Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cwmhiraeth


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Cwmhiraeth
'''Final (20/41/7); ended 17:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination
– I have been an editor since 2010 and have made around 65,000 edits since then. I am basically an article creator / expander / improver with plenty of DYKs, GAs and FAs, some of the latter being collaborative efforts. I have won the WikiCup twice and am now a WikiCup judge. I am much involved at DYK, and am principally seeking the mop so that I can do more there, moving prep sets into queues and providing the administrator attention that is not always available at short notice. I have contributed modestly to AfD and undertook formal training with Yunshui in dealing with vandalism. I have never been blocked nor reported to An/I. Before nominating myself here, I undertook an RfA candidate poll which was somewhat inconclusive, so I decided to self-nominate rather than ask anyone to nominate me. I invited Fram (see reply to question 3) to comment at the ORCP. Fram rated my chances as 2/10, and kindly stated “Their editing has markedly improved since the 2014 lows”. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2017 (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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: My main purpose would be to continue and enhance my work at DYK where I have been building prep sets for a long time. Certain tasks, such as moving prep sets into queues and altering hooks that are in the queue or on the main page, can only be done by an administrator. In particular, I would be of assistance when the bot announces that a DYK update is due but that the queue is empty. I could also help with managing the main page, where admins are often required at short notice to make corrections, however I know this involves complex cascading templates, and I would need guidance at first on how it should be done. In fact, I am not very technologically savvy and I would proceed with caution.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I am basically an article creator, expander and improver. I have had more than 1000 DYKs, some of which were new articles but many were the expansion of brief stubs. I have taken over 50 articles to GA and 15 to FA, some in collaboration with others and some by myself. The FAs include Atlantic puffin, Barn owl and Frog, but probably my best contribution was Sea. That was a collaborative effort and we started with what was virtually a stub, expanding it through DYK and GA to FA. It was enjoyable writing it, and the tough time we had getting it through the FAC process gave us a great sense of achievement.


 * 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: In general I get on well with other editors and have never been involved in edit warring, although there was a bit of a fuss when I rewrote the article Tree unexpectedly. I reacted to that by leaving the article, which by that time had been tag-bombed, and moving on to other things. I learnt from that experience that it is better to make changes to articles incrementally and discuss major changes on the talk page before implementing them. My version remained largely intact and some time later, I collaborated with another editor to bring the article to GA.


 * In 2014, I was trolled, on and off Wiki, by another editor, now retired, and made a complaint at An/I. The resulting discussion called into question my competence as an editor and I voluntarily undertook an editor review. During this, a number of editors examined articles I had worked on, searching for errors, and finding some. The review was lengthy and inconclusive and I found it stressful. I have since tried to improve the accuracy of my work. Although annoyed by the trolling editor, I think I was quite successful in remaining calm and polite.


 * One of the editors involved in the review was Fram, and I came across this administrator again a couple of years ago when he/she was trying to raise standards at DYK. There is friction between us, we haven’t exactly quarrelled, but Fram blames me for errors in hooks at DYK. . As a result of Fram’s criticisms, I have co-operated in improving the faulty hooks, and tried to raise the quality of my reviewing and the standard of the hooks I promote. On a separate matter, I made an unsuccessful case request to Arbcom about Fram on a behavioural issue. I have no difficulty in interacting civilly with Fram on routine matters.

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.


 * Additional question from ProgrammingGeek
 * 4. You say that you would be mostly working at DYK. Would you ever consider wading into the cesspool that is ANI? Or even CSD, etc. for that matter.
 * A: As volunteers, we each choose the areas of Wikipedia that interest us. My chief interest is the creation of content. It is a long time since I did any new page patrolling and the new articles I see nominated at DYK would not meet the criteria for CSD, though some are taken to AfD. I have no particular interest in ANI but if a problem were brought to my talk page, I would do my best to help sort it out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Joshualouie711
 * 5. At ORCP, you said, "I will not be running for admin in the near future." Given that it has been slightly over a month since you wrote those words, why the change in heart?
 * A: Well, "near future" is rather a vague expression and that was six weeks ago, but the reason I chose now rather than later was because twice in the past week the DYK bot has reminded us that DYK is almost overdue and that there are no hooks in the queue, on the 3rd of May and the 8th of May. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Vanamonde93
 * 6. You have mentioned your friction with Fram above; several users have alluded to it in their !votes. Will this personal friction affect any decisions you make as an administrator, should you be given the mop? How would it affect them?
 * A: Fram is a highly respected editor with a great eye for detail and is nearly always right. I usually agree with the points Fram raises at DYK and cooperate in sorting them out. I do not believe any friction between us would affect any decisions I made as an administrator nor have an adverse effect on the project. I don't personally think our relationship is relevant to whether I would make a good admin, but I had to mention it because I knew it would be brought up at this RfA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional question from CubeSat4U
 * 7. Infamous RFA question: You come upon the following 7 usernames at UAA. What do you do? Cheers, CubeSats  4U  00:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yingtawah先生
 * Burning Bush did 9/11
 * Patriotic Page Protector
 * The Sysocrat
 * Elon Gates
 * Huns & Vandals
 * ClueBlocker GM


 * Stupid question - Cwmhiraeth has never expressed interest in this area. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  04:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A: At UAA, I would have the advantage of knowing why another editor has reported the name as being problematic. Of the names you mention, "Patriotic Page Protector" and "The Sysocrat" give the impression that the account has permissions which it does not have. I would suggest to these users that they open a new account with a different name. "Burning Bush did 9/11" is clearly offensive and should be blocked. "Huns & Vandals" might not be here to build an encyclopedia and I would monitor their account for a while to make sure it was being used appropriately. I have Googled the other names and have not identified any issues with them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note is currently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Links for Cwmhiraeth:
 * Edit summary usage for Cwmhiraeth can be found here.

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

Support

 * Seems like another good sysop. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  17:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)  (Moved to oppose)
 * Indenting since this is being counted as a support still. epicgenius (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Support I can foresee the opposition sizing your self-nomination up. My support is for your sincere content contributions, your commitment to always contribute positively and for the project's improvement, and for your honesty in enumerating the issues that have affected your time here (some, of your own undoing). Irrespective of what comes of this Rfa, kudos to your work at Wikipedia. Keep up the absolutely amazing stream of contributions. Lourdes  17:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Lourdes. Great content-creation and excellent edit count. I don't see any reason to oppose. - The   Magnificentist  17:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Good candidate. Counter Vandalism experience is also there as well as plenty of articles created. I have no objections. Good luck! Class 455 ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  18:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)  (moved to Oppose)  Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  17:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Firm support. Cwmhiraeth has, for quite a while, shouldered a huge load at DYK, while remaining an excellent and prolific content creator. There have been some miss-steps along the way, to be sure. None of us are perfect. But what makes me come down on the support side with confidence is that when these errors have been pointed out, Cwmhiraeth has always remained civil, and has made efforts to correct them, by and large successfully. I can perhaps understand Fortuna's concern below, but I disagree: I do not see any evidence that she will misuse the tools. In short, Cwmhiraeth will certainly be a NETPOSITIVE, and should be given the mop. Vanamonde (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. A fantastic history of article creation shows that Cwmhiraeth is here for the right reasons, and I see no reason to assume they would abuse the tools if granted. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Cwmhiraeth is a first-rate content creator who does so many things around here that I assumed she (he?) was already an admin. Can be trusted with the tools and will make even more useful contributions with them. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support "It’s only those who do nothing that make no mistakes". The candidate is a prodigious content creator and so this naturally provides lots of material for nagging, nitpicking and negativism.  Per WP:BOLD, we should encourage such hard work rather than rewarding those who do little or nothing. Andrew D. (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support A well-qualified candidate. Having the balls (i.e. "chutzpah") to butt heads with one of the infallibles is sadly going to be a deal-breaker here. To me, it only strengthens this candidacy; it shows me s/he doesn't intend to be one of the rank-and-file. Unfortunately, that sort of thing won't be suffered here. Those who aren't part of the claque cannot enter the clique. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Moral support, although I expect the RfA to fail. It was certainly a mistake to initiate the RfA in this context, and I acknowledge that there are legitimate concerns about how the candidate reacted to that conflict with Fram. But I also think that it is unlikely that such a conflict will arise with any other user, and that limits the likelihood of abuse of process. This is a textbook example of why it could be helpful to unbundle the tools (which, of course, is never going to happen). But I respect the long record of content contributions, and I feel like RfA needs to allow long-time users with one instance of drama to be evaluated by more than one single conflict. It's too easy to reduce someone to a caricature. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Further unbundling is probably a dead letter, yes, but I think a discussion on whether moving DYK's from one queue to another really needs an admin may be useful. That isn't really and administrative function the way blocking and protecting is. That's all Cwmhiraeth seems to want to be able to do, after all, and can hardly break the project if done poorly.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I made this point at ORCP; that Cwmhiraeth, and several other DYK regulars (Bluemoonset and Yoninah come to mind) are an excellent reason to unbundle the right to edit protected pages; and I'm sure there's others at OTD and ITN that we could say the same of. Vanamonde (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I highly doubt Cwmhiraeth will use admin tools in a way that will be a detriment to the 'pedia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support It is unlikely that user will abuse the tools. We have checks and balances.  --rogerd (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Screw it I've debated between Support and Oppose for the last 20 minutes however I did state at ORCP I would support ... so here I am!, Anyway yes the Fram & Arbcom issue is a big concern however we all get in to shit with editors however that aside I don't believe you would misuse the tools and you have alot of DYKs & articles under your belt and you're more or less a frequent editor at AFD so all in all I believe you'd be a net positive to the project. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Precious #120, wildlife, we interact almost daily, and well, - sadly probably true what Joefromrandb said --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I think Cwmhireath can be trusted with the tools, if only for the sole purpose of helping DYK. The Arbcom thing is a major dispute, but everyone makes mistakes once in a while. There are some people who are just unlucky enough to be caught up in the major mistakes. Unfortunately, at this point, the oppose ratio is more than the support ratio, so even if this does not pass, I'll still support her in a future RFA. epicgenius (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - a all too often complaint here on RFA is that editors applying do not have enough article creation experience. Well Cwmhiraeth has already proven that they are more than experienced in this field, and is experienced in other key areas of editing Wikipedia as well. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Would be an excellent decision. Hanberke (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I've found Cwmhireath a diligent editor and a great collaborator. I watched the trolling episode closely, and, to be honest, I felt the community failed to give her the support she deserved Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Tireless contributor, constantly adding new material and improving articles. Hard to imagine a more qualified person than this user. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Support – Although we may differ on how Cup rules are enforced, I give credit where credit is due. A net positive to the project and a dedicated content contributor.  Plus, being on Fram's "bad books" should be considered a badge of honour. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Although the ArbCon thing isn't very good, this editor seems to be relatively civil—enough that I would say that this candidate would not act purely on emotion. Additionally, she would be able to get stuff into the DYK queue without having to call for an admin. Finally, although this editor did not express interest in other areas much, she seems to have, or at least is willing to get, the knowledge required to work in other areas. Thus, a support. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  16:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose (Just to clarify- I have no issue with the self-nom!) But I think there is an issue regarding what you were offered at your ORCP and what you have taken from it; possibly slightly more positivity than was intended! Regardless of the details of the differences you might have had with another editor, you seem to have interpreted the Arbcom's decision not to pursue the case that you mention above ('I later tried to initiate an ArbCom case against Fram concerning his behaviour. This was declined by the committee, not because the case had no merits, but because there was insufficient evidence to proceed and sufficient prior dispute resolution had not been undertaken') somewhat differently to the actualité of its decision. This, as I pointed out at the time, was slightly different: 'The arbitration case was rejected as it did not 'meet [the] criteria for acceptance,' and was 'unripe for arbitration.' Further, at least one admin. was 'tempted to accept [the case] for boomerang purposes' and that ultimately your 'choosing to interpret people's reactions as "closing ranks" rather than taking the feedback you're receiving and considering your own contributions to the issue is unlikely to lead to a resolution.' So, to summarise, in the case you tried to bring, administrators both suggested you be WP:BOOMERANGed for it and criticised your conduct in the face of criticism. I concluded my remarks at your ORCP by suggesting that 'Unfortunately, I think it will take a while for that Arb case to be erased from the colllective memory.' I believe insufficient time has passed for these behavioural issues to have been ironed out- they suggest potential for misuse of tools available (Arbcom, at the time), a misunderstanding of dispute resolution (going to Arbcom immediately), and a hint of a lack of accountability (accusations of others' closing ranks), which does not bode well if it provides a future preview to your ADMINACCT. I will say that the issues raised in that poll, which I don't see any sign of having been settled, are not permenant set-backs: your content work and meta-work is testament to the benefits you are still bringing to the project. But the set-backs are still temporary set-backs, and leave too many unanswered questions, I'm afraid. A little more time to continue the good work and allow others to forget about the- less good, say?- and there would be far less issue. Good luck, though, of course, in any case.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever seen anyone necessarily "forget" about someone's "less good" at rfa. Indeed it seems almost a sport to dig through a history as far back as possible to look for reasons to oppose. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I keep my powder dry and assume (I think rightly) that votes like that are clearly discounted (I hope) if they are opposing for the sake of opposing or for personal reasons. If there's an issue that only needs time to resolve it, then, yes, I think the majority of 'sensible' editors will allow for that and cancel it out. Don't you think so? Surely that's just cynical otherwise :)  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The ArbCom case is too recent and too messy to give me confidence that using the admin tools is a good idea for the time being. An excellent record in content creation is great, but that understanding of the purpose of the project needs to be coupled with an understanding of the mores and policies of the project.  The way this candidate went about that case is a huge red flag about the latter.  Sorry. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) It's no secret that Wikipedia already has an issue with admins who use their position to further personal grudges; we certainly shouldn't be giving the ability to block and delete to someone we know has a recent history of abusing Wikipedia's process to try to push their personal grudges. (Per my comments at the arb case, the most minimal background research would have shown that in this instance Fram's "harassment and hounding" was actually "checking the contribution history of an editor with a demonstrable history of falsifying sources to see what other errors he'd introduced".) Everyone has had problems at some point in the past, but this is all less than six months old, and your refusal to learn from the unanimous consensus of every arbitrator, and instead complaining of "closing ranks", instils no confidence at all. &#8209; Iridescent 18:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I generally have a lot of respect for your opinion, but I don't quite understand your reasoning in this case. The ARBCOM request was a bad idea, to be certain. But there's a lot of difference between a bad idea and an abuse of power; and quite a distance between saying Cwmhiraeth has a bit of an allergic reaction to a certain editor, and suggesting that she would use the mop to further a personal grudge. I can agree with the former statement, but cannot make the jump to the latter. Vanamonde (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Per my link above, what's immediately apparent is that Cwmhiraeth didn't bother checking facts and instead assumed that calling out errors was evidence of disruption; had she done some digging into Nvvchar's history she'd have immediately found cases like the ones I documented here, in which Nvvchar was demonstrably fabricating content, but instead chose to believe the version of events which favored her particular interpretation of the case rather than check for herself, in pursuit of a personal grudge. Sloppiness and vindictiveness aren't good traits on Wikipedia in general, and certainly not in an admin; we have too many admins who see what should be pruning shears as the Flaming Sword of Justice already. Regarding other issues, Fram (yes, that name again) is obviously not an impartial observer, but summed up the issues with Cwmhiraeth's conduct at the Arbcom case so well I think it bears repeating: I don't think that someone who believes the "evidence" he collected for that case is sufficient for an ArbCom case (or believes it even correctly represents the situation), someone who thinks taking admin actions against globally banned users is evidence of admin abuse, someone who thinks "secret" evidence is acceptable or convincing, someone who keeps that onwiki "evidence" page and keeps adding to it long after the case has been rejected, and despite requests to delete it, is in any way ready to pass an RfA. As at least one arb pointed out, Cwmhiraeth was lucky to escape that incident without sanctions. &#8209; Iridescent 19:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The arbcom points up nominee's 1) inability to except criticism and 2) inability to except responsibility for the consequences of one's actions. These are perhaps irremediable disqualifiers for adminship. This RfA per se, coming so closely on the heels of the arbcom and the ORCP, shows poor judgement and underscores the aforementioned flaws.Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * After AmaryllisGardener !voted, I hereby add per fram's comments at the orcp and per ofortuna.Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) (Moved from Neutral as per ) - Having the tools would save the user time in the single task they wish to accomplish, but would also allow them unfettered access to block and page protect without let and hindrance and without showing any understanding of this. That's a worry. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Dlohcierekim. I don't like the idea of admins with recent heated ArbCom cases. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 19:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose firmly. Getting into a conflict with Fram and DYK isn't necessarily a problem. The reaction to that conflict, however, shows a lack of maturity and careful thinking needed for adminship. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - I must regretfully oppose. The ArbCom case is far too recent and unfortunately it shows a resistance to constructive criticism. In evaluating your contributions to the project, you're a good contributor and you definitely have some potential if you can reflect on the issues raised and how to improve upon them.  Insufficient time has passed for me to determine whether you've learned anything and as you failed to use other forms of dispute resolution, i'd be hesitant in giving you the full toolset at this time.  I may be able to support a future candidacy in 12 months if improvement is shown. --  Dane  talk  19:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - sorry, but as others have said, there's still a sour taste from ArbCom that's too recent. GiantSnowman 19:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per pretty much everything I said at the ORCP and per the extremely short timespan between saying "I am not planning to run for RfA" six weeks ago, to now suddenly deciding to do it. I realise the DYK queues are poorly maintained, but to be brutally honest I think DYK should probably be taken outside and shot, and I'm not the only one to express that opinion. There is other stuff you could do, such as addressing reports on WP:ERRORS, but per the tendency to go a bit too much over your head on matters, I think you would just cause havoc and drama even though you would do things in good faith. My heart says "yes" as you are a nice person, I'm certain you do everything here for the good of the project, and you are always civil and polite in discussions from my experience, but my head says "no" as you will be too much like the proverbial bull in a china shop. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. As someone who helps out with DYK from time to time, I have seen the candidate around often and I was surprised that she was not an admin yet. And with her track record, experience and general behavior, I would usually support this request wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, as many have pointed out,both above and at the recent OCRP, the interactions with Fram, up to and especially the ArbCom request (and similar comments on a separate Case request just six weeks ago (after she was told at OCRP that this is a major problem just a week earlier!)), left me with the impression that the candidate does not know how to handle conflict in a manner required as an admin. Her heart is certainly in the right place but she still has to learn how to resolve disputes the right way (and also when to walk away from it for good). If she does, I'd be happy to support the next request. Regards  So Why  20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. The decision to run at this time was guaranteed to cause drama. The most important thing I look for in an admin is the ability to sidestep drama. Otherwise, you're a valued member of FAC and many other WPian subcommunities, and I have no problems at all with you as an editor. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per the readiness issues discussed above. I'm most concerned that, after receiving mostly critical feedback at their optional RFA poll about a month ago, they went ahead with this anyway. These polls aren't binding, of course, but there were good suggestions and constructive criticism that seems to have been ignored. Responding to criticism well is critical to the admin bit and one has to be willing to learn and grow. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced you're ready for this yet. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Should have heeded your own advice from ORFA poll. Five weeks is not considered "near future".-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  20:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) I agree wholeheartedly with Dank. The candidate is a prolific and skilled writer, but as I always say, adminship is not an editing award. The issues outlined thus far are too significant to ignore. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose You've not helped yourself by running so soon after your ORCP, and the ink is barely dry on all the drama you've been involved with. Drop every single stick, get your head down and I look forward to supporting you following a drama-free 6 months or so. Don't be disheartened - there's no deadline and therefore no rush. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose at this point, mostly per Ritchie333. Your recent ORCP was not particularly favourable and that was only about a month ago. With all the other recent drama, plus the arb case, I don't think it is the right time to be requesting adminship for you. I understand DYK does get backlogged, but it's not the end of the world if it does. Perhaps request again in around six months. Aiken D 21:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose, based on review at this time. Like the others above, I also hope you will continue your skilled editing work herein. Kierzek (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose: While I respect Cwmhiraeth's openness regarding the Fram matter, I find the focusing of this candidacy and Cwmhiraeth's recent history on Fram to be problematic. I don't think opening an ArbCom case is necessarily a bad thing, but given the close link between Cwmhiraeth's recent disputes and the area where she intends to use the tools, I don't feel comfortable supporting. The inconsistency of some positions, such as the recent ORCP where she concluded she would not run anytime soon, also gives me pause. While I recognize and commend Cwmhiraeth's dedication to article quality, this is one of those situations where we must recognize that article writing skill is not a sufficient qualification for adminship. As with most of my opposes, I would have no objection to your running again at the end of the year provided you distance yourself some more from these disputes. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. There's a lot to digest above, and I need to think about it some more. I'm concerned about grudges and skin thickness (comments at Arbcom). The 6-week issue is thin, but the cumulative effect is troubling. I'll camp here for now. Glrx (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose, mainly per Iri above, but I'll make it clear. Anyone who can take the arbs discussion here and get " I later tried to initiate an ArbCom case against Fram concerning his behaviour. This was declined by the committee, not because the case had no merits, but because there was insufficient evidence to proceed and sufficient prior dispute resolution had not been undertaken." makes me very concerned about having the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose Admins need to be able to solve conflict and deescalate when issues get heated. All the diffs provided by Fram and SoWhy are all too recent and show a lack of these skills. Valeince (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose - Per comments regarding conflicts and grudges with Fram and other editors. Also another case of an editor wanting the tools to do one specified thing; but once the editor has the tools, they can do anything and are not limited to their announced sphere of interest. One must want to be an admin to be an admin, and do the things admins do, not simply to make one's life easier as an editor. (Also, I associate myself with Ritchie's comment concerning DYK.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 20) Sorry, but this edit/statement does not suggest to me that a blocking tool would be a good tool for you to have. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose The whole arbcom situation is just too much of a red flag for me to trust the mop here. - SanAnMan (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose with some dismay that I've been opposing quite a bit lately (I normally don't, I swear!). After reading through the ArbCom case, it seems like much adieu about nothing, and I don't think it demonstrates sound judgement. This is not something you can't put behind you, but it will take some time and some clear evidence of growth. This did not weigh toward opposing, but in cases like this, I would have found an experienced nominator especially helpful in highlighting counter-examples of maturity, good judgement, and lack of drama. I'd recommend getting a nominator if you do a second RfA down the road. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose Regretfully. Drama takes a good amount of time to fade away from memory. Stikkyy</b> (talk) (contributions) 05:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose - no doubt that Cwmhiraeth is a great editor who has done some fine content work; I have seen their name pop up numerous times and I have been very impressed by their work in the main space. However, I don't see the same level of competence when it comes to exercising judgment, as it is evident from the recent ArbCom incident. They also judged their recent ORFA poll to be "somewhat inconclusive", while to me it clearly indicated that they should avoid going for an RfA at the moment. They went for this after stating that "I will not be running for admin in the near future" just six weeks ago. Add that they are requesting the tools for a very small task, it all looks rather strange to me. I just can't bring myself to support this RfA with all these current issues; I would gladly support in the future, granted that enough time has passed without seeing incidents like the ArbCom case happen again. Regards, — <b style="color:black">Yash</b><b style="color:grey">talk</b> <b style="color:grey">stalk</b> 06:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. The unwarranted ArbCom case clinches it; it didn't even follow the presribed requirement of having attempted all other venues for resolution before the filing. We recently had a newly minted admin make an ill-advised block which resulted in three good admins retiring from Wikipedia. There is no way we should allow unqualified candidates, or candidates known to pursue personal disagreements on ArbCom without proper cause and procedure, to become admins. Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose. I'm sorry, I'm seeing lots of good work here, but with the degree of apparent personal animosity I'm seeing here (examples provided above by Iridescent and Drmies), I would not hand over the admin tools. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose but with good will toward a future nomination. I do agree with many above that it shows poor judgment to self-nominate so quickly after an unfortunate clash that left many lessons to be learned, and to have done so so quickly (six weeks is really short on WP's timescale) after having given assurances that you would not do so makes me quite queasy. I would recommend showing that the necessary lessons have indeed been learned by performing exemplary work as an editor -- something you are clearly capable of -- and then applying again (or having someone nominate you) when your recent (i.e. at least one-year's) track record can be pointed to with unalloyed pride. Cl ea n Co py talk 09:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose, albeit regretfully, per Boing! said Zebedee. For all that her content work is excellent, there is more to adminship than that, and I do not feel comfortable that all of those other things are there at the moment given the recent ArbCom case. Double sharp (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose. Too controversial. f  e  minist  10:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose: I am just a lowkey but active editor, who accidentally once had an article become a DYK. Except for the bot placed blue topicon, the fact is hidden away in my archives. Not too fond of trophy cabinets and the list of DYKs and WikiCups in general. To me it seems like bragging rights. Neverless this would just be a personal allergic reaction were it not for all your displayed trauma / drama and personal grudges: but with the degree of apparent personal animosity I'm seeing here... (Boing! said Zebedee's phrase above in their oppose} and echoed by multiple others) I regretfully decline to support you. Perhaps unfair rationale, but truly such is the nature of RfA. One dips their toe in and risks a total dunking.  All the best...   <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 11:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose. Reading the commentary here and following some of the links - I might reconsider in another year. Cameron Scott (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose due to recent ArbCom case and ignoring ORCP advice. Not someone I would trust with the tools. Patient Zero (Public)talk 12:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose: Overall, your edit count and content creation is good but the recent ArbCom case concerned me after reading the commentary in the oppose section. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 13:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 34) Weak Oppose: I didn't realize you had a ArbCom case, and reading some of the opposes really flipped me over to oppose. Other than that, I feel that you're a great candidate for the mop. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  14:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 35) 'Oppose The arbcom case is too close for comfort, I'd suggest taking the advice that was given in the RFA Poll --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose - no qualms about tenure, edit count, content creation, etc., but as many others have noted, the ArbCom case is too recent for comfort, and why would you file an RfA so soon after a bad ORCP? Clearly seems to lack the judgment necessary for adminship.  65  HC  A7  17:01, 10 May 2017
 * 37) Oppose - I had previously supported, I still have no issue with your edits, however due to the candidate's recent ArbCom case and due to a bad ORCP, I have switched to Oppose. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  17:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral pending answer to Q5. --Joshualouie711talk 18:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't see where you show any need for the tools you're applying for. Your hard work over the last 7 years should be acknowledged, but getting +sysop isn't a promotion. I'd like to know what you plan to use the tools for before you get them. ◦ Trey Maturin 18:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that Cwmhiraeth has already stated what she will use the tools for in her answer to Q1. --Joshualouie711talk 18:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a very limited, single job for tools that would allow unfettered access to blocking and page protection. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On reflection, you make a good point: they only want the tools for one little job. Moved to oppose instead. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I think Cwmhireath is a good content creator. However, there seem to be many opposes this early, so I will have to read these and the candidate's responses. epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC) moved to support. epicgenius (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral there are too many concerns for me to support. On the other hand, I don't want to pile-on in the oppose section, especially because the candidate makes some extremely valuable contributions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - I feel like that this candidate have potential to becoming an admin for actively participating DYK and his content creation. But the oppose section was fired up with Arbcom case and the candidate's issue with Fram, I'll doubt that this RfA probably going to be balanced in 50/50. But for me, I think I should chill here and see how it goes. Qian Cheng <sub style="color:blue">虔诚  01:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, on the same basis as Lepricavark. , can I suggest you withdraw for now, let the dust settle on this and the ANI until both are ancient history, and come back in a year or so? Dodge the drama here and in the interim until you can launch RFA2, and do what you do extremely well already - create top-grade content. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral I have enormous respect for Cwmhiraeth, whose many contributions to the project are deeply appreciated, but this RfA is not going to be successful. Indeed we are getting close to SNOW territory. Per the various above suggestions, I would urge them to withdraw, wait a year or so and re-evaluate, possibly with another trip to ORCP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral I think this is a valuable editor and contributor, certainly at a higher level than I am or ever will be. I don't want to oppose, but I also don't feel comfortable supporting yet because of the issues referenced by many so far. That being said, I look forward to voting support months (or a year) from now. Equineducklings (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral while I respect the contributions they have made to Wikipedia, I cannot bring myself to vote for or against them. The opposing votes (generally) have valid arguments. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

General comments

 * I opened this RfA in the belief that other editors would look at my request in the light of why it was being made, examine my editing history and consider whether I had appropriate qualities to wield the mop. Was I a reliable and trustworthy person, did I understand and follow policies and guidelines, could I deal fairly and impartially with other users? In my request, I mentioned my interactions with Fram because I knew that they would crop up and I wanted to be open and frank. I thought they were relatively unimportant matters -- two editors not getting on well, big deal! I called the ORCP "inconclusive" because it also concentrated on this matter rather than what I considered the real issues. However, as it transpires, I was wrong, and my relationship with Fram seems to have become the main event rather the sideshow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do see your point - although I have opposed, it was reluctantly and none of my points had anything to do with Fram. I'm happy to discuss these issues on my talk or offline if it would help. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone else, but my Oppose did consider whether you had appropriate qualities to be an Admin. As jarring as it may be to hear this, the various disputes you have had definitely do affect people's perceptions of you as an editor - rightly or wrongly, you project the appearance of someone who can't drop the stick and let disputes drop. Waiting for a few months would show that you have the ability to step back from disputes, and that's why I said I'd be happy to support you if you could go for 6 months without any of that sort of drama. I genuinely do hope you run again. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think your relationship with Fram is a problem. People working together will always find colleagues who they - vehemently - disagree with. The problem - as far as I can tell - is how you have handled yourself when faced with such problems. A few people used OCRP to point out to you on 22 March that you are approaching this conflict the wrong way. Yet a week later you speculated in a different ArbCom case request about Fram continuing the "attack" strategy outlined in the Case request [you put forward on 26 October 2016]. As such, the impression exists that you do not understand how to handle being under pressure and that is a dealbreaker for many !voters. That said, I can just repeat myself: If you learn to accept that the community does not agree with you that Fram's behavior is problematic, you will surely have no problem passing the next RfA in a few months. Regards  So Why  09:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can only echo SoWhy's comments here. I don't care if you and Fram fight or not fight - I do care about your judgement, and how you approach conflict. And how you take on board advice. If you'd waited 6 months or more after the OCRP, I might still have had concerns, but probably would not have bothered voting oppose. But saying "I will not be running for admin in the near future." on 1 April, then filing an RfA on 9 May tells me that you didn't really take on board the concerns brought forward at the ORCP. THAT concerns me. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, Cwmhiraeth wants specific tools to get urgent things done at DYK – a daily admin chore which is often backlogged. Ealdgyth was herself at RfA recently where she said, "The main areas I would see myself regularly participating in would be WP:ERRORS ... I would also try to help out some with WP:DYK".  But, that hasn't worked out so well, has it?  Ealdgyth found that dealing with the awkward squad was a thankless task and so she walked away from those areas, right?  So, if Ealdgyth and other admins don't want the job and Cwmhiraeth isn't allowed to do it, then these things won't get done and Wikipedia will suffer.  Where do we go from here? Andrew D. (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is tossing DYK in the bin not an option, then? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All of Wikipedia is going to get tossed in the bin if it can't effectively and efficiently get the work done. All sections of the main page have systemic problems now - TFA is not producing articles fast enough; ITN is routinely stale; OTD doesn't have a review process; DYK is a battleground; &c.  But these sections are all important as they provide fairly clear structures and processes which motivate our volunteers.  For example, I have recently produced a series of DYKs for the Women's Classical Committee – articles like Agnata Butler and Barbara Hammond.  These have been well received and their success has helped encourage continuing work by others.  If there were no DYK to showcase such new work then we'd have less of it.  Wikipedia would suffer and decline and other rivals will move in to eat our lunch.  Andrew D. (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well said. DYK provides unique benefits to the project, allowing less eloquent and prolific editors (like myself), who lack the skills to create GAs or FAs, to create useful content and have it showcased on the first page of one of the top 5 websites in the world, thus allowing them to experience the satisfaction of a job well done after fixing an unsourced article in need of cleanup and encouraging them to create more content. When I ran for admin (in the Good Old Days™), I had no real experience in content creation and without DYK I probably would still not have any. So tossing DYK is not the solution to the problems it might have. Just like with articles, the motto should instead be WP:SOFIXIT. Regards  So Why  13:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * + 1. I've worked on some GAs and FAs, but a lot of my work is in areas in which GAs and FAs are not possible. DYK allows me to bring scrutiny to articles in generally neglected areas, and by putting the articles on the main page, to ultimately draw attention to these neglected areas. We need to plug the holes in the process, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are problems, serious problems, with literally every content-related process that I know of. Vanamonde (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the tools Cwmhiraeth wants are also bundled with a whole host of other tools that require judgement to use. I happen to feel that I haven't seen that those OTHER tools would be safe in the hands of someone who can't take on board advice. Others probably disagree. I'd also like to point out the rest of the quote "I would also try to help out some with WP:DYK, but probably not to a great extent." No, I haven't helped out much with ERRORS - because lately most of the action on it is taking place during my evenings and nights when I'm not available. Sucks, but there it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think most people here, no matter how they !voted, will agree that the candidate would do a good job at DYK. Unfortunately, this is not a "Request for DYK-Adminship". Admins are supposed to lead by example in all areas (cf. Administrators) and we have to judge candidates based on whether we can expect them to act this way or not. The project might suffer because of a backlog at DYK but it will certainly suffer by promoting users to admins whose conduct does not meet the standards the community expects. What good are 99 DYK updates done right, if the 100th action is blocking another user for disagreeing with them? (not saying the candidate would do that but you get the point) At this point, we should instead think about what we can do to change the DYK process to not require admin tools to load queues, then Cwmhiraeth can help where she wants to help without having the mop (until the day, hopefully not far away, she can get the mop). Potential ideas include restricting editing such templates to template editors, already a select group of users or create an edit filter that only allows edits by certain users (and have WT:DYK decide which non-admin users can do so). Regards  So Why  13:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your support !votes, your oppose !votes, your comments and your useful advice. I am sorry that I have wasted your time. I am going to withdraw this nomination now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


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