Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sdrqaz

GregJackP's oppose
Moved from main page CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, per my criteria. User has one GA, no FA, and needs more experience as a content creator. GregJackP   Boomer!   14:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So you do not, in fact, completely endorse Ritchie333's position?  SN54129  14:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to respond as soon as you post a legitimate reason for supporting the nomination. PS, I'll be the judge if your response is legitimate or not. GregJackP   Boomer!   15:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to endorse @SN54129'a question and, if you deign to deem my support "legitimate", request an answer how you can "completely endorse @Ritchie333's position" when Richie333's position explicitly contradicts yours? Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You may want to look at what his essay looked like at the time I posted my comment (on July 30, 2015), before he added his note. That's all the answer you'll get unless you also intend to harass those who support a nominate without a "legitimate" reason. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well at the time of that revision it still implicitly contradicted your stance and it was made explicit five months later in December 2015, over six years ago now. Whether a rationale is or is not "legitimate" is your categorisation not mine. I'm simply trying to understand your opposition by asking one question and endorsing another - I don't think that comes anywhere close to harassment but if you disagree then please feel free to bring it up at the appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How many of the support !votes have you questioned? You believe that it is perfectly fine to question my reasoning, but were I to do the same on the other side of the question, I would (and have been in the past) be accused of harassment, merely from trying to understand your opposition by asking one question. Did you question SN54129 on why being indef'd is relevant for a support !vote? If not, I suggest you do something useful, like content creation, instead of questioning my motives. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Being questioned is not the same as being harassed. Stop being hypersensitive. While you are entitled to your opinion, your eagerness to play the victim calls into question the sincerity of your !vote. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 02:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Except when you are repeatedly questioned on your !vote, and if you do the same, people scream harassment, it's very apparent what is happening. Whether you agree or not is of no import to my comments on being harassed. GregJackP   Boomer!   06:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What aspect(s) of getting an article to FA demonstrate that an editor will make a good administrator that working in administrative areas of the project do not? Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Read my essay, as modified. That's all the explanation to which you are entitled. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If your essay answered my question I would not have asked it. The revised version comes closer to answering it than the version that existed at the time of my comment, but I still cannot claim to understand your point of view. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Which proves my point that admins should have content creation experience. Without it, you won't understand the point of view of the people who actually do the work on creating the encyclopedia. It's why content creators leave, or get frustrated to the point that they are tossed out. It's why my last FA was 7 years ago, and my last GA was 6 years ago.  GregJackP   Boomer!   00:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , this is shocking as it is dumbfounding. Echoing 's crucial question how does not having an FA disqualify them? Or as Thryduulf's correctly puts it verbatim “” I simply don’t get it, how does this criteria of yours invalidate their massive good body of work? How or why should this “criteria” of yours take preeminence over their undeniable eligibility to hold the mop. I clearly see why  has been rather skeptical about this kind of obtuse “criteria” . I was eating dinner when I saw this and had to stop half way to address this. I’m sorry but this makes no sense. Celestina007 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't like my criteria, don't use it. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , “” honestly I don’t think anyone is using your criteria, I’m merely pointing out how laughable it is. Read the room, i dont believe anyone is taking your criteria seriously to be honest. In-fact  does make a good point below. Celestina007 (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC) This was very rude of me. Apologies to Greg. Celestina007 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - yet you felt sufficiently moved by it to interrupt your dinner to address this? I really don't care if anyone else uses it at all. It's what I use as criteria to support or oppose an RfA, and like has pointed out, I've used it for years, consistently. I would be perfectly happy if people would just let the bureaucrats evaluate all the !votes at the end of the RfA and make their decision. In other words, harass someone else, because I don't care what you think.  GregJackP   Boomer!   06:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Guys, chill out. Greg has had the same RfA criteria for years and is consistent. If you improve two articles to GA, he doesn't oppose. If you don't, he'll oppose and nobody else will pile-on in response, so it doesn't matter. Anyway, the discussion is a complete and utter waste of time. If you really can't bear this, you could always drag Greg off to ANI to get topic banned from RfA, but is it that important? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe dragging Greg to ANI over an inconsequential arbitrary criteria is worth my time, that’s trifling. I don’t believe their criteria is important enough for me. Celestina007 (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC) I was wrong for being rude. This is unbecoming of me. I’m sorry Greg. Celestina007 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was made in general. but boy oh boy does it apply to you in a special way. I note you cut about half your reply to Greg. Must have been too toxic, even for you. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that I have seen the strike-throughs and public apology. Respectable. Striking in turn. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * She's got a lot of class. I have no problems with her. GregJackP   Boomer!   09:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have much the same views as Ritchie. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 19:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting here that my comment above was stupid?  SN54129  19:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While you were replying to another user, those are your words, not mine. I stated that I would respond once you posted a "legitimate reason for supporting the nomination." Unless, of course, you actually believe that a requirement for being an admin is being indef'ed prior to the RfA. In my opinion, that is a trivial, illegitimate reason to support, but that's not my call, and not my !vote, it's yours. I didn't say a word about yours until you commented on mine. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you actually, honestly believe that that was what was being said, then a reminder that CIR applies is probably necessary.  SN54129  18:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually believe that you were being flippant, which is not an appropriate reason to support someone for the tools. If you have a reason to support the nominee, say so, instead of pretending that it's some sort of joke. As far as competency? I have the same number of FAs as you do, and this is an encyclopedia, not social media. We should treat it as such. My offer still stands, BTW - post a legitimate reason to support the nom and I'll explain my position to you. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly - Greg's opposes are known to be a) ridiculous and b) unimportant. It will make zero difference to this RFA. Everybody (including me) is wasting their time reacting. GiantSnowman 19:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not for anything, because I do understand about GJP, but we only waste our time when we don't say what needs to be said. Some of the less obvious perennials are worth repeating so posterity can enjoy them, too!  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 20:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the developing acrimony and personal attacks this should be moved to talk, per agreed procedure. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment In my opinion, this reasonable questioning of a single !vote has gotten way off topic, discussing personalities instead of principles. I don't always agree with User:Leeky caldron. Not to be snide but I completely endorse their position here. This extended query should be moved as suggested. BusterD (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment "If you don't like my criteria, don't use it" seems a reasonable defense. Let the guy alone. I mean it's like 116-1 right now, it's just a protest vote. And if the RfA was on the knife edge -- let's say 70-30 -- then I mean wouldn't every possible objection (like that one) have to be carefully considered and weighed?


 * So but then my question would "In my case I've created like 500 articles (and substantially improved several others) but I don't happen to be into GA and FA stuff, I prefer writing new articles and bringing articles from 'not really all that great' to 'hey, reasonably OK', which after all is a first step toward GA/FA, am I still unfit to be an admin on content-creation grounds?" Seems rather strict... and valorizing one particular area, which is maybe kind of insulting to we who do different stuff.


 * But then, you know what? Thinking about that... writing and somewhat-improving articles is work I do mostly solo. I like that, but I mean GA/FA requires a lot of productive and intense interaction. So on that basis it could be seen that I lack proof of that skill in that (very key) area, and yes more vetting might reveal plenty but how much time do people have for that? So it's not an unreasonable standard. I wouldn't use it, but he can if he wants to. Herostratus (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It was 90-something to nothing when I posted my oppose, and I was under no misapprehension that my !vote would cause a flood of editors to show up and oppose the nomination. And you nailed it for part of my reasoning, in that it does take a great deal of interaction with others to take an article to either GA or FA. You have to leave thin-skinned tempers behind, you have to be able to look at all sides, be acutely aware of copyright, BLP, images, and so on. These are the exact skills that an administrator needs, minus one other skill. In content disagreements, they have to be able to determine when the rules need to be ignored. That's how we've lost way too many content creators. It's why I don't do much here anymore. It's because, IMO, the admins (including ArbCom), treat this more like a social media site than like an encyclopedia. They are too afraid of pissing off a friend who happens to be a detriment to WP than protecting the content creators from the riff-raff. PS, everyone can be valuable to WP, including people who do what you do, and the others that work behind the scenes. But the admins should be content-focused above all else. GregJackP   Boomer!   23:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree – it is not fair that new editors have to deal with intricacy rules and such. I wish that more admins are focused at content creation, after all, most of the best admins that have ever been here are doing precisely that. You can always nominate at RfA again, but you cannot remove a person from it unless they have done something really stupid. My comment isn't meant to harass the nominee: I truly think they are very well-rounded at other areas. But alas, I firmly agree that Sdrqaz should do more content-related tasks before being handed a mop. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic towards GregJackP's viewpoint to some extent. The amount of effort that went into Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth (as an example of someone who doesn't do much content creation but did a lot of admin work) was deflating and it was unpleasant to have to heavily criticise someone who I'd met in real life and thought was a nice guy who I could talk about British geography to quite happily. However, there are number of people I think would make great admins, who have worked extensively on content work and are good communicators, that I don't think will pass RfA. Look at Requests for adminship/Ergo Sum. If somebody with multiple FAs (but no maintenance work) struggles to pass RfA, what chance has anyone else got? The problem I've found is that editors who are good at writing find the maintenance areas, especially maintenance areas involving users instead of content, dull and uninteresting. Certainly in my case my interests are primarily in reviewing deletions (CSDs and AfDs), then protection, then occasionally content disputes. I only started reviewing AIV to prove that any editor with lots of content work could handle the AIV backlog flawlessly with no training or experience, and I'm not interested in UAAs or SPIs. I would like to do more copyright cleanup reviews, but it's a total ball ache. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , In my 300,000 edits, I have never written a GA or Fa, and not even an ITN, nor do I intend to I work mainly at removing bad submissions and improving poorly written but notable ones just enough so they can stay in. Would WP be better if I and people like me never became admins? If I were running today, would you vote against me?  DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Would WP be better if I and people like me never became admins? - no. If I were running today, would you vote against me? - yes. To clarify, I like you and think that you've been a good admin. But you are the exception to the rule. And if you were running today, I wouldn't know if you would treat content creators well as an admin, so yes, I would oppose. But that's not the case, is it? What I actually want is to be allowed to state my opposition, and then be left alone by the hivemind. I have a right to my opinion, and they don't have a right to harass and badger me over it. GregJackP   Boomer!   06:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why indignant objections keep coming up every time GregJackP opposes a candidate based on his criterion. Or, rather, why people feel the need to comment on his criterion when that's the only oppose, as contrasted with 130+ supports so far. This seems like a perfectly reasonable criterion to me and, depending on where you look, it isn't even that hard to get two good articles (or a featured article). Maybe don't take it from me, since I'm near the top of WP:WBGAN, but there are certainly several hundred editors on that list who have been able to get more than a dozen good articles. In any case, GregJackP's criterion certainly makes more sense than criteria like "must have 1,000 Wikipedia-space edits" or "must have been active for the entirety of your wiki career, even if it spans 15 years". Epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Epicgenius I don't frequent RFA very often (I tend to only participate when I spot someone I'm familiar with is running), so this is the first time (possibly ever, certainly in a very long while) that I've seen GregJackP's apparently standard opposition based on what (in my eyes) is a factor not relevant to whether a candidate is suitable to be an admin. Indeed I'd rather those people who are skilled at writing FAs spend their time writing FAs rather than dealing with admin work. Obviously admins need to have some familiarity with article content, but what skills relevant to being an administrator does getting an FA demonstrate that are not demonstrated in other ways? I agree that "must have 1,000 Wikipedia-space edits" or "must have been active for the entirety of your wiki career, even if it spans 15 years" are both ridiculous criteria, but nobody is using those criteria here so that's not exactly relevant. FWIW my standards are documented at Requests for adminship/Standards/T-Z.
 * However, what most disturbed me was his refusal to answer a reasonable question about an apparent contradiction between their !vote and their rationale ("oppose per Ritchie333" makes no sense when Ritchie333 is supporting) until the questioner had changed their criteria to one that in their sole opinion was "legitimate". If we expect admins to be accountable, then we must also expect those !voting for admins to be accountable for their !votes, even if for some reason we didn't expect that in any other discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you treated both sides equally you might get a different response, but I'm not required to explain my criteria or !vote to anyone, and I'm certainly not inclined to do so when being badgered and attacked. understands my point and isn't upset. Hell, he's one of the only ones here that is defending my right to have an opinion that is not the same as the hivemind.  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Everybody has the right to their own opinion, explicitly including you, regardless of how it matches or doesn't match the majority (I've been in a minority of one many times). However I completely and fundamentally disagree that you are not required to explain your !vote - everybody who offers an opinion should be required to and prepared to explain that opinion if asked. I am not intentionally treating different sides differently, but I have not seen any supporters of this RFA who have been asked to explain their !vote refuse to do with accusations of harassment, borderline personal attacks and denigration of the questioner(s). Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've explained my position, and yet you are still talking. For what purpose? I won't ask supporters to explain their "sure" support comments, because I don't want to be taken to ANI, like I was when an admin suggested I ask questions about BS support reasons. THAT'S why support !votes aren't questioned, not because those opinions aren't BS. GregJackP   Boomer!   02:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Thryduulf, I do see your point. The reason why I brought up "must have 1,000 Wikipedia-space edits" and "must have been active for the entirety of your wiki career, even if it spans 15 years" is because these are actual rationales I've seen in the past. I'm not saying that I use GregJackP's criteria myself (I don't even have a formal standard for content creation beyond "at least prove you can write/improve a reasonably decent article based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies").As for the matter at hand, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that a candidate has some experience writing content. Writing a GA or an FA may not be part of the description of an administrator's role, and indeed some prolific quality-content writers are better suited without the tools. However, it demonstrates that an admin has at least a good grasp on how to write an article that conforms to relevant guidelines/policies. Just recently, we have had one legacy admin lose the bit because of concerns over persistent copyright violations. Another legacy admin, who still has the bit, restored a poorly sourced article that had been deleted at AFD a decade ago, and added citations to websites like Fandom to justify restoring the page. Based on these incidents, I can see why people may want to ensure an admin candidate knows how to write a quality article, or even just a relatively decent one. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's perspective that GAs aren't as big a deal as some make it out to be as someone with ... 0 GAs. I do plenty of reviewing (probably my favorite type of editing) and I can assure you there are plenty of potential GAs one could create in a weekend if experienced enough or 1-2 weeks if its your first nomination. Certain FLs (such as award lists) are even easier than that, in my opinion. 2 GAs is a pretty low content requirement in my eyes if you chose article ratings as a metric. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For someone like me whose article-space skills and interests lie principally in activities like proofreading, adding unit conversions, rescuing citations, and enabling readers to find the content they are looking for (redirects, disambiguations, etc), and generally trying to look at things from a reader's point of view, rather than writing extensive prose, getting GA is a big deal. I'm a generalist, I have little to no interest in researching a topic to the depth required for a GA, let alone an FA, and even less desire to spend several weeks on that one task. Kudos to those who do enjoy and are skilled at that, but that's not me - I know at least one editor with multiple FAs under their belt who has said the thought of spending the amount of time I typically do at RFD is mindnumbing, but I enjoy it (most of the time) as the discrete, short puzzles that frequently involve learning a bit about something I've never thought about before are right up my alley. I do fully agree that admins should be able to recognise the difference between good and bad content and be fully cognisant of the article writing process, but I cannot agree that writing GAs and/or FAs is the only way that such knowledge and skills can be acquired. Indeed for me it's far more important that an admin can tell the difference between content that is speedily deletable and content that isn't than they can tell the difference between a GA and an FA. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Please stop badgering me. GregJackP   Boomer!   03:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That was not addressed to you, directed at you, or even about you - it was in reply to Epicgenius and A C Santacruz. Please stop accusing me of badgering you when I am doing nothing of the sort. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet the subject of your reply to them is how you can't agree with my criteria on FA/GA for admins, in a section about my criteria, and that other things are more important. We get that. Please stop. GregJackP   Boomer!   10:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding provenance of photo on candidates' talk page
Candidate looks to be fine candidate and will be a welcome addition to the admin corps I am confident. But I'm seeing this one problem which is a pretty big deal. Hoping I am misunderstanding the situation and willing to be corrected.

So... on candidate's user page is a photo of Kim Ji-soo looking a bit tired (File:Kim Ji-soo at Incheon Airport, heading to Amsterdam on May 16th, 2019 28.png) with the legend "Sdrqaz after editing" which (assuming that the candidate is not actually Kim Ji-soo (actress) which I do assume) is a mild bit of fun, and it's fine.

Now, the file is from Wikimedia Commons, which means it is under free license -- we can assume that with high (but not perfect) level of confidence. The file is listed as being under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

The source, though, is given as as an entity called "Off The Page", with this URL. But on that page it says at the bottom "Copyright (C) Off The Page, all rights reserved". The page was uploaded by Commons user "A" who... has many uploads from magazines, with edit summaries such as "Uploaded a work by POPPORY FASHION BLOG" and "Uploaded a work by Marie Claire Korea" (see Marie Claire Korea) as well as many from Off The Page. Not a super duper expert on this, but how are these photos taken from magazines and YouTube etc. available under free license? (The edit summary for the photo in question is "Uploaded a work by [url] from Off The Page from [url] with UploadWizard".)

OK. But. There's a little notice at the bottom which says "This file, which was originally posted to https://offthepage.tistory.com/entry/190516, was reviewed on 20 December 2020 by reviewer Minorax, who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date." Minorax is a global sysop so I have to assume that he must see something I can't. But what is it? I'm reaching out here to Minorax, the uploader ("A") and the candidate. If, somehow, despite Minorax's imprimatur the photo isn't under free license, well... I understand how the candidate could be fooled. Still... the Foundation is really strict about copyright, and I personally don't trust Commons completely -- it's another project, different people, different procedures, and beyond our control. People need to be bugs about copyright, and particularly admins, and if -- if -- the candidate failed due diligence on their own user page, eek. How can we be entirely confident that they won't in other instances.

Again, hoping to be educated and shown where my mistake is. If not... not a deal-killer for such an otherwise fine candidate (nobody's perfect), but still, an important point IMO. Herostratus (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Just for the record the person pictured is not Kim Ji-soo (actress) but Jisoo, a singer. JBchrch   talk  21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , for what it's worth: if I saw an image marked as reviewed by a Commons reviewer, I'd probably trust its license too rather than digging deeply into its provenance. Maybe would do a closer look if an image were going into a GA/FA. An upload by a new user as "own work," of course, would be a completely different story. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * At some point we have to trust someone, and it is far from unreasonable to trust that a reviewed image on Commons is available under a free license. The page states that Minorax verified that the file was available under the stated license (cc-by-sa 4.0 in this instance) on 20 December 2020, not that it is available at that source under that license today. I've looked on archive.org and they have snapshots from June 2020 and January 2021. Unfortunately neither of the snapshots are loading for me, and there is nothing at archive.is so I'm unable to check them myself. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Check directly above the comment box at the bottom of the page, to the right. There is a small gray circle icon symbolizing CC BY 4.0, although it's not clear to me whether the license is meant to apply to the images or the website. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 22:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that the design of the page is copyrighted (which is fine for our purposes), and that at least something on the page is cc-by-sa-4.0 but it's ambiguous what that something is - the images would be most logical but it's not impossible that it refers to any comments left by visitors (as well). Possibly it is clearer for someone who can read Korean and/or it was clearer on a previous design of the page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes I see the little man icon (not the cc icon), and it does devolve to a Creative Commons Korean-language page giving the free license. It may be intended for just the comment section and indicating that user comments are given to the free license (so they can repost the comments anywhere) -- super unclear, probably is, as their home page (which doesn't have a comment box) just has "Copyright, all rights reserved" (and in big text) and not the little man, and it certainly isn't appended to the images or any image. And if you've got two contradictory licenses, I'd go with the stricter one. Wouldn't you. If I hear someone say "Yeah there's a copyright notice at the bottom of the page, but it's presumably just about the page design or some other subset of the page and not the full contents of the page" I'd be the breath of hell on them. So better all. Herostratus (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you; just want to clarify a technicality in your wording. The problem is the conflicting All rights reserved and CC license, not the combination of Copyright and a CC license. Copyright all rights reserved. Something can both be copyrighted and under a CC license at the same time.  Bsoyka  ( talk ) 23:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I might as well make my own position clear, with no desire to disrupt the main RfA page: there is no way I'd support this nominee, though I'm not going to buck the tsunami either. – Athaenara  ✉  23:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On this one issue? Nobody's perfect. But you may be right, IDK. But I encourage you to speak your piece, this is are one chance to weigh in. I hope editors don't feel intimidated in this venue. Herostratus (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Herostratus, not this one issue alone. – Athaenara  ✉  02:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Why would she want to put herself through what she just saw me go through? It probably wouldn't be as bad, but no one likes to be jumped on by a bunch of people who feel that they have the right to attack a viewpoint that is different than theirs. She should be free to speak up in opposition without worrying about how others view that opposition. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody attacked you. They expressed confusion about your stated reasoning and asked you reasonable questions to try and resolve that confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Now we'll hear the "move along, nothing to see hear speech", which also happens repeatedly. Do a search of RfA and my username, then read the comments on my opposes, or the failed proposal that opposes like mine could be struck, to the one on this thread about topic bans. Then you can explain how those aren't attacks. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * As what Bsoyka said, there is a CC-BY 4.0 icon right below the last image and the All rights reserved refers to the site design. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 00:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not quite what I was going for, but I weakly agree. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 00:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh hi Minorax, thanks for coming. I have read what you said. I can't agree with your statement, which should be "oops" (and fine, we all make mistakes). So, this is why I talked about my "experiences and opinions" with Commons. That kind of statement would get short shrift on the English Wikipedia (I hope and assume). You guys are too lax. I do not trust Commons, because of their vetting standards as demonstrated by Minorax's statement. Editors, at least on EnWiki, who think that copyright notices at the bottom of a page apply to the web layout design and not the contents are excused from further discussion of copyright matters and would be topic banned if they persisted, I imagine.


 * Minorax, the image is copyrighted. Why on earth would it not be. The cc applies to the user contributions in the comment section. This is pretty incontrovertible I'd say. Granted it took some putting together of heads to figure all this out. Not blaming anyone. But I'm not super happy to see a Commons hotshot make this level of mistake and even unhappier for them to not care, or anyway own up, when it's pointed out. Particularly when the uploader is mass-uploading stuff like this to Commons which could be massively used to corrupt EnWiki. But it is a good lesson on why we are wary of using Commons material without checking.


 * Anyway, a key point here is the people should not trust external websites too much. Admins in particular. (Yes I understand that both Commons and EnWiki are ultimately under the same umbrella organization, but so? So are King's Safety Shoes, Shanghai Alarm, and Ballard Unmanned Systems (Honeywell), and none of that means much.) Commons and English Wikipedia have their own contributors, administrators, standards, rules, processes, mission. I mean gosh, if editors must thoroughly trust any website I'd rather see them trusting the Library of Congress and the British Museum etc. than Commons which is, after all, a wiki with user-generated content.


 * Editors will use copyrighted material. But admins need to the be the backstop from them doing this... not perpetrators or excusers. The candidate was overly trusting of an external website. They need to get over that when they become an admin. I hope and assume that if they read this it'll be lesson learned, and fine. Candidate will, like all of us, make mistakes and continue learning lessons throughout their career here and beyond, and fine.


 * I don't much care what people on other sites, whether Commons or HuffPost or whatnot, do. But for Wikipedia editors to say some of the things I read here... it's unsettling. "Candidate made a small mistake, worth noting but not a huge deal" is fine. "It wasn't a mistake and it'll be fine if candidate, as an admin, continues to allow copyrighted material to be published", that is not so fine. Herostratus (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * -- don't really want to get involved with this mess but I think it's clear that the creative commons icon is not intended to apply to the comment section. If you view the source code of the page, the icon is included in a div that includes the article contents, but not the comments, so per the HTML at least it is intended to be more closely associated with the contents of the article than with the comments section. Whether this is clear enough to allow the photos is another matter, but I don't think your assessment is accurate. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are also comments sections on pages that do no include photographs, those pages do not include the cc-by-sa symbol and so are definitely not covered by the license. While obviously not impossible for the comments on different pages to be under different licenses, there is no logical reason I can think for why you would do that. Additionally, it seems to be best practice across the internet to inform people that they are freely licensing their comments if they are doing so, but this is not done here. This is obviously not conclusive of anything relevant on its own, but it does add further weight to all the other evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding "if I saw an image marked as reviewed by a Commons reviewer, I'd probably trust its license too rather than digging deeply" uhh... Maybe it's me, but I... have long experience with and opinions about Commons. I'll keep them to myself, but I don't know as admins ought to be too trusting of other websites. For an editor to do that is one one thing; we're busy, and concerned with and up on other things.


 * But admins are supposed to be highly versed in the rules and vigilant; are supposed to be the backstop for copyvio that other editors might make. If admins are lax on this... oof. The Foundation takes this very seriously, and if and when the Foundation takes us over, copyvio laxitude will maybe be a key excuse. OK. Candidate is human. Candidate can be forgiven for being fooled by Commons. I want the candidate to pass this RfA. But still... candidate does have a big honken copyvio smack above the fold on their talk page. Please don't tell me that the community is "enh, whatever" about that when vetting admins. Herostratus (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Admins shouldn't trust random websites, but Commons is not a random website - it's a website that is purposefully designed to be more tustworthy for our purposes than images on Wikipedia (given that it does not accept fair use images). If we cannot trust Commons then we have a fundamental problem that is way, way above the remit of enwiki admins to sort out. If you have any concerns in that regard you really need to be speaking to the WMF and the Commmons community (who are the only ones who can do something about them).
 * In this specific instance we do not have an admin candidate/future admin with a "big honken copyvio smack above the fold on their talk page." we have an admin candidate/future admin with an image on their talk page that has been reviewed as freely licensed by a trusted reviewer and about which (as far as I can tell) nobody has expressed any concerns about before this discussion. Those concerns are being looked into and the best anyone can say is that the licensing is currently possibly unclear (which is not a "honken copyvio" whichever way you look at it - at worst it is a copyvio made in good faith). We have no evidence that the licensing was not clearer when the image was reviewed, and we have no evidence that Sdrqaz did not review the image when they added it to their page.
 * Looking into it a bit deeper, there have been many deletion requests related to other images hosted on other subdomains of tistory.com. All of the ones I have sampled which have been deleted (other than one where the uploader was not the copyright holder) have a common feature - the blog author has made a statement somewhere on the homepage of their blog that contradicts the Creative Commons license, either explicitly or ambiguously. At least one discussion (the second at Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lori155) found that images from a different blog here were freely licensed correctly, in a similar manner to this one. Finally, the blog author also posts to instagram at https://www.instagram.com/offthepage_js/. I do not have an account there so cannot see what license the images are posted under. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just thought I would weigh in to back-up the position that accepting a copyright review by a commons reviewer is also something I would do. I do not consider it remotely an indication of insufficient vetting. The fact that we've now had multiple experienced editors gone and look at the page and still not come to a clearcut position further makes me think that even had the candidate followed up, they still wouldn't have come to any reason to think the reviewer was evidently incorrect.
 * Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, too bad nobody pinged me here. I've put in a fair amount of time dealing with images regarding all things Korean—I created C:Category:Tistory.com related deletion requests and have been responsible for a good portion of those DRs—and I can guarantee that the photos from offthepage bear no copyright issues. ✗  plicit  12:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * An editor's guarantee is meaningless. You* are obligated to prove the copyright status of an image prior to uploading it. Quoting the image use policy: for freely-licensed images [y]ou can prove that the copyright holder has released the image under an acceptable free license and for public domain images [y]ou can prove that the image is in the public domain. (emphasis added) *I mean 'you' generically. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The uploaded is required to be able to prove that the image has been released under a free license, they need not provide that proof directly at upload (because the proof may depend on non-public information). However, if they do not then the freely licensed status must be verifiable by others. What has happened here is that a trusted reviewer has indicated that they verified that the image was freely licensed in December 2021 - as free licenses (or at least those that Commons' allows) are irrevocable that means the image is freely licensed. Since the issue was raised here, several other editors have also attempted to verify that the image is freely licensed and declared variously that it is, that it probably is or that it almost certainly is. A trusted editor who has significant experience with investigating whether content hosted on the site in question is or is not freely licensed, and who has nominated for deletion many examples of content that is not, has declared that based on their knowledge and experience there is no question that the images are freely licensed because the source website includes a declaration that they are licensed cc-by-sa-4.0 and there is nothing to indicate that they are not. That is the proof that they are freely licensed. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * An easy mistake to make. We should not expect all editors even admins to be experts on image licensing—this isn't Commons. I have seen MUCH worse at FAC... (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If anyone still has serious copyright concerns, please submit a Commons deletion request (on the file page in Commons, click Nominate for Deletion in the left sidebar) so that the copyright issue can be specifically discussed and actioned. I suspect the result will be similar to the other Tistory.com related deletion requests linked above. -M.nelson (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah Ha
Alright, the license was indeed changed -- or most probably anyway. The website owners, at some point, changed from a Creative Commons license to "Copyright, all rights reserved". The Wayback Machine reveals this. Here's a good part of the dispute and how we are talking at cross purposes a bit.

Of course the website can't do that -- take back a free license. At least, with any legal effect. But it certainly does confuse the issue for us average mooks.

I don't know if the particular image in question first appeared on the page when the CC license was still up. I'm going to assume that it was. Even the Wayback Machine might not tell us, if the image came and went between archive points. But maybe, and further work (which I'm not recommending, there's a limit here) might tell. So anyway, my assumption is that the work was free when it was uploaded, and when it was checked, and it remains free forever. So there's no actual problem, and sorry about yelling. It is quite confusing because if you check the image now the source says its not free. Only digging with the Wayback Machine would reveal the situation, and nobody expects anyone to go that far to determine copyright status. Interesting situation, and I learned something. I expect that this situation is quite rare.

Oddly, in spite of this discovery of no error on Sdrqaz's part, I'm changing my vote from Neutral to Oppose. I'm doing that because, even tho I requested Sdrqaz's presence here on their talk page, they couldn't be bothered I guess, nor engage in the discussion at his talk page. And I mean you'd think that Sdrqaz would be especially alert and on their best behavior at this time (if they're too busy, they could have requested a delay (unless very pressing external circumstances arose suddenly)). It's just not OK for an admin to meet requests for engagement on important questions with complete silence. And again, this is presumably his best face. It's not OK, and at this point I don't want the guy in the admin corps barring some explaino. (If it's a matter of being too stressed to engage while in the middle of a 157/2/5 lovefest, that indicates to me that the candidate is not tough enough. If you're an admin people are going to yell at you, and you have to shrug that off and make dispassionate decisions.) Herostratus (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Herostratus' oppose

 * 1) Oppose, changing my vote from Neutral. So, the deal is, I had some questions about whether the candidate had a copyvio image on their talk page. I opened a thread on the talk page of this RfA, and after some discussion and digging into archives it turned out they didn't and so no problem. However, now a new and worse problem arises. So, I change my vote because, even tho I requested Sdrqaz's presence, on their talk page, at that thread here, they couldn't be bothered to come I guess, nor engage in the discussion at their talk page. And I mean you'd think that Sdrqaz would be especially alert and on their best behavior at this time (if they're too busy, they could have requested a delay (unless very pressing external circumstances arose suddenly)). It's just not OK for an admin to meet requests for engagement on important questions with complete silence. And again, this is presumably his best face. It's not OK, and at this point I don't want the guy in the admin corps barring some explaino. (If it's a matter of being too stressed to engage while in the middle of a 157/2/5 lovefest, that indicates to me that the candidate is not tough enough. If you're an admin people are going to yell at you, and you have to shrug that off and make dispassionate decisions. If it's a matter of considering the matter too trivial to bother with, that's even worse. If it's something else, I'm all ears.) Herostratus (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Moral (at this juncture) support for your oppose, H. It is odd, considering the swathe of recent arbcom cases based on (a perceived lack of) communication.  SN54129  19:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually matters about certain content, especially in relation to their user page, would be discussed on HIS talk page, His lack of response could very well be due to time-zone differentials. As for the RfA talk discsusion and his lack of participation, There was no direct reason for his participation. So far this oppose as far as i can tell, is based on his lack of responses. This would be a valid reason if he didnt respond period. However, usually i have found this user to respond to issues and complaints. PerryPerryD  Talk To Me 19:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been two days. And there is also a discussion on their talk page in which he also has declined to participate. If the reason is that they feel that "There was no direct reason for his participation" then I really don't want him on the admin corps nor should anyone. However, your averring that he is usually is responsive is important. I can only vote based on my experience, if you have other experience you might vote differently, and fine. But then it's just odd that he's not responding here. There may be a good reason, if one comes out I'll strike my vote. Herostratus (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've written twice in this RfA, I believe strongly in the community's right to scrutiny. I appreciate that those who have not heard me speak on the issue probably think that I am saying that for show, but I am not – I repeatedly delayed this RfA so I could run alone and the community could carry out their duties with minimal distractions. I intended on joining the discussion on the talk page, but by the time I had seen the message, others had responded with identical rationales to me (that there was a CC-BY-SA 4.0 icon on the page). Since the licensing issue seemed to have been resolved (and is considered that way by Herostratus) and I had responded on the first day regarding the issue of confusion for newer Wikipedians, I didn't see what else could be said, so didn't, and I was told by Herostratus that I didn't have to participate in the thread, so thought it would be acceptable. I am sorry for not engaging earlier. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh. I think choosing to ignore Herostratus being a bit of a dick is actually evidence of perfect suitability for being an admin. Nick (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's kind of insulting User:Nick, what did I do wrong? Herostratus (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, let me think - you made Sdrqaz's participation in a question concerning your own copyright understanding optional, then decided to oppose their RfA for not involving themselves in the optional discussion about your copyright understanding. Then you proclaim to be upset when I consider your behaviour to be a little on the dickish side of life, and that SoyokoAnis thinks (correctly, from my reading of your statements) you went back on your word. The growing and pretty serious problems you describe are actually editors such as yourself who treat RfA in this manner, making the process so unattractive that basically nobody is brave/foolish to submit an RfA anymore. We last appointed more administrators than we lost back in November 2019 and your behaviour really is not helping encourage more editors to try and navigate this totally and utterly fucked process. I would also say, that if you have concerns regarding the copyright of an image on Commons, please look through this category to find English Wikipedia editors who are also administrators on Commons and contact one of us (either on English Wikipedia or on Commons). We're all happy to review images and can either explain ourselves or will know of other administrators who can explain complex and confusing aspects of differing copyright legislations, licensing issues, permissions and such like. I disagree with your behaviour concerning your oppose vote but fully endorse your stance on copyright policy (as you'll see from my logged actions here and on Commons, most of what I delete these days are suspected/confirmed copyright violations, be it text or media) and would encourage you to flag any issues you have identified through the correct channels, so that we can investigate. Nick (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this a case of going back on words? @Sdrqaz You are doing great, please ignore and don't involve yourself in ridiculous situations like these. Congrats! SoyokoAnis  -  talk  | PLEASE PING 21:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Who going back on who's words User:SoyokoAnis? Negative characterizations need to be made clear, I think. Would you be so kind. Herostratus (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Herostratus You. You said on Sdrqaz's talk page and I quote:
 * "There's a thread on the RfA talk page if you want to chime in (you don't have to of course)."
 * Once again, I open the option of verification. SoyokoAnis  -  talk  | PLEASE PING 11:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Sdrqaz, thanks for coming in. There's a lot to unpack in all this but for my part doubling down on the unresponsiveness and the interpretation of the copyright issue doesn't help, no. You were satisfied that the CC-BY-SA 4.0 icon on the image source page is some indication that the material is free, and that's not good at all, since the little CC-BY-SA 4.0 is next to the comment box and quite obviously there to indicate that any user comments are given under the CC license, same as contributions to the Wikipedia are, and the actual material on the page is covered by the large "Copyright, all rights reserved" notice. (The image is very likely free, but for different reasons altogether which were discovered later). So that is not at all a good interpretation of a copyright situation. "Oh right, I see the point, and I learned something" might have been a better response" IMO.


 * Anybody can say anything, but it has been vouchsafed by another editor that you are a responsive editor. I believe them, and that's about actions not words, and that's what counts. So it's all fine Sdrqaz; you are certain to be easily passed, and if this was a little glitch well these things happen and as I've said all along all this is a single point and not a deal-killer. I'm sure you'll be a fine addition to the corps, thank you for volunteering, and we look forward to your work in this expanded capacity. I'm keeping my vote for the record only, based on my personal experience in this one small thing, and since the vote isn't close.


 * Different topic, but the contributions above of User talk:SoyokoAnis and User:Nick are just appalling (I'm not talking about the insult part) and a demonstration of a growing and pretty serious problem. Nothing to do with you directly Sdrqaz so I'll take that to the talk page also. But if you'd like to strongly disavow their comments that'd be good. Herostratus (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Are you going to remove your oppose at that point or are there more concerns? SoyokoAnis  -  talk  | PLEASE PING 14:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also @Herostratus why did you link my talk page instead of my userpage? SoyokoAnis  -  talk  | PLEASE PING 14:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel I need to remind everyone of WP:VOLUNTEER. This isn't a copyright violation or attack page, this isn't vitally important, there is no need for an immediate response (or really any response), and it's not reasonable to demand one. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Understanding politeness
Alright, I am being pilloried for first addressing Sdrqaz thusly (emphasis added)

And then being significantly disgruntled when they indeed didn't swing by. My character has been strongly attacked for this, by a couple-few people.

But I mean "you don't have to respond if you don't want to" is pro forma politeness, intended to destress and grease the wheels of intercourse. Candidate is already stressed by going thru an RfA currently, I want to bend over backwards be polite and not sound contentious or threatening. I could have said "I'm expecting to address this concern, and if you don't that's going to be a problem". Would that have been better.

"If you don't mind, would you please get off my foot" is not to be taken literally and responded to with "nah, I'm good", and if it is, yes the original requester is going to be upset. People who don't understand this need to work on it, I think.

And I mean it is literally true that candidate could not be forced to respond. It's a simple statement of fact. It is true regardless of whether I was impolite or not. So why be rude for no reason. It doesn't mean that I think it was OK for them to actually not reply. I don't.

I didn't find Sdrqaz's point that he didn't participate because others had already made the same (incorrect, FWIW) point that he would have made very satisfying, at all. How are we supposed to know what he thinks if he doesn't speak. He could have said "What Mr Smith said is my opinion also" or something. He chose not to. That's his right, just as it's our right to take away from that what we will.

If Sdrqaz thinks that saying nothing indicates that others have already spoken for him, what I am I to make of their talk page, where my contributions have been characterized as "unbecoming and unnecessary" and "a toxic mix of soapboxing and sealioning", that one can be "glad that Herostratus is no longer [an admin] here", that "There is much strength in silence"? I've asked Sdrqaz to disavow these statements and indicate that these people are not speaking for him (or, if they are, to make that explicit). Just recently, so let's give them a day or so. But he also hasn't said anything here yet.

So, what is going to happen to editors who go to admin Sdrqaz's talk page to ask questions or point out mistakes or request admin action on some matter and so on. This is my concern now. Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So, you posted a complete lie and expected her to understand that it was meant to be a false statement? casualdejekyll  14:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a lie, although the parenthetical remark turned out to be unfortunate. It was quite true that there was no obligation to respond to the query. It is also the case that the query happened in the context of an RfA and so it might be unwise not to respond. This is an instance of a really important ambiguity in how the phrase "have to" is used, and any competent English speaker is aware of it in practice. Herostratus was quite right that emphasising the lack of obligation does take the edge off the claim, which is good manners, but can be achieved without creating the hostage to fortune that it is then awkward to base an oppose on the lack of that reaction. You can criticise Herostratus for either the lack of foresight in realizing that the query might turn out to be more important to him than it at first seemed or for not appreciating the existence of the hostage of fortune when actually writing the oppose later, but on the score of truthfulness, he deserves top marks. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What Casualdejekyl said. You could have said something like "I'd appreciate your opinion" or "Please could you explain your thinking" or literally a hundred other polite phrasings, including just asking the question and not explicitly asking for a response, that said what you actually meant rather than saying something that was literally the exact opposite. If you look at Sdrqaz's talk page you will see that they are far more responsive to questions than some administrators are, so unless you think that has all been sham just so they can get the tools and will change their tune when they finally get them I don't see that there is anything to worry about in that regard. Finally, they have explicitly called out people for assuming they are male, so the use of male pronouns to refer to them seems rather tone deaf. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, does this mean you're gonna remove the oppose? With the apology and all the stuff it doesn't make sense to keep the oppose there. SoyokoAnis  -  talk  | PLEASE PING 16:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Gosh, what a nonsensical oppose. Polyamorph (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Herostratus – I'll be absolutely candid here. It will only be wise of you to stop digging. If you want to retain that little respect that editors might still have for you, you better go back, strike your groundless vote and apologise to Sdqraz for unfounded accusations.
 * For the future, it's usually wise not to pick up fights when unfamiliar with the key principles of this project, like WP:VOLUNTEER, and when not able to respect candidates and other editors' time. Regards, — kashmīrī  TALK  18:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Chalst's oppose

 * 1) Oppose per poor handling of 's query. Getting handling of copyvio and libellous material right is an existential issue for Wikipedia and we should not tolerate slackness here. The deluge of approval that Sdrqaz is going to be approved with is bad for the RfA process. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chalst Herostratus specifically told Sdrqaz that they we're not required to participate in a concern of his copyright understanding. He went back on his word and made this oppose. SoyokoAnis  -  talk  | PLEASE PING 11:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - OK, so what? Herostratus didn't like it, so he opposed. Neither does Charles Stewart. For that matter, neither do I. At any point could have stepped up and stated that they didn't like users who opposed being harassed for their opposition. That never happened, and yes, I know that they don't have to do so. It does say something about their thought process and character, and is a valid reason to oppose.  GregJackP   Boomer!   11:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @GregJackP Please keep in mind that you're opposing a very stressful RFA because the nominee did not respond to an optional(in my opinion)obvious image concern. SoyokoAnis  -  talk  | PLEASE PING 14:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that not only was the invitation to participate in the discussion explicitly optional, it had (if my timing is correct) already been determined by the time of the oppose vote that there wasn't actually any copyright problems with the image (it had certainly already been determined that if there was a copyright concern it was not at all an obvious one and that it was and is reasonable to trust that a file marked by a reviewer as free is indeed free). So it's not exactly clear what comments Sdrqaz could have left that would have added anything to the situation? Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Greg, I asked that voters take a step back on Sunday and on Monday repeated my dismay and defended your oppose vote and the importance of creating audited content. I should have been more direct, and I will be now: I heavily dislike badgering and I fear that some users have been intimidated out of the process due to it. I'm sorry. No one should be subject to the vitriol you have experienced. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)#:*{{u|
 * Thank you User:Sdrqaz. Directly addressing the editors in question and calling them out individually would have been even better IMO, but it's fine. Welllll, adminning takes a lot of learning and growing and that's a fact, so welcome to being tossed into the deep end. I suppose the Admin's Prayer might include "May I never have to deal with as much stress and drama and general yabbling as I had at my RfA", and I hope that for you, but you never know. It's a big wiki and anybody can edit it, and now you can't say "enh, not my job" if you espy a shambling rumpus. So, you're welcome for the learning experience, heh. No charge, and godspeed. =)   Herostratus (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, directly criticizing those who harassed !voters is the right stand to take in my opinion, and is an indication of the right mindset for an admin (which you will shortly be). I wish you well, once that happens. GregJackP   Boomer!   23:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * {{ping|SoyokoAnis}}- That wasn't ideal phrasing from Herostratus, since more skilful wording would have achieved the intended effect of taking the sting out of the accusation without in effect saying this was nothing to be concerned about when the possibility was, as it indeed turned out to be, that it did become so. But Herostratus saying that is only awkward for him when he came to oppose. I don't think it is relevant to the rationale for my oppose. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Charles, I do not understand how I have handled {{tq|"libellous material"}} badly. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact is that you didn't handle anything badly. Not anything. Please keep in mind, Sdrqaz, that at RfA just about anything goes, to include many things that should never be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. This includes trolling and baiting, which is usually the case when we find minuscule opposes relative to enormous support and admiration. Even badgering is not really frowned upon here. Some editors think its appropriate to fall under the spell of trollers and dish out as much disdain as they can muster. You, as the subject of this process, are okay. You are not just okay, you are essentially one of the greater success stories here. So I congratulate you and sincerely hope that your memory of all this is and remains overwhelmed by the support and admiration you have received from the vast majority of this part of the community! Thank you for putting yourself through this, and I hope you thoroughly enjoy your continued editing and mopping up of This Awesome Reference Work.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  {{sup|put'r there}} 18:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Paine Ellsworth This. You haven't done anything wrong. They just believe you did something wrong because you didn't follow their unclear instructions. SoyokoAnis  -  talk  | PLEASE PING 19:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, {{u|Sdrqaz}}, this is not well put. There's no issue with libellous material in your RfA: I was enumerating what I see as the areas of policy that it is most important that admins get right if we don't want the WMF coming in and overruling us. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)