideology, then they're not in my opinion acting as an SPI clerk sorely in need of the tools for that purpose but someone who wants all the tools and expects to use them. I find one of the tools problematic in their hands, so I oppose, though barely as I recognize their usefulness as an SPI admin and their strong track record elsewhere. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 18:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Moved back to support based on clarification. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

34. Oppose - I really didn't want to do this, as I don't think personal politics should really have any bearing on RFA so long as you aren't being disruptive or promotional on-wiki, but I find the points by Ealdgyth and Levivich to be concerning and convincing. From what I've seen, they do good work in the SPI area, but there's just red flags in others (with PERM being the big one) Hog Farm _Talk 17:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    OpposeI have said that she does great administrative work, but the doubling down, and Levivich's and Ealdgyth's opposes have persuaded me to change. For the record, I would totally support not voting for a racist or a transphobe. I vote Republican because that's what I always do. I hate the populist turn the GOP has taken under Trump, and I think he is detached from reality. If a Trump supporter was really not capable of using the tools, they would have been blocked long before they could get the chance to run for adminship. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Thank you Levivich for the ping. However, I am still opposing her because I recently lost a friend of 12 years over my religion. They claimed that if I continued going to church, I am not an LGBT ally and that we can't be friends anymore. That experience sounds all to similar to what is going on now. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    @Scorpions13256 Just to let you know even though it was 12 years ago, that person was very likely not a part of the LGBTQ. Any member would understand that you need to respect their beliefs and they need to respect your religion. I am so sorry that happened to you, and hope it is better now. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 19:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Actually, we were friends for 12 years. This only happened a few weeks ago. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    @Scorpions13256 Oh sorry, lol. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 21:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Thank you for your support though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    I am considering moving back to support. However, I don't plan on doing this until the morning. The next !voters are crucial in me making my decision. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    @Scorpions13256: you seem to have voted twice? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Boy, between this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Baxter (footballer, born 1904), we sure do have an indecisive (!)voter here! casualdejekyll 23:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    I think we need to be respectful of editors who are taking this RfA seriously and trying to figure out where they stand. There are a lot of arguments and issues to consider, and not all lend themselves to a kneejerk support or oppose. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    I can't figure out how to cross out the 39 without screwing up the score. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    I thought it was clear that I moved to support. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

35. oppose per my argument in neutral section below, also per Hammersoft, and Cullen328. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
36. Strongest Oppose Support of oppressive regimes should be disqualifying, period....I think that avowed, continuing support for Donald Trump constitutes support for an oppressive regime, and thus should be disqualifying. Is that so? Hmm. What would support for Biden mean then, as his administration continues to supply massive arms to Saudi against Yemeni people, thus aiding the world's biggest humanitarian crisis. I don't want to lecture about the war crimes of other US presidents and officials. But in your opinion, mostly everyone here would be disqualified right? An event that saw my cousin and uncle and aunt and octogenarian grandmother shelter in place in their home a few blocks away while tear gas, flashbangs, and bullets were fired in the halls of the Capitol. This is a red flag for me. Emotional anecdote for gaining sympathy. Keep your personal stories to yourself please. For Q25-What would your reaction be if you were informed that I, as a current administrator, voted for Trump in 2020?, she writes I would take note of that fact and move on with my day. Take note how? Like, keep a list? To Q11- Which policy would you say most guides your actions on the site, or is most important to your day-to-day editing? She says, This may sound like a strange answer, but, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. IAR as her guiding policy? I wouldn't want to work with such a user, let alone support her for adminship. - hako9 (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Hako9, you are free to oppose, but you are not free to so blatantly violate WP:AGF, in what looks to me like a mean-spirited way. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Apology to Tamzin. I redacted a stupid comment above. - hako9 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks for the exegesis about American politics while criticizing someone for the same. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    I am not the one who ran for adminship with the thinking that any person who supports a former president should be disqualified. - hako9 (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    And no one asked you for your ruminations on current events, yet here they are. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    A candidate can come here spouting their ludicrous political views, but I can't make air my political views, because no one asked me to? - hako9 (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

37. Oppose (moved from support) I originally supported this without any hesitation, but I have to oppose per the comments above. I won't pile on much more, but Q14 could have even been an opportunity to clarify a misunderstanding or change in opinion. Discrimination based on political beliefs is not okay. Bsoyka (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
38. Oppose I'm afraid I have to oppose. I didn't think I would when the RfA started, but based on the Trump comments, I think there is a real question of partisan bias. Tamzin's statement that they aren't talking about conservatives or Republicans, only Trump supporters, I'm afraid just doesn't wash: "I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards." That's more than just "Trump supporter". That's anyone who is "right-of-center by American standards." Doesn't matter how good a Wikipedian they are, what content they have created, how much expertise and knowledge and expertise they have of Wikipedia policies. If they are right-of-center by US political standards, by Tamzin's views they are not fit to be an admin. @Barkeep49:'s comment in response is significant: "But I am not willing to say that anyone who voted for one of the two foremost political parties in a functioning democracy/republic cannot hold administrative rights on English Wikipedia. In fairness Tamzin didn't quite say this..." except I read Tamzin's comments as saying exactly that. There are a lot of conservatives and Republicans who voted for Trump, and it's hair-splitting to say that they're not Trump supporters. I also agree with @Cullen328: "Do all candidates for administrator need to be investigated, purged and ousted if they once said that they voted for Trump? I hope not." NPOV is one of the core pillars of Wikipedia. If we start having administrators who impose partisan political litmus tests on eligibility to be an administrator, regardless of a candidate's knowledge and fitness of the ways of the Wikipedia, NPOV is imperilled. I oppose. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
39. Oppose. Wikipedia's most important principles are notability and neutrality. Compromise them and you don't have an encyclopedia. I have a problem with a statement by a candidate for Administrator who says their political views may influence decisions they make on Wikipedia. Smallchief (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
40. Oppose with regret. This RfA was very exciting until the concern on politics became such a major issue for the user. It is possible that the claim the user said here about Trump (supporters) might spill over on AN(I) or other discussion boards. Wikipedia is not a battleground where one's opinion is correct, but about consensus. Sorry. — B. L. I. R. 23:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
41. Oppose. The belligerence inherent in statements such as "I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter" and "I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards" (diff) just begs to be rejected by any reasonable assembly of rational persons. It would be no more appropriate to approve automatic desysopping of any Obama supporter or refusing to consider adminship for anyone on the political left. Wikipedia adminship is not about joining political caucuses and ganging up on designated victims. There are other valid reasons to oppose, which have been enumerated to some extent by others, some of whom share the candidate's leftism but are still able to see what's wrong here, but this one is the deal-killer. – Athaenara ✉ 23:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
42. Oppose. - I dont think it would be a great moment on Wikipedia to see someone being this incredibly biased being given a mop. It would just end up being another embarassing moment for Adminship. GamerPro64 00:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
43. Oppose. What if this user said that people who support Biden shouldn't be admins? Answer: Way more opposes. It's simply not fair for people to be against pro-Trump admins and have a successful RFA, but people that are against pro-Biden admins to not. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 00:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
44. Oppose. An incredible testament of poor judgment. While I'm also vehemently anti-Trump, contributors should be able to separate their political stances from how they function on Wikipedia. The candidate's views rob me of any faith I could have had in trusting them to approach matters as a neutral party regardless of the topic. ✗plicit 01:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
45. Oppose - I came prepared to likely support, but all this political nonsense re: Trump voters and such clearly indicates they don't have the right temperament nor common sense to keep their politics out of their Wiki business. I could expand, but it's pretty simple really. Even after clarifying, it seems the candidate lacks the judgement necessary to deal with people of all backgrounds, and at the end of the day, admin MUST be able to deal with people of all cultures, all beliefs, all religions, and all politics in an objective manner. Drawing a line in the sand that way is utterly incompatible with being an admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
46. Oppose. I had concerns about limited content contributions before the politics discussion cropped up but the editor's continued contributions to that show that they don't have the right temperament/judgement/communication skills for adminship. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
47. Oppose. Expressed political commitment makes candidate unsuitable as an admin. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC).
48. Oppose. I want to support this, and without the issues raised by Ad Orientem I would have, but due to those issues I have to oppose, largely per Cullen. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
49. Oppose While the nominee is certainly qualified and I believe is acting in good faith and would, in the end, try to be fair, it's not just about being fair but also about people trusting you to be fair. I simply cannot support an admin who takes explicit stances that give a legitimate basis for a substantial portion of the community to believe that they are not being treated justly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    "While the nominee is certainly qualified and I believe is acting in good faith and would, in the end, try to be fair" - I oppose the candidate as well, but your saying that she's "qualified", while still opposing, doesn't logically follow. It seems you're basing your oppose on other's opinions rather than your own opinion. If you personally believe that she's qualified and you personally trust her, then perhaps, you're in the wrong section and should consider moving to neutral or support? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    I can't speak for this person specifically, but in my eyes as another opposer I do believe Tamzin is qualified for adminship. However, meeting the qualifications for any position, including adminship on Wikipedia, doesn't completely mean the candidate should receive the position. She is qualified for the rights, but I don't think she should hold them after what we've seen here. Bsoyka (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    Qualified does not necessarily mean sufficient. The nominee has the technical abilities and experience that would normally be sufficient, but I have questions about their judgment, even if well-meaning. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

50. Oppose, sadly, per concerns raised above. Tamzin seems qualifed for the toolset in regards to her work, but I feel very uncomfortable with her neutrality after seeing her comment on desysopping Trump supporters. (As many others have said, I would also oppose if she had said the same regarding mass-desysopping Biden supporters or any other group based on political/religious views.) aboideau^{talk to me!} 03:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
51. Oppose. My feelings are well expressed by Levivich, particularly support for a political candidate does not equate to supporting each and every one of the political candidate's beliefs or positions. That does not seem to be Tamzin's view, and I think it could impair her judgement on some issues. At the very least, some admin actions taken by Tamzin may be viewed as biased, even if they are not. Really appreciate her for clearly stating her views to give the community a full understanding. Great editor, but I can't support her for admin rights. Glennfcowan (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
52. Oppose per Hammersoft and Cullen. This type of intolerance, open and proud intolerance, is a very serious problem. I would imagine this is part of the reason we recently had a survey asking Wikipedia editors if we ever feel uncomfortable editing. GrammarDamner how are things? 04:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
53. Oppose - I've never contributed to an RfA before but do usually read over them. When I first saw who was running I thought I might for the first time, but not to oppose. But then having thought on Q14 I thought I should oppose or neutral instead but didn't want to be badgered like other opposers had at that time. But now it is clear that I must oppose. If neutrality is to mean anything on Wikipedia (and some may know it's a topic I've questioned before at ArbCom elections) then users must never be discriminated against by admins and other respected users due to their political views, and I simply don't believe that Tamzin is capable of not discriminating, based on what she has said. Dennis Brown (amoungst others) puts it better than I do above. A7V2 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
54. Oppose - I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. is more than enough for me to vote for oppose. First of all, there is no guideline whatsoever that justifies desysopping because you vote for Trump. And also about this comment: It is about people who continue to support him after he spent months trying to undermine the outcome of a free and fair election and his supporters then invaded the hallowed center of our democracy in an overt attempt to unlawfully overturn that election's result and impose an unelected head of state. I understand that we all have our biases, but openly stating that you will use your bias towards other editors is not doing good for your RFAs, and in my opinion, is not a good thing to have as an admin. I am right-of-center in US politics, and thanks to your statements I feel unsafe to voice my opinion on Trump, and my opinion on January 6. Wikipedia editor should be apolitical when editing, and by your statements, it is clear that you might have a problem keeping it separate. I supported Trump. I supported conservatives and the pro-life movement. I supported some of the far-right causes. I did anti-vandalism work, and I reverted far-right or conservative materials that didn't follow the guidelines, even though I might have believed them personally. While I understand everybody is biased, but at least we are keeping it hidden and try to show it. As GrammarDamner have pointed out, this is a clear case of open and proud intolerance, and this is a serious problem. If people are voting because of political bias, it should be blamed on the nominee, not on the voters, because the nominee clearly brought it on themselves. The nominee is clearly shown having political bias that can affect their decision making. It is unfair for pro-Trump to feel unsafe when asking for WP:PERM or when going through WP:RFA because someone WILL use it as a reason to not vote for them. To close it off, the conduct ON-WIKI should be the one to judge someone, NOT their "supposed activity" OUTSIDE WIKI. And if we are talking about Trump, it goes more than just politics, it also goes for gun rights, police brutality, Russia, far-right movements, and many more. SunDawntalk 06:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    I understand everybody is biased, but at least we are keeping it hidden and try [sic] to show it—this is precisely the opposite of Wikipedia's ethos, as we have policy that requires people disclose conflicts of interest. If we consider the reason behind the COI policy, we see that it is good to make clear our biases (which, you correctly state, we all have), because others can then assess how they affect our edits. — Bilorv (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    Apologies, bad copy editing from me. What I meant is While I understand everybody is biased, but at least we are keeping it hidden and try not to show it.. From my example, it is clear enough that while all of us are biased towards a viewpoint, it should not show on our editing patterns. [Conflict of interest WP:COI] is an interesting thing during political season, where almost everyone will have a conflict of interest. I have an interest for Trump to win, someone else have an interest for Biden to win, and I am sure we don't need to put up COI infoboxes for that, as long as we are not related to them or their campaign teams. If someone had made it clear that the nominee will be affected by their political bias, the nominee should not be chosen as an administrator. SunDawntalk 09:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

55. Oppose - " I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards" - sorry, this is a deal-breaker for me. I dislike Trump but the way someone voted in the US elections should have no bearing on whether they can be an Admin or not. FOARP (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
56. Oppose (moved from Support) per Hammersoft, and Cullen328. --Victor Trevor (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
57. Oppose with regret. We shouldn't based how editors are treated on political views, but on actions. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
58. Oppose – I rarely vote in RfAs, and I can't remember when I last did so to oppose a candidate, but here I have to agree with Cullen328 and many others. Much as I dislike Mr. Trump, disqualifying candidates because they support (legal) political causes is contrary to the whole idea of Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
59. Oppose due to the issue regarding political bias. The main problem we have on Wikipedia (aside from financial conflict of interest) is political conflict of interest - it can destabilise our articles and create editing conflict and disharmony. Someone who is so unable to leave their politics at the door when they come to work at Wikipedia (indeed, advocating for extreme examples of politic bias, such as making it a criteria for becoming an admin "Are you now, or have you ever been, right of centre?") are unlikely to make a neutral admin. Hopefully Tamzin will take on board the comments here and reflect that discussion and consensus is the way we prefer to do things on Wikipedia, and that everyone is welcome to edit here and become an admim, regardless of their political beliefs. Indeed, we welcome and encourage a range of peoples - male, female, trans, left, centre, right, etc. Our diversity and tolerance is a significant part of our strength. SilkTork (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
60. Oppose Fale29 (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
61. Oppose per Cullen328 and Hammersoft et al. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
62. Oppose: In real life, I have witnessed firsthand that differing political views can tear unity and relationships and even someone's life goals apart, which is why I am apolitical. I cannot and will not support any candidate who thinks their political beliefs are loftier than the others, no matter what they be. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
63. Oppose: Per Q14. McJEFF ^(talk) 14:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
64. Oppose due to the politicized nature of the candidate's approach. This is not LeftistsOnlyPedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
65. overtly biased.--RZuo (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
66. Oppose -Admins have to be impartial in their application of their tools, and where necessary have to be willing to take actions against people who they agree with or are friends with and for people who they strongly disagree with or dislike. For Wikipedia to work, they have to be trusted to be impartial. The answer to question 14 does not give confidence that the candidate can be trusted to apply a suitable level of impartiality to their use of the tools. In addition, with statements like that, anytime that you do need to take admin action against political opponents, then your action is likely to be seen as due to your opposition to their politial positions rather than their actions on Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
67. per Hammersoft Naleksuh (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
68. Oppose Unfortunately I have changed my vote from support to oppose. This is not because of their political views, but because of what she said about people like me. I think it is unfair to anyone if we desysopped someone just because of their political views. I am with Cullen328 on this one for all political views not just Republicans. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 19:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    It's okay Kaleeb18, you've nothing to worry about—it was only Republican editors who were also potential admins she was referring to. :D SN54129 19:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    ...those who continue to toe the Trump line of "massive fraud" after the Biden election, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    Still though what if I were one of those potential admins hypothetically. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    Thing is, admins often play a role in solving disputes involving fake news, lies, distortions, misrepresentations of sources, unreliable sources, etc--think of the discretionary sanctions in AP territory. So if someone clearly believes in lies (and that's not all "Republicans", however one defines that), then one may well question whether they are capable of making judgments in that area. I can't speak for Tamzin, but no one on Wikipedia should accept judgments in for instance arbitration cases from someone who can't tell the difference between Reuters and the Daily Caller, to take one clear set of opposites in terms of reliability, and in the end the false "massive fraud" claim comes down to discernment and judgment. So I doubt that this will actually ever come up: not a lot of conspiracy theorists make it as far as RfA... Drmies (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    Oppose Due to this User's comments about people with right-of-center politics (for more information see Q14), I can't support this candidate for adminship.Glory to King William (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    Glory to King William (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Likely sockpuppet/troll as with previous check by User:Kusma.[5] Mathsci (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    I am not a checkuser and can't comment on whether this user is related to the one I blocked (in the support section). In any case, as this vote is the user's second edit (of a total of two), it should not be counted. —Kusma (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    Many thanks to checkuser User:AmandaNP for sorting out that this was (The Troubles-related) sockpuppeteer User:Dexdunkers. Mathsci (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

69. Oppose in spite of respect for a capable editor whose work here does much good. This is not about politics—I too am a Trump opposer—it's about a willingness to allow politics (and judgments about what another's politics means about their character) to impact decision-making here. Retswerb (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
70. Oppose per Hammersoft's arguments (the answer to Q14) — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
71. Oppose per Hammersoft's arguments, evidence that the candidate harbors a strong political bias and antipathy towards evens moderate conservatives, and has a distorted, hyperbolic view of American politics (characterizing Trump's presidency as an "oppressive regime") which don't bode well for sound judgement in disputes. Wikipedia already had a serious political bias problem in terms of certain contents areas, standards for reliable sources, the constitution of its administrator class, and the standards and proportions with which editors are sanctioned depending on their political position with respect to controversial, hot-button topics. Promoting Tamzin to administrator will only exacerbate these problems. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
72. Oppose per Hammersoft and Cullen328 (though I don't think polemic is in any way pertinent!). Wikipedia is being destroyed by political acctivism as it is, already, so I oppose candidates who aren't willing to be politically neutral, cf. Tamzin's quote mentioned earlier:

    I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards

    The answers to Q14 are even worse – political orientation or moral qualities of WP editors or admins IRL are irrelevant, whether communist, fascist, or convicted felon doing time for heinous crimes, as far as your edits or admin decisions are impeccable you should be welcome. Someone who doesn't grok that has no place as an admin; given that tamzin has 300 supporters, already, that indicates that this project is coming to an end, as all so infected.tickle me 23:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    User:Tickle me, if we're going to hell in a handbasket, I appreciate you still being here and hope you'll be here to the bitter end. However, some political orientations are important, as the support for Wikipedia:No Nazis has shown. And as I have argued earlier, we would not want someone who cannot seperate reality from fiction, and gossip from reliable sourcing, to be in a position of judging matters and settling disputes involving the more difficult matters in, for instance, arbitration. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

73. Oppose per Cullen328. I wouldn't mention who I voted for ordinarily on Wikipedia, but I already have in another context, so here we go. While I certainly did not support Trump in 2016 or 2020, I know people who did (since I would consider myself an evangelical Christian) and they have their reasons, some more well thought-out than others. I struggle daily with "how can they think that, and what does that mean in terms of their judgment in X area"? But I think it is very dangerous to outright disqualify anybody who checked one box over another on the ballot, because we don't know why they did or what they valued over another thing. --Rschen7754 01:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

    And I will add that this is with regret since I did think that I worked well with PinkAmpersand on Wikidata several years back. --Rschen7754 01:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

    "But I think it is very dangerous to outright disqualify anybody who checked one box over another on the ballot, because we don't know why they did or what they valued over another thing." It appears this is not what Tamzin believes, though? Answer to Q14: It isn't about people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. It is about people who continue to support him after he spent months trying to undermine the outcome of a free and fair election, here: I would not advocate creating such a rule, but if I woke up one day to learn that such a rule had magically sprung into existence, I would be okay with that, and the comment that we're all talking about was written by Tamzin in defense of Vami IV, at their RFA, for having previously been outwardly far-right, but no longer believing that today. The diff also says I wouldn't vote against someone solely on that basis. So it seems like, even in the exact diff that people are taking issue with, Tamzin does not believe that people who voted for Trump (or similar) should be disqualified from being admins, quite the opposite. Leijurv (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

    My third and fourth sentences would still apply. --Rschen7754 03:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

    I... don't see how, if you take away the sentence that connects the sentiment to Tamzin? Leijurv (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

    What I'm getting at is that I think it is very dangerous to exclude people just because they still support Trump, or to lump them all into one category. You just don't know their reasons for doing so and quite often you're playing right into the story that they want to tell. If you have doubts that they understand, say, reliable sourcing, or are making dubious edits to American political articles, or are practicing discrimination, then sure, oppose on those grounds. But I don't think we should be, in essence, making people sign a political statement of belief in order to participate fully on this site. --Rschen7754 04:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

74. Oppose. I've thought about this a lot over the past couple of days and, sorry, but I feel like I have to swing back around to opposing. People from all walks of life should be fully encouraged to edit the encyclopedia. That would make the entire project a much better place to volunteer. As long as an editor is not abusive or threatening, and their edits are reliably sourced, objective and neutral, I could care less about anyone's off-site political ideology. Cullen328 said it best. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
75. Weak Oppose per Hammersoft, Cullen328, and Tickle me. We all have our political biases and other things, but that should never ever stand in the way of Wikipedia. The fact that this candidate has stated

    I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards

    is incredibly poor judgement. I am not personally a fan of him, but what matters most is that the person (no matter the religion, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, age or political orientation) can edit Wikipedia constructively. I am opposing this RfA because this person seemingly wants a witch hunt for any and all "right of center" administrators. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

    Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

76. Oppose per Hammersoft, and Cullen328. I appreciate that Tamzin may be beuricratically skilled and able to apply rules and guidelines with skill. I also appreciate the efforts in the area of sock investigations. But I'm also concerned when the politics are so clear. Springee (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
77. Oppose per Cullen328.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
78. Oppose per the clear admitted political bias as brought out by Hammersoft and Cullen328. Having personal views is fine, but openly stating even at RfA what they have is too much of an issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
79. Oppose As with those preceding me, the sticking point for me was this [6] comment, however, perhaps not for the same reason indicated by others. Initially I had no issue with the comment in question. It's only when the candidate offered a fuller explanation in response to Ad Orientem's question that I developed a deep apprehension. Specifically, the candidate appears not simply to have an issue with Trump — which I might have discarded as a personal indulgence to an otherwise fine record and registered Support or Neutral — but they've curated a list of different politicians and beliefs they believe IRL support is disqualifying (e.g. "Stalin, Mao, and other leftists"). During a recent RfC I opened seeking to remove Juan Guaido from the President of Venezuela infobox we had one Oppose !voter (not all of the Opposes) who more or less registered their opinion simply because they felt President Maduro was "anti-democratic" and Wikipedia's job should be to promote all manner of good things like democracy and marzipan, even if it meant advancing a fantasy. (This was not described in so many words in the !vote but had to be understood within the context of other comments they registered elsewhere.) When someone enters an RfA offering a list of politicians and belief systems they've built, the adherents of whom they believe should be disqualified from accessing certain features of Wikipedia, it causes me deep concern that they are not far removed from those, like the editor I encountered on President of Venezuela, who would seek to use WP to advance a vision of wholeness and goodness, even if that vision doesn't square with reality. Chetsford (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
80. Oppose, per answer and follow-up to Q14. I agree with the !votes from Hammersoft, JBchrch, and Cullen328. —Wasell^(T) 🌻 06:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
81. Weak oppose (Moved from support)- After what has been brought to light I can say that it doesn't quite sit right with me, and I do agree with what Hammersoft, JBchrch, Cullen328 and others have said. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 07:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Tamzin is the personification of an "administrator without tools", who holds herself to an incredibly high standard of conduct, transparency and knowledge. I would be placing this in the support section, but thought best to check with Tamzin per a previous shared IP disclosure—as further credit to her integrity, she has asked that I refrain from doing so. The closing bureaucrat(s), however, have no such need to listen and could well count this as a support in full ~TNT (talk • she/her) 12:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

   Worse oppose ever, TNT. El_C 13:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

   @TheresNoTime The most WP:POINTY or IPointy oppose ever 😅. This is very WP:SERIOUS stuff! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

   I don't know if the above two comments are meant in jest, but in case they aren't I'd note that (1) this isn't an oppose, and (2) it sounds like the candidate specifically requested TNT not to support, presumably due to them knowing each other in real life. I wouldn't personally think such caution is necessary, but it's their choice at the end of the day and the crats are free to interpret this as a "support" if they like.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

   They're not my moms! El_C 17:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

   Everyone pile on TNT! I've got your cetacean right here! -- BDD (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

   Yes, let's all WP:BADGER this OK, seriously, let's not badger this neutral. People have opinions… /srs /s — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 00:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

   Amakuru, I'm gonna guess its jest just based on the link in Shushugah's reply. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

   I'm surprised no-one is raising the shared IP address as an issue, especially when the two accounts have an extensive interaction history, editing several dozen articles within 10 minutes of one another. I would like to see some genuine elaboration on this point. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   @Homeostasis07: I hope you don't mind, but I've copied your comment up to the question session as Q19, so I could answer it there. I was going to respond here but it was a lot of text to put in the middle of a thread in the neutrals, and this is really a question even if it doesn't have a question mark. If you or anyone else objects, feel free to move my answer down here and remove the question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

2. Neutral, leaning weak oppose - I agree with GregJackP that candidates should have a bit of experience writing reviewed articles (GAs or FAs). Personally, I like seeing at least 1 GA because all admins will eventually be involved in some form of content dispute. While reading the content policies will give you a basic understanding of what an article is, only writing one will give you the experience and understanding of how an article is actually made. When you inevitably get involved in a dispute between a frustrated article writer and someone else, that experience is needed to fully understand the situation and why the author feels the way he or she does. Too often, admins lean into "cop mentality". That said, her answer to Q4 is exceptionally good. I firmly disagree with the "no need" oppose, since admin tools are not a big deal, and even if she makes one singular admin action as an admin, that's still a benefit for the encyclopedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

   Re-affirming neutral - In light of the recent developments in this RFA, I would like to re-affirm that I have seen the comments and, apparently in contrast to most other people, don't find them excessively concerning. They seem to be more about people who support neofascist takeovers or the delusional people who still believe Trump's "Big Lie", neither of whom should be allowed anywhere near admin, than about generic conservative / Trump voters. (Full disclosure: I'm moderately left-wing.) My other concerns regarding lack of content creation remain. Ironically, a well-written good article or a featured article might have prevented the deluge of oppose votes since it could be used to demonstrate that Tamzin can write neutrally. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   Neutral pending response to question 14. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

   Back to support following a satisfactory answer to my question. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

   neutral, leaning oppose Tamzin's comment from other RfA reads in full: I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards (although I wouldn't vote against someone solely on that basis). This doesnt lead me to oppose. But I strongly believe that we should keep our personal beliefs/practises/political ideologies off the wikipedia. We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to advertise/publicise our ideologies, religion etcetera. In simple words, one should edit whatever articles they want to edit, but one should not publish anything about them which may be controversial. Even if one discloses it somewhere, or the word gets out, then one shouldn't be actively commenting/arguing, or be in disputes about/because of it. Also per Hammersoft. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

   PS: content is not an issue for me. If I was around for Cobi's first RfA, I would have strongly supported Cobi. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

   moved to oppose. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)Neutral. I can attest to Tamzin's contributions at RFD and I believe she will put the tools to excellent use. That being said, systemically deprioritizing the voice of Americans who hold right-of-centre views would lead to a less welcoming environment for them to become editors on Wikipedia and create a WP:BIAS in favour of politically progressive viewpoints on articles about American political topics. Dismissing right-of-centre but swayable voters isn't the solution to pushing progress and equality in the US: the solution is to build a broad coalition of voters who can elect a majority for the Democratic Party in both chambers of Congress. (It's not looking good for the Democrats in the upcoming midterms.) And no, the US isn't more politically conservative than other developed countries in the world. American political culture tends to be exceptionalist and shy away from cross-national comparisons, leading to such a misconception, but in many areas the US is much more progressive than many parts of Europe and East Asia. I hope Tamzin takes the criticism she has received for her stance to heart. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 06:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Moved to support.

3. Neutral, leaning support I've notice that a lot of the opposes here are relating to her answer to a question where she stated that she would be fine with a system to desysop admins who supported Trump. I find this to be a bit harsh and also slightly biased to non-trump supporters. I myself prefer to stay as politically neutral as I can, however, I do find it a bit concerning that she's so anti-Trump (relating to her response, and not her actual political stance) that she would be fine with desysoping an admin who supports Trump. That said, I feel that this may have been a slight hyperbole. Because of all this, I'm more neutral, but I still support her being an admin, so long as she's careful not to let her political stance (Status? I don't know what would be the right word here) judge her actions. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

   @Blaze Wolf: maybe you are looking for belief, ideology, or practise with an S? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

4. I choose to wait and see.--Q28 (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
5. Neutral, leaning oppose If Tamzin was simply opposed to Trump supporters being admins, I wouldn't have commented. That is harsher than my own position would be, but not unreasonable. Explicitly stating that she believes being right-of-centre makes someone inherently less trustworthy though? Yeah, nah. I'm sure Tamzin sincerely believes that it wouldn't affect their actions, but in-group and out-group bias isn't a switch that you can flip on and off at will. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
6. Neutral I have been reflecting on this for a couple of days and I have to say that I am very uncomfortable with the principle Tamzin has proposed that it is legitimate for offline activities to be taken into consideration in decision making. We all have biases and opinions and we should do our best to leave those at the door and build a verifiable encyclopedia with a neutral balance. If someone is able to set their personal issues aside and contribute effectively to the goals of Wikipedia, I don't care which colour flag they wave or which morally questionable person they think is best to lead their country. To do otherwise is to assume bad faith from the other editors and allow the whole fabric of consensus to unravel. From reading the comments above, I can see that the candidate is a net positive for the project and only this one issue is of particular concern. So long as Tamzin steers well clear of this topic in future, I don't think this is sufficient grounds for me to oppose. However, I can't offer my support to someone who expresses views that go against the core spirit of Wikipedia. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
7. I'm not comfortable with some of the views put forward by the candidate that form the basis of much of the opposition above, but at the same time, this candidate should easily have passed my RfA criteria had it not been for these civility issues. We judge content, not contributors here. Nobody gets punished for being a Nazi or a Communist (to name 2 of many examples of fringe political views), they get punished for putting Nazism or Communism in the Encyclopedia. To that note, the answer to Q25 is the correct one and is definitely the best way forward for everyone considering whether to share strongly held political views here. Iffy★Chat -- 13:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   I don't see it as a civility issue. For me it's a question of bias: based on Tamzin's response, I think she would be biased as an admin. That goes to the heart of the issue of trust, not civility. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

8. Neutral. I really like Tamzin's answer to Q21 as it has demonstrated a thorough understanding of just how hard article improvement is. However, unlike a lot of people who switch their vote from support to oppose/neutral, I'm here because I believe Tamzin has the competence to be an admin, but further proof are needed to demonstrate that her strong political view won't affect her editing. A bad RfA can have huge consequences on the user's future edits, both good and bad, and I don't want to exacerbate it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
9. I normally don't vote in RFAs (anymore). The comments below (now struck) are what moved me to vote, but then Tamzin clarified those comments, and it turned out I had misunderstood her. I still disagree with her about the other stuff, but it's not important enough for me to vote, so moving back to neutral. My original vote follows. GL Tam. Levivich 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   Oppose based on today's answers to questions and responses to opposes. I realize this is likely to pass anyway and I don't want to pile on and repeat the points raised in the opposes above, which I generally agree with, but I should nevertheless be specific about what pushed me off the sidelines, and I hope Tamzin considers mine and others' oppose rationales regardless of how this RFA turns out:

   • permissions requests, uniquely on Wikipedia, are a place to judge someone's character. - Based on this, I do not want Tamzin to be in a position to grant or deny any WP:PERMs. No part of permissions requests should involve judging someone's character, which we are in no position to do because we are strangers communicating by text. We judge edits, not character.
   • I think when voting in a permission request or election, you should vote your conscience. We should vote based on the candidate's contributions history, not based on our conscience. I don't want an admin who will be deciding on a permissions request based on their conscience, because that suggests that there is some sort of moral aspect to a permissions request.
   • In response to Q27 about recusing from requests for permissions: To answer the explicit question: No. To answer the implicit question of "Are you going to go around denying permission requests from people with pro-Trump userboxen?": Also no. If this RFA is successful, I think Tamzin should recuse from permissions requests because of the statements that permissions requests "are a place to judge someone's character" and that "Political views are one of the best measures of someone's character, and should not be off-limits in assessing people". It's not about userboxen, it's about the notion that perms involve judging character, or judging people, rather than judging edits or contributions history. If an admin thinks that any part of an admin's job is judging character, and thinks that political views are a good measure of character, then I fear the admin will judge editors based on their political views. Saying they won't deny perm requests to people with pro-Trump userboxen doesn't assuage me otherwise; if anything, it displays a lack of understanding of the depths and complications involved in fairness, bias, and recusal issues.
     • UPDATE: Tamzin has clarified that "permissions requests" meant the sort of permissions we vote on and not the kind of permissions granted by admins at WP:PERM. As such, I have struck several points in this !vote. (I still don't think we should be trying to assess character in permissions we vote on, but I don't think that has any relevance to how Tamzin would process PERM requests.) Also pinging Hog Farm and Scorpions13256 because they specifically referenced my oppose in their opposes posted before I left this note, so I want to make sure they see this. Levivich 18:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
   • my not wanting to edit under the adminship of people who would in many cases see me forceably labeled a man as a matter of law and forced to use men's restrooms where I would likely be raped or worse, see my queer relationships made illegal or at least illegal to discuss around children, see my eventual children forced to learn the Christian Bible in schools—or who at the very least are comfortable marching arm-in-arm with people who believe these things - I believe we have some admins who support Trump; I do not believe those people "would in many cases" like to see any harm come to Tamzin or anyone else, and it's unfair to suggest otherwise. Equating support for Trump with being anti-transgender-rights is problematic because support for a political candidate does not equate to supporting each and every one of the political candidate's beliefs or positions; voting for a transphobic politician does not make the voter transphobic. Aside from that, the whole idea of "editing under the adminship of" shows a view of adminship that is very different from and entirely incompatible with my view of adminship (we do not edit "under" admins). I would paraphrase this as, "I don't want any admins who disagree with my political views", and that's not a view of what Wikipedia is and how it should work that I agree with. The Roman Catholic Church says being gay is a sin, but can anyone imagine saying we shouldn't "edit under" Catholic admins, or that Catholics are anti-gay because they "are comfortable marching arm-in-arm" with the Pope? I cannot ascribe to guilt-by-association, and I can't support an RFA candidate who so strongly believes in guilt-by-association, because I believe they will apply the same guilt-by-association thinking to their use of admin tools.
   • Political views are one of the best measures of someone's character, and should not be off-limits in assessing people. and I stand by my take that Political views are one of the best measures of someone's character. On Wikipedia, we should not be trying to assess people, or character; we should assess edits. And anyway, political views are a terrible way to measure someone's character. People vote for many different and complicated reasons. For example, there are LGBTQ+ Trump supporters, and anti-LGBTQ+ Trump opponents. The suggestion that people who disagree with certain political views have bad character strikes me as hyperpartisanship.
   • So, I would not broadly recuse from American politics. But to avoid any appearance of impropriety I would recuse from topics within American politics that I've expressed opinions about on-wiki, which as far as I can recall is a class of one: my opposition to Mr. Trump. There is no part of American politics these days that does not involve Trump, because he was just president. If you have to recuse from Trump, you have to recuse from the entire Republican Party that he leads, which means you also have to recuse from the Democratic Party that opposes him, and there is very little of American politics that doesn't involve Republicans or Democrats... and also you'd have to recuse from any international politics involving America, which is a large chunk of global politics. Drawing a distinction between "Trump" and "American politics" suggests a lack of understanding about recusal, WP:INVOLVED, and the whole idea of being not just free from bias, but free from the appearance of bias. If this RFA is successful, I think Tamzin should broadly recuse from American politics.
   • The answer to Q29 reinforces my view. Tamzin says she doesn't want to edit under a pro-Trump admin, but also says her anti-Trump views won't affect her use of tools; that seems paradoxical to me. It's like she's not considering the possibility that there are editors who may not want to edit under an anti-Trump admin. I don't think it matters if an admin is pro- or anti-Trump... we should not even be opening that door... but Tamzin does, and that's a big problem for me.

   None of this is to say I think that Tamzin is a bad person or bad editor, and or that I disagree with any of her political views. I appreciate her honesty, but it revealed a vision of adminship that is very, very different from my vision of adminship. Levivich 17:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

   I hate to be a reply guy in the oppose section, but why you think that Tamzin's expressed opinions would pose a problem for Tamzin moderating disputes about local American Politics? I don't see why I'd assume that she'd be WP:INVOLVED in an AE dispute involving a mayor of some small town that happens to fall under WP:AP2 because the mayor's an American elected official. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

   Yeah, I guess there are some corners of AP2 that don't involve Trump. Levivich 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   Just also pinging Ixtal since they voted with a similar rationale which may have been influenced by this comment. :) firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

   Thanks firefly! I'm out of home so will reread everything once I get back. Quick quick read of the diff alleviates my concerns. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 19:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

10. Neutral. I don't have the time to thoroughly examine the candidate's editing record, much of which is in areas where I have little expertise, so I will stay out of !voting here. But I will note that the political aspects of this discussion reinforce my personal opinion that we as a community should return to the guideline we apparently affirmed in order to allow userboxen (long before my time, in response to Jimbo deleting them all as divisive): editors should not state their political or religious affiliations on-wiki, whether in a box or otherwise, userboxen should be limited to the "this user is an X or is interested in Xism" format, and AGF should dictate that until they demonstrate otherwise, an editor should be trusted to maintain NPOV rigorously and to recuse themself from issues that are personal hot buttons such that they cannot edit neutrally (which of course includes being judicious in talk-page comments). The opportunity to descend on a self-identified extremist doesn't outweigh the corrosive effect on the community and the erosion of diverse voices; and allowing position statements makes it all the more likely that people will be intimidated by something they see someone else stating, on their user page or elsewhere. "Better the devil you know ..." is not the best guideline here, I believe. Let the skeletons stay in the closets. One reason for that is that this is a worldwide, all-embracing project. The statement (in support/defense of an RfA candidate who had admitted extremeist political views) that has given rise to many of the opposes at this RfA has another dimension: it was very US-centric. Not just in the explicit definition, right-of-center by American standards (some may not realize that to many in the world, even the US left is right-wing) but in the explanations relating to Trump and our democracy and more broadly in the left-right thing overall. Understandable though it is, this is a limited political worldview. Given the apparent relative numbers of editors on English Wikipedia, I see a lot of such America-centric commenting, and for analogous reasons, commenting and even arguments about edits rooted in people's "but of course" religious backgrounds, too. But I hope to see from admins a realization that other editors don't necessarily have that shared background. Given that I am apparently not going to ever get my wish to stem the flood of politicized and religion-based statements on the project, that's all the more important to me, because many editors run into trouble precisely because they come from differing backgrounds and have differing assumptions of what is commonly agreed upon. If, as looks likely, Tamzin is given the tools, I hope she will consider this issue and be alert not only in her administrative decisions but in her statements on-wiki that it's not "our" democracy to everyone, and that others may have different political and philosophical issues at the tops of their mental lists, or frame issues using different terminology. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
11. Neutral. Tamzin says she supports de-sysoping an admin (or, presumably, opposing a nominee) if that person holds a particular political view, but I don't think she clarified whether that's her stance even if the person's views are not shown to have influenced their on-wiki contributions. The newly-accumulated opposes against Tamzin seem as though they may be applying a similar pre-judgement against her. That is,Tamzin is deemed unqualified to be an admin based on her politically-influenced criterion for de-sysoping admins, even if the record shows that Tamzin's own wiki-contributions have not been colored by her political position. (I would imagine such bias would have been described by now, if present.) I haven't examined Tamzin's record, so I don't know if her contributions are, or are not, so influenced. All that said, Tamzin's public statement against pro-Trumpers as admins strikes me as a tragically unfiltered admission. I can easily understand oppose !votes based on the issue of Tamzin's poor judgement in not recognizing that such a publicly-stated opinion would severely call into question her ability to behave neutrally in politically-charged situations and to base her actions (even as a non-admin) only on site policy. DonFB (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

General comments

• I've seen the sentiment of "sysop without tools" several times before, but it is being used extensively, more than I've ever seen before, in this thread. Why here? And, at what point, did the community decide sysop tools more than tools? Naleksuh (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  I've seen the term around, WP:AWOT if you want to read more. I'd imagine its used a lot in this thread, as people appreciate the work that Tamzin puts into this project. While I appreciate your !v's sentiment that sysop /s tools is just an editor, I think it speaks more to the general view of the editor, you know adminship is about trust, and there are people on the project I trust who arent sysops. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)(updt 03:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC))

  The reason you're seeing it around a lot more is that, while the AWOT page is over a decade old, it's only in the last few months that TolBot has been notifying prospective recipients (e.g. [7]), with endorsements available. SN54129 10:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

---

• Most of the general oppose consensus has been due to Q14 and Political Reasoning. This seems to be a ridiculous reason to oppose in my opinion. Personal political opinion is..well, personal and should not be a factor in an RFA. Their statement was who Tamzin would vote for in RfA's, not who will earn the mop. Tamzin is allowed to have personal opinions and preferences, it does not mean they are not neutral. Not once did Tamzin state that right-ists should not be allowed to contribute on Wikipedia. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  To restate what I said earlier in response to one of the opposes -

  My criteria, as expressed above, is that a candidate 1. Knows what they don't know, i.e.. knows when to ask before jumping in, and when to not do anything because they don't know enough. - 2. Knows what a mainspace is, I.E. doesn't treat Wikipedia as a game, has written something (not even a GA, just something!) and 3. Won't destroy everything. (That one's self explanatory.) I felt that Tamzin met all these criteria.
  Note that political affiliation is not in there. Being a Trump supporter is not in there, and saying that Trump supporters can't be admins is ALSO not in there.

  So this situation does not affect my Support. casualdejekyll 18:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  There is no reason to bring political views into Wikipedia especially those of Trump supporters. Tamzin's opinions should not affect whether you support the candidate or not. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 18:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  @SoyokoAnis: I entirely agree that editor's political opinions should not determine their eligibility for user privileges. That is why giving special powers to someone who vows to treat people differently for their political opinions makes me uncomfortable. Endwise (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  They did not say they were gonna treat others differently, just does not believe those who support Donald Trump should not have administrator privilege's. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 18:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  I would say that voting against admin candidates whose politics you disagree with would be treating them differently. Endwise (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  and yet, thats what we're doing now. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  1. No it's not. The issue is that she said she wouldn't support someone because of their politics, not her politics.
  2. If it were what we were doing now, why would you be complaining? That is what she said she would do as well, so it must be acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  PerryPerryD you might have a different view on this issue to Endwise but you should try and not respond to every comment they make about this. We can all disagree on how much we trust Tamzin after their comment. RfA votes are a matter of trust, and if it has altered Endwise's judgement but not yours that's perfectly fine. We don't need to convince each other nor is this a game one wins. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Tamzin's opinions should not affect whether you support the candidate or not. – and you could say that is your opinion and should not affect whether you support the candidate or not... starting to remind one of the paradox of tolerance. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with all who feel that the candidate is being judged entirely based on their political opinions. Honestly, no one is perfect and this candidate is no different. If someone could point out something she did based on their work, that could be a strong case (like the first oppose). But now people couldn't find anything... and now they are just trying to look for flaws relying on something she said. Anyway... these are just my opinions - feel free to disagree. But my support for her remains firm. Volten001 ^☎ 20:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Tamzin is allowed to have personal opinions and preferences, it does not mean they are not neutral. If I were to oppose, I would say that expressing those personal opinions and preferences bluntly at RfA reflects poorly on their diplomatic skills. I think roughly the same about "Trump supporters should not be admin" as about "cat owners should not be admin" - even if I think your argument is 100% right, expressing it here shows poor judgement. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Tigraan: Just to clarify, it wasn't my choice to express it here. I have spent one of my previous 30,000+ edits discussing this topic. I was asked if I stood by that, and I don't like lying or dodging questions, so I answered. People have asked subsequent questions, so I've answered. Perhaps optics-wise that hasn't been the best move, but again, I don't like lying or dodging questions. This wouldn't be the first time in my life I got myself in trouble by being honest. After this RfA, I expect this topic will consume approximately zero of my next 30,000 edits. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

---

• Hello folks. Just woke up. Thoughts and question answers to kome. In the meantime, @PerryPerryD and SoyokoAnis: Obviously I wouldn't try to censor anyone in my own RfA, but since I gather both of your participation here is in an attempt to defend my candidacy: Could you please ease up? And by ease up I mean like... Find something else to do. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Is there a need to be so condescending to the people who are defending your candidacy? Fale29 (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

---

• I call for Q25 to be struck as an obvious attempt at baiting in an already contentious RfA.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agree on this. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Generally speaking, if a candidate has answered a question, barring it being an egregious violation of the policies it is generally kept. Had Tamzin chosen to ignore this particular question there would be more room for debate, but as it stands there is little reason to delete it. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I assure that I am most definitely not trying to bait, and that I am aghast it would be interpreted that way. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps others didn't see your edit summary, 25. With apologies. But this may be important., which to me made clear that it was a good-faith request to clarify my views. Thank you for the question. One of the easiest I've had yet. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  I fail to see how my question was "loaded", considering there were no controversial assumptions/presumptions within and it could be answered with a simple yes/no without the person looking guilty. There was no presumption of guilt on my part; the closest to it was an added question assuming a condition was met, and if that made it "loaded" that could have simply been removed. I guess it doesn't really matter in the end, as I won't be able to argue a 'crat's decision (as always in these RfAs), and what can be said has been said. Rin (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  You are always welcome to question or ask clarification of a bureaucrat. It's a loaded question because there is a clear and obvious "right" answer, which can only serve to harm the candidate. Should you wish to discuss the matter further, though, I would suggest we take it to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification. Rin (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Answers to Q18, Q27, and particularly Q29, combined with no past problems or track record of political bias at SPI or article editing, make it clear to me that the candidate has demonstrated an ability to check politics at the door when evaluating policy, and clearly intends to continue to do so as a sysop. Would it be accurate to say that opposers disbelieve the answer to Q29? Leijurv (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

---

@Tamzin:, per Wikipedia:Signature tutorial#Getting colourful..., your signature needs to be changed in how it is displayed. I've tried looking at this RFA on three different browsers, and I've never had a vision problem on Wikipedia signatures. With the pale pinkish color and the pale style of font. It's not readable to a lot of users, including me. The only way I knew who you are, is by using a magnifying glass. We need to be able to read our admin signatures. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Maile66: My apologies! I have bad vision myself, so I care a lot about color contrast, but in the 10 years I've had this color in my signature it had never occurred to me that HTML color deeppink would be an issue against a white background; but I do see it falls short of WCAG AA Normal. My signature now uses #E6007A, which is WCAG AA Normal against white. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and my apologies to anyone who's had difficulty picking my name out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

---

• I fear that this will be a vote about Trump instead of the nominee herself. SunDawntalk 06:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  A situation you have not, in fact, alleviated. SN54129 06:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  The die has been cast by the nominee, not by the voters. It is the nominee that proudly bring Trump into the conversation. SunDawntalk 09:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  Uh, last I checked, she did not bring politics into the conversation, she made a political comment a while back that somebody else chose to raise as a question. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

---

• Let's forget the main discussions for a moment and focus on the numbers: (at the time of writing this,) It stands at S=298 O=69 N=9 which is 81% support of 367 votes (neutral not included in the votes or in the percentage). Basing on the recent RfAs (in 2022), this ranks as the most voted RfA this year (and possibly the most voted one in a long time). That means something. I won't mention or conclude anything regarding that. I'm just impressed with the turnout, the participation.....and/or the debate that this RfA sparked. Volten001 ^☎ 21:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yep, only two entries at WP:RFX300. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)