1. Wouldn't a better idea be to propose your changes on Wikipedia talk:Administrators or a Wikipedia:Village pump? Systematically voting oppose for unrelated reasons seems unfair on the candidate. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   No. Synotia (moan) 18:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   This is one of the most counter productive oppose have seen. Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I can think of quite a few worse. There used to be a guy that opposed every single RFA for months with the reason "Too many administrators currently". Another one opposed constantly as "Self nominations are prima facie evidence of power hunger" (I'll bet seeing that just made some oldtimers shiver). That user eventually ran for Arbcom on a pledge to decline every case, a sort of proto-Hasten the Day candidate. Users like that do crop up but they've mostly been allowed to continue on the basis of us giving a very wide latitude to RFA votes, and one oppose being incredibly unlikely to impact the result. If it was right on the cusp, Crats typically ignore votes that are unrelated to the candidate. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Since this oppose will definitely affect the outcome of the RfA, I think it's very important that we get into a long argument about it. Spicy (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree. There is not enough time-sink argument on wiki, and too often people are overly focued on content and getting things done rather than fighting and blocking each other. Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Has zh.wiki gotten over their political meltdown yet? I wouldn't be rushing to emulate their governance policies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Synotia is a disruptive only account. Follow the links: blocked for a week at Wikitionary for disruptive editing, Commons comment Definitely not here to build an encyclopedia. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I have indef blocked this editor. Not his first block, in January "(Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy)". As far as I can see, no other purpose across the wikis but disruption. Admins are free to revert me if they see otherwise. — Maile (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   (edit conflict) Synotia I can get behind an effort to change from this US supreme court-like lifetime appointment. However I do not think it is fair to the candidate since they have no power to change this system. I see that the candidate is open to recall under a specific process. I would amend that process to say that administrators should not be allowed to ivote for any recall - since they are likely not likely to be critical of a system which gives them a lifetime appointment. Anyway, you can oppose, but the candidate is only playing by the rules in this RFA. Lightburst (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Maile66 I just looked at their contributions and I think your block was over the top. JMHO. Lightburst (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   They have the right to appeal it. And you have a right to see it differently. But what I saw across multiple wikis was in effect "not here to build an encyclopedia". — Maile (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Maile66 his contributions show non-vandalistic edits to articles, which calls into question your whole premise of "disruption-only." Ribbet32 (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Fine. Unblocked. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I thank you for backing my argument. Synotia (moan) 20:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't back you. — Maile (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   [edit conflict with move to talk page] There may be a language barrier, but I'd interpret it as you made their point for them by blocking them as you did. The fact that so many people just couldn't leave this oppose alone speaks volumes though... —Locke Cole • t • c 23:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   My treatment of Aoidh (posting a single oppose vote preventing a Saddam-like 100% result) would by your own criteria probably be more fair than Maile's treatment of me (block for eternity for this very oppose post)

   [censored joke] Synotia (moan) 21:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't disagree with adopting a more formal recall process for admins, but I would also strongly be in favor of replacing the Supreme Court appointment system with our RfA and desysop process and think the comparison is misplaced. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Sure, but what about the French or Portuguese Wikipedia? Have they got political issues? Synotia (moan) 20:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm less familiar with their drama and don't have a handy Signpost special to point you to, but I've mostly heard bad things about pt.wiki from editors here who used to contribute there. I'm not aware of any issues with the French project. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Thankfully, WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, and RfA votes are considered on merit of argument. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 00:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(moved by Beccaynr (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

• This is a patently disruptive oppose. See WP:POINT. I am INVOLVED so can't do it, but the oppose should be stricken and a formal warning issued. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please don't press the issue @Ad Orientem:. We can all see that it is a procedural oppose and not targeted at the candidate. We need to allow all editors to participate and ivote in any way they want. The editor already caught a block just for opposing. And @Rosguill:, agreed, nobody should have a lifetime appointment for anything. Lightburst (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the block was a bit precipitous, but RfA is not an open forum for disruptive editing. And until/unless POINT is repealed by the community, this sort of thing is a no no. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, that makes two admins who apparently should never have been handed a mop. First a baseless block and now "strike the vote and threaten the editor". No candidate is entitled to unanimous approval and voting "no" is not disruptive. Get a grip. Banks Irk (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banks Irk, Synotia's "vote" was nothing more than an attempt to bring attention to their proposal. I'm not saying it's a bad proposal, but RfA isn't a place for proposals. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take a pretty tolerant approach when it comes to opposes, and have expressed disapproval on multiple occasions of badgering opposers, even when I think their reasoning is lame. But this is different. The oppose has absolutely nothing to do with the candidate or their qualifications. It is a crystal-clear breach of POINT, and it is disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you stop harassing and bullying oppose votes. It will discourage people from voting at all. Editors are quite capable of assessing that vote for what it is worth. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that we need to tolerate blatantly disruptive behavior for fear of discouraging legitimate participation? Really? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would come down on the side of "It's only one oppose, it's not going to have any effect, why draw all this attention to it".... but come on, this is a purely disruptive POINT violation as it has literally nothing to do with the candidate themselves. They even said at the ANI thread I only wanted to use the RfA (Requests for Adminship, right? Not for Admins?) as a platform for my own opinion. This type of behavior is unfair to Aoidh. Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting the following ANI discussion: Wikipedia:ANI#Abuse of power by the admin Maile66. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]