Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ajpolino

Nightfury oppose
Regretful oppose; as per below, still not convinced that the user will administrate anything outside their common area, lack of experience in administrative areas with exception of AfD and copyrights a concern IMO. Nightfury 18:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't want to badger you - you must vote how you think best - but above there are two admins active in copyright who seem familiar with the candidate's work, and say they would welcome their help. There are certain things about policing copyright you can only do with the tools - that seems to me to be a very good reason to allow this volunteer access to them, so they can give us their expertise for free to help the project in this area. Just a thought. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * with all due respect, that is only one area, there are many others that admins need help in. As I said, user needs more experience in a variety of areas.Nightfury 21:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , what I fail to understand is the logic behind that position - that if someone can help in only one area, it's better not to let them help at all. Yes, admins need help in lots of areas - this person is able and willing to help in one of them - we want to stop them because one's not enough? I don't get it. Girth Summit  (blether)  21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You have summarised it perfectly, 90% of work in Wikipedia can be done without the need for the administrator bit, as I said the user isn't proficient enough in any area bar the ones they are most interested in. In short, you supported, I opposed. It's all a matter of personal opinion at the end of the day. Nightfury 08:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I still don't follow the logic I'm afraid. Yes, most things can be done without the tools. Dealing with COPYVIO isn't one of them. Multiple admins experienced in that area say they would appreciate the candidate's assistance, but your argument seems to be that if you can't help in a multitude of areas, you shouldn't be allowed to help with just one - that's the bit I don't get. If there was a limit to the number of admins we can appoint, I'd see the argument - we'd need to ensure that candidates have a wide skillset - but there isn't a limit. Someone with specialist skills using them in a specialist area is of benefit to the project, even if that's all they do. Girth Summit  (blether)  08:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Arguments like Nightfury's are precisely why I believe admin tools need to be decoupled. It's unreasonable to expect someone to be a jack of all trades, much less a master of all trades, in order to assist in an area where a specific set of admin tools would be of the most use.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Final tally
I have pinged Maxim (yesterday), JJMC89, and xeno. (Maxim has not edited since closing the RFA.) I transcluded the RFA at 13:03 and Maxim closed at 13:03, edit conflicting with the 125th !vote at 13:03. Could the tally please be corrected? This is not worth an edit war. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems unfair to User:LSGH not to allow it, as the RfA was still open when they began to vote. P-K3 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether there were 124 or 125 supporters, Ajpolino would still have been made an administrator. Changing the tally is utterly pointless. JJMC89 reverting the !vote and then an LTA is hardly an edit war. – Teratix ₵ 13:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the final tally one way or another. If it's important for anyone to have either a !vote (and it be reflected in the tally), in particular on an RfA with an obvious outcome, then the better course of action in the future would be to register said !vote earlier in the process, and not at the very last minute.  Maxim (talk)  14:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Of course, the tally is inconsequential here, but there are two things that raised my eyebrows.  1) Is there an unreasonable expectation that RFAs will remain open the full seven days? I noticed the final vote because I had transcluded the RFA at 13:03.  2) Noticing this issue, I pinged the closing 'crat; this seems to be the only appropriate course, but perhaps I am wrong. Also noticing the issue, JJMC89 not only did not appear to check in with the closing admin, but what concerns me more was that they were arrogant/hostile/snippy/rude in response to the poster's polite inquiry on talk.  Had JJMC89 checked your talk, they would have found that I had already inquired, and could have waited for your response.  This is more problematic than the tally, and ironic on a candidacy that was all about the absence of those kinds of traits. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , the length is not really set in stone precisely to the minute; consensus, particularly in this case, wouldn't have changed with 10 more or 10 less minutes. If it's important for someone that the tally reflect the later vote, I don't mind if the RfA and related archives are updated.  Maxim (talk)  01:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspected as much re the seven days, but I also am sympathetic to the fact that LSGH may not have realized this, and was concerned that they were treated with such snippiness when inquiring. Other than that, all’s well that ends well! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)