Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Girth Summit

Mkativerata's oppose

1. Oppose per [1]. MOS:INOROUT is fundamental, non-negotiable policy. I recommend the candidate fix these issues in past editing before nominating again, and I would be happy to support. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Mkativerata: MOS is neither fundamental nor non-negotiable, and is certainly not policy. Please acknowledge, at least, that at this juncture you may not know what you are talking about? Particularly as you seem to be 'opposing' in the support column. WTF? Many thanks for addressing these. ——SerialNumber54129 08:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mkativerata: I believe you have put your oppose in the wrong place. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hope I didn’t cause an issue clerking - I simply moved it to the Oppose section where it belongs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You did (based on the discussion below) and I've moved it back. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, Willbb234 Hope nobody thinks it's bad form for me to comment down here. For reasons which are probably obvious, I've been reading a few RfAs in recent days - Mkativerata often votes like this, I think it's a joke. I'm just glad that they took time to improve one of my articles as well as voting! GirthSummit _(blether) 09:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I think it's perfectly good form for you to join the general comments, particularly given that the discussion is about a joke, rather than a grim discussion about some beans that you stuffed up your nose at some point... Airbornemihir (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm pretty sure that this is a joke made in good measure by this user. :-) I had a fair number of silly votes on my RFA (such as support vote #109 by Opabinia regalis). I certainly hope that this is the case, at least... Seriously opposing someone's RFA because they accidentally added the punctuation to a statement inside of the ending quotation instead of outside (or vice versa) is severely missing the mark on what we should really look for in candidates, and exactly what aspects make someone a good administrator that the community respects and looks up to as someone they can trust. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

And not the first one, if it is - see User_talk:Mkativerata#RFA ^Atsme _Talk 📧

I mean some editors would advocate for our under consideration recall process to be purely based off the incorrect use of an en-dash... Nosebagbear (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, en-dash and using “based off” in lieu of “based on”. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That and using decimalised fractions in things like like ORCP and it's amazing I ever got through RfA ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Despite being seemingly humorous (as noted by Primefac), it's just as silly as the other Oppose, so they might just as well be in the same section. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 18:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've reverted this. I've already !voted in the candidates favor, so one could argue that I'm involved here, but that comment was specifically kept there by a bureaucrat, as noted above, so given that and the fact that it's rather WP:POINTy, I felt anyone would do the same. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Not so much in reply to this specific edit, but the general tenor of this !vote: a little lightness and humor at an RfA that is speeding to success is a good thing. If this is really to be be NBD, we need to not only allow bureaucrats to judge frivolous opposes without badgering ahead of time, but also be just as willing to allow for some general whimsy and frivolity. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• The qualitative difference is all about intent - the first is a support being a jokey oppose, the 2nd is actually intended to be an oppose Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ironically, that oppose vote seems to have garnered a fair number of support votes, and is therefore a net positive in the discussion. Perhaps it should be moved to the support section. – bradv🍁 22:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• An interesting argument, @Bradv: - can we thus move particularly unhelpful "damned by faint praise" support !votes too? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• • • I think it makes more sense to move all of those support votes after that oppose vote into the oppose section, and also put them in backwards. Vermont (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie's oppose

Let's draw a line under it; participant moved to neutral. –xeno^talk 18:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Oppose because something about your user name makes me uncomfortable. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

   I'm sure Andrew D. can clear this up. :-D – Levivich 16:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

   And if that was supposed to be an attempt at levity, Levivich, I think it is a disasterous flop. I know I give Andrew a hard time about his RfA voting, but he does do a lot of very good pro-active work for Wikipedia and has been around for a very long time. I see that you appear to be as determined as ever to maintain RfA as a venue that candidates of the right calibre are wont to avoid. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   I feel like the joke landed...? I don't think anyone was trying to put Andrew down, all it was was a prod in the ribs about his perpetual RfA question. Airbornemihir (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) And just when I was thinking how nice it was not to have pointless questions asked about meanings of usernames, we go and get this daft oppose! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

   Asking is one thing (at least you get an occasionally interesting story, though I've yet to see anything that impact's an Admin's suitability) but here we got the oppose without the question Nosebagbear (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

   Oh well, this RfA was nice while it lasted. :P – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

   An odd username doesn't mean folks will be bad admins. If we didn't let folks become admins because they had odd names, half the admin corps would vanish. Hell, half of all editors would vanish. Folks choose usernames for a variety of reasons, and I see no real issue with GS's name. I hope you simply ask a question above about what his name means, and consider retracting your oppose upon a suitable answer. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC) P.S. Another summit with some girth

   The nominee explained their username choice in the answer to Q19, in case an explanation would affect your decision. Kees08 (Talk) 18:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

   Funnily enough, I was inclined to support this RfA simply because of the username (but I concluded that was not a valid reason). AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

   I’m sure I’m not the only one that sees it as referring to something else, but if my concerns are not shared here then the crats and candidate will give it the weight it deserves. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

   I think you might well have been the only one. But now you've mentioned it, I'm wondering about this inappropriately-named object, too! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

   That's nothing! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

   I've seen some stupid oppose rationales, but this one is the ... summit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Mr Ernie: Yeah, I was actually thinking the same thing -- BoothSift 02:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Mr Ernie:, why don't you report this to UAAA and see what happens. Anyway, I hope some crat indents this oppose: it has no merit. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   My God, you're right...... How did I not see this before?!! He came into this project with such a vile and deviant username, and we all didn't see it... This obviously means that he's really a troll whose intent on burning this project to the ground! Girth Summit has obviously pulled the wool over all of our eyes by deceivingly making positive contributions, participating in projects and improving the encyclopedia, removing vandalism and disruption and making sure that repeat offenders are brought to the proper noticeboards, and interacting with others in a consistently positive and collaborative spirit and with the project's best interest in mind.... We will fall for his tricks and schemes no more! GIRTH SUMMIT, I KNOW WHO YOU REALLY ARE AND WHAT YOU WANT, AND WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER! That's it, we meed to shut the website down, everyone! We're being invaded by an account and with "girth" in the username! In fact, this sometimes-sexually-used word brings up something I need to talk about... My daddy never had big man talk with me. I WANT TO HAVE BABY. HOW DO I MAKE BABY?!! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   When a summit and a depression love each other very much... El_C 06:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   There is no need to reply to my vote mentioning that some users may infer another type of connotation to the user name with more open and direct innuendo as some seem to think appropriate. Oshwah I have no idea what your comment means. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   Mr Ernie - I was just being silly. :-) I meant no insult toward you at all. You're free to express your honest thoughts and how you feel towards the candidate; I meant for my response to be a "friendly razz", as if we were sitting at the bar together and giving one another a hard time. Though I obviously disagree and feel that your vote in opposition is way over-the-top, I have absolutely no ill will toward you at all. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   If nobody else seems to agree I'll move it to neutral. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   Mr Ernie - Do what you feel is right. :-) Above all else, I just want to make sure that my stupid and ridiculous response didn't upset you... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   In all seriousness, I have tried without any success to understand wherein the supposed innuendo lies. I don't even know which of the two words can be rude in English, or if it is the combination that refers to something I'm unaware of – and my English skills are pretty advanced for a mere Swede. Could someone educate me before I am inadvertently offensive to a native English speaker? Feel free to post to my user talk page if it's inappropriate here. --bonadea contributions talk 13:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Bonadea: I assumed the "peak" (summit) of a man's "girth" (geddit?) was assumed. Of course, I never went to Oxford, so could be mistaken :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, that's exactly how it read to me, too. @Bonadea:, in the US, women make jokes about men being obsessed with length when it's girth that is the, um, significant factor from a woman's point of view. --valereee (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking in my personal capacity as someone who went through an RfA: I found outside perspective on my (then-)username to be helpful. In the present case, it probably won't cause an issue for Girth Summit's administration and their explanation in Q19 is reasonable. Mr Ernie: I would humbly suggest that if you are going to oppose on these grounds, that you perhaps expand on your concern (even if it might be somewhat... nsfw?) so the candidate and other participants can better understand your position, and the candidate may choose to change their username if convinced. Of course this is not required but will assist in the consensus process. –xeno^talk 12:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC) [I see you've done this somewhat with "innuendo" mention.]

• Speaking in my capacity as an RfA clerk, I understand that much of the above is harmless fun, and I don't think we want to deprive RfA of all fun and humour; however, please understand that those on the receiving end of some posts like some of those above may not appreciate the humour (and we should avoid calling someone's rationale "stupid", the punch-line doesn't necessarily take away from the harsh language). –xeno^talk 12:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Speaking in no capacity whatsoever, while I agree that the !vote was meritless (no offence to MrE), I think much of the subsequent (and so-called) banter was little better than trolling. Moving it here was the right thing to do; hatting this, even better. ——SerialNumber54129 12:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, Serial Number 54129 - Alright; I'm sorry... As I said above, my response was not intended to be malicious or troll anybody in a negative manner, nor did I mean for it to be disruptive or cause anyone to be upset or feel that I was attacking them. As I'm sure you're both familiar with me and and how I help and support others on Wikipedia, I'm sure you both know that I would never intend to harm someone here in any way or fashion. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I know there was no malice intended. –xeno^talk 13:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Xeno - Okay, just making sure. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely Oshwah. If anything you would Kill Them with Kindness, as it were  :) it was no one individual post, but the cumulative apppearance of the whole I was thinking of. ——SerialNumber54129 13:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie I hope you don't mind me dropping a note on here. I was kind of hoping that someone might ask me a question about my username, so that I could clarify this in a formal answer, but since you and Serial Number 54129 have set out your concerns above, I'd like the opportunity to address them. Xeno, in your capacity as an RfA clerk, please go ahead and revert this comment if you feel it's not appropriate for me to be commenting here.

I can understand where you see some possible innuendo in my username. The honest truth is though that 'Girth' is what the guys I worked with used to call me back when I created the account. I've corresponded by e-mail with a few users, including both of my nominators but also (off the top of my head), Primefac, Drmies, TonyBallioni, and possibly Oshwah (can't say for sure about him) - my e-mail address makes my real name clear, and I expect that any of the above could confirm that 'Girth' is a couple of vowels away from my actual first name. None of these users has actually met me however, so I'll have to ask you to take it on trust that I am not slight of frame, and that my buddies enjoyed ribbing me about that in their choice of nickname, which I became quite used to.

I added 'Summit' as a second part of the username in part because it has a passing similarity to my actual surname (my real initials are GS), and in part because I am an eager Munro bagger (or, more truthfully, I was one when I created the account - now I've moved down to England, the extra few hours' drive needed to reach the peaks is a bit offputting). Having a two-part username that looked like a real name seemed like a good idea, and I just thought that 'Girth Summit' just had a nice ring to it; if I'd thought that people might have read it as a sexual reference, I would have chosen something else.

Nobody has ever mentioned a concern about my name since I started editing - if they had, I'd probably have changed it long ago. Then again, I guess people might have had similar thoughts to you, and just not thought them worth mentioning. If you honestly think that my username is going to be a distraction for people I might interact with as an admin, I hope that you're wrong, but I accept that you have grounds to oppose and I don't hold it against you. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No need to misrepresent me Bagman  :) that was merely my interpretation of others' concerns. All the best, ——SerialNumber54129 14:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, sorry SN - didn't mean to misrepresent you, I assumed you'd had the same thoughts about it. (I quite like 'Bagman' though, maybe I should change my sig...) GirthSummit _(blether) 14:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: No problem whatsoever  :) just wanted to clarify that you had accidentally increased the number of individuals who cared about your username by 100%! Did you ever watch this, back in the day? ——SerialNumber54129 15:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, 'fraid not, but I did enjoy Pearson's work in this. Those were the days... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Aye, that was a classic too. "I'm not here, team!" Just that, in BtL, Tom Georgeson was Pearson's "bagman". Think the first time I heard it...basically his job was to kick down doors while Pearson looked the other way.

Not disimilar to your future role here :D ——SerialNumber54129 15:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking as someone who came through a particularly nasty RfA with flying colours (pre-reform voter counts), I can appreciate the desire for a sprinkling of humour, but let's not overdo it. Flippancy as well as hatefulness, inappropriate questions, and non votes à la Mr Ernie all add up to the reasons why RfA isn't getting many takers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Purely for informational purposes for GS, the name reads as possibly a sexual reference to this US woman. Others' mileage may vary. I don't find it offensive and don't object to it as a user name, but it's not just Mr E who it appeared that way to. --valereee (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, thanks for letting me know. This is something I'll have to dwell on a bit - even if it's not offensive, it's not really the impression I want to be giving out. On the other hand, I've been using the username for a while - I've become rather attached to it, and it's how a lot of people know me, so thinking about changing it feels kind of... unsettling. If anyone else reads this and has a view, I'd welcome others' thoughts, but perhaps my talk page would be the right place for that rather than here. Thanks again Valereee. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Valereee I'm a US woman. I must not be up on the latest lingo, because that thought never crossed my mind. However, until Girth - may we call you Girth? - spoiled it by giving us the big reveal on the name - I was having a wonderful time thinking the name might either be a cosmic constellation like maybe the Omega Nebula, or a landform like Enchanted Rock, or one of those new Age terms like Harmonic Convergence. Turns out it's just a name. — Maile (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Maile66, I probably just have a twisted mind. :) --valereee (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Maile66, sorry for spoiling your fun! Yes, by all means, I'm happy with Girth (although perhaps not quite happy with my girth - another day goes by when I seem to have spent too much time at the keyboard, and no time in the gym...) GirthSummit _(blether) 19:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Having worked with you before, I was of the impression that the name referred to the Scottish Highlands. I am amazed at the twists and turns of people's thoughts on it. Not remotely offensive to me and the innuendos suggested above never even occurred to me. SusunW (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

SusunW Thanks - and yes, the summit bit basically does refer to the Highlands - Munro bagging is a sort of game or collecting, you have to get to the summit of them all before you die. I was really into it when I was younger, and I've bagged a fair few of them, but since I moved to England (and turned forty) it's kind of tailed off...

You're another editor I've communicated with over email (sorry I left you off the list above, didn't want to drag you into this!). I hope you can see the link between the nickname and my actual name. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that. :) For the record, for those who insist on scrutinizing my activities, our off-wiki contact had to do with deciphering a handwritten will, which can clearly be seen on-wiki here and nothing to do with canvassing or anything else. SusunW (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• english is not my first langauge, so... What on earth am i missing here? Apologies for the question that might sound stupid to you, but I couldnt figure out the trolling/disruptive/nsfw part in the username even after skimming through this discussion. Whats wrong with this username? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  Male genetalia is sometimes described as a “girth” (or at least that is a scale of measure), and for a “girth” of this nature to summit could refer to a tumescence (or the part that comes later given adequate stimulation). –xeno^talk 23:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Usernamekiran Girth means the circumference around an object, most commonly used for a person or animal - so a girth strap goes around a horse to hold a saddle on, and a 'man of great girth' is a fat bloke. If you waggle your eyebrows or wink when you say it though, you might (as Xeno suggests) be referring to the circumference of something else. I can't pretend to have been entirely ignorant of that possible meaning when I created the username, I just didn't think that was what would jump into people's minds and, as I say, it was actually the nickname I went by at work. I'm starting to feel sorry for people called Richard or William who might want to include their real life nicknames in their usernames... GirthSummit _(blether) 07:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• It’s “Garth Something” in a Scouse accent. Eh eh eh eh, calm down calm down. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Xeno may, or may not, be right that Ivanvector should not have described Mr Ernie's comment as stupid. What is overwhelmingly stupid is Mr Ernie's continued failure to explain his rationale and let this discussion get out of hand. What kind of name is "Mr Ernie" anyway? Is that some kind of attack on Orientals who commonly make the mistake of putting the honorific in front of the first name due to Eastern name order being different from European? SpinningSpark 16:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Spinningspark - Classy comment. A model for us non admins to follow. It is obvious what issue I had from the name from any cursory reading of the above discussion. If you aren’t able to get that, then I can’t help you. Mr Ernie was the name of our beloved Viszla mix rescue, who sadly and tragically passed away last Friday. Please don’t ascribe to me any insults to Asians or anyone else - you’ve done that yourself. The candidate explained to me the details and accordingly I changed my vote. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  No, I can read above what other people thought your problem might be. It is far from clear what you might say on the matter (and until it was pointed out, it was far from clear to me that any kind of innuendo could be read into that name). I am truly sorry to hear about your dog, and apologise for any upset that may have caused. I don't, of course, really believe you were insulting Asians; my purpose in that comment was to point out to you that almost any name can be misread if one is determined to do so. I could just have asked you what your name meant before writing that. And you could just have asked Girth what their's meant before writing what you did. SpinningSpark 17:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, as a dog owner myself, I'd like to express my heartfelt sympathies. I don't know if you've ever read 'In praise of a collie' by Norman MacCaig - you can find the text easily enough with Google, if you'd like to. To my mind, it's one of the most honest, beautiful and brutally moving poems in the English language. Can I just add more generally that I for one would be happy if we could at this point draw a line under this whole thing: I'm happy to accept that Mr E's concerns were genuine (especially after what Valereee said), and I'm even happier that he's been willing to move himself to neutral. I don't think there's any more to be said. Cheers all GirthSummit _(blether) 18:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Caker18's oppose

1. Oppose because of lack of experience. I don't know if there is a certified minimum, but most admins I know have been editing more than three years actively before they open the RfA. I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Caker18: There is no certified minimum requirement. I also passed RfA with just over 1 years' worth of editing. Not intending to hound or anything, just thought I would answer your question & comment. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   "I don't know if there is a certified minimum" ... according to the WP:RFA introduction : "There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account". Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Valereee had a very high level of support despite less than a year of recent continuous activity. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Caker18 and TheSandDoctor: My RfA also passed when I'd been registered for just one year. – Athaenara ✉ 20:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Athaenara: I'm not sure I'm qualified to speak, but in 2007 there probably weren't many users around...? I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   In 2007, about the same number of users passed RfA as have done in the past 10 years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Caker18: I edited for about 18 months before passing my RfA. Yes, that did garner a few opposes and I did have more edits (about 50K), but I was still much newer than Girth Summit. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

   @HickoryOughtShirt?4: He started actively editing less than 18 months ago (May 2018 -> Oct 2019 is 1 yr 5 months or 17 months) I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

   18 months for me when I ran 3 weeks ago. There were a couple of opposes specifically on tenure grounds, but that seemed generally accepted. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

   I started editing in 2006 and was urged to run for adminship within two or three months after I started. I thought that was premature and waited until six months of active editing, at which point I passed without much trouble. I know that Wikipedia adminship is considered more complicated today than it was then—though I'm not sure why that is the case—but certainly it can't be that much more complicated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

   Obviously this oppose isn't worth making too much of a fuss over - the net effect on the result is almost zero - but I really hope it isn't sour grapes over this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

   It's not an unreasonable oppose - obviously we all heavily disagree with it, but it's much easier to justify than many I've seen, so AGF certainly applies from my POV Nosebagbear (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: It's definitely not sour grapes because Caker participated here before I turned down their NPP request. While I am obviously paying attention in both placed I hadn't really connected that Caker was a person who had opposed here until after I had turned him down at PERM. So if there are any sour grapes to be had it would be from me - though I assure you there are none. It seemed like a very straightforward decision that anyone would make it was OK to not immediately revert. I had decided if anyone asked me about it I would revert and since you have now effectively asked I have reverted my not done there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Caker18 Re "in 2007 there probably weren't many users around" 2007 was the year the community peaked in terms of raw numbers of editors, numbers of active editors, and raw numbers of edits. After that there was a long slow decline in community size until late 2014 when by some measures we had shrunk to half our peak. Subsequently there has been a rally and now a new stability, significantly above 2014 levels, but closer to 2014 than to the 2007 peak. In terms of our actual users, readers who use Wikipedia are still growing pretty much as the internet grows, but by 2007 Wikipedia was already used by a huge proportion of internet users. ϢereSpielChequers 22:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

While that's all very true, the one major difference I would note is that sometime right around then RFA got harder to pass by several degrees of magnitude, largely due to a loss of trust over a lot of those early "cowboy" admins doing dumb cowboy stuff. Suddenly it was a big deal. I'm heartened to see it being a bit more reasonable lately and hope that we may finally find the happy middle between it being way to easy and it being a week-long rectal examination without lubricant. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(Aware we're drifting off-topic), we definitely aren't in a happy medium, but last year's record low does seem to have encouraged a bit of moderation in and cessation in terms of ever-growing requirements (editcountitis in particular) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing the increase in difficulty for RfA was also related to the unbundling of rollback that occurred in early 2008. Mz7 (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Mz7, trying to follow...you think rollback being readily available made people think we didn't need as many admins, so getting the rest of the tools should require a higher standard? --valereee (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: So, I personally was not around in 2008, so I can't speak first-hand as to why RfA became harder to pass. I think it's possible that the unbundling of rollback had something to do with it. I've heard that many of the 408 successful requests in 2007 were by editors who specifically requested adminship to help out with counter-vandalism, so when rollback became unbundled, requesting adminship for the sole purpose of fighting vandalism became less of a valid reason, since now you could more easily participate in counter-vandalism without the toolset. It became necessary to express an additional need for the tools in administrative areas beyond just fighting vandalism. For example, some level of content creation became a de facto requirement. This is half-speculation on my part, though, and I would invite more commentary (perhaps at another forum, like WT:RFA) from editors who were around to observe RfA's 2007-2008 transition. Mz7 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, got it! That makes sense, thanks! --valereee (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

general question

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Girth Summit

 – —usernamekiran(talk) 23:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what are some objectionable/weirdest/borderline disruptive usernames that are not blocked/renamed even after a good amount of edits? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, you could look through the WP:RFCN archives, but this seems even too general for this page. –xeno^talk 23:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: yes, I had also thought about going to the archives. But later thought, most of the non-blocked/non-renamed usernames wouldnt have ended up there. Maybe some admin who is regularly active and/or interested at UAA would be able to answer this. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I meant RFCN (I edited my post). Look for any “allow”. –xeno^talk 23:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much Xeno! I had even forgotten that there is such a venue. The archives would be fun for sure. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable's oppose

Crat note this opinion was redacted by the OP, but I have included it here as the rest of the discussion is heavily dependent on it. If the OP feels it necessary to continue redacting, please trim again and leave a note. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Weak oppose Looks a good candidate in most respects, but opposing due to user name. I've heard the word 'Girth' hundreds of times over the years & >90% of the time it's in relation to dicks. Granted it wasn't the candidates intention, but the user name will come across to many as a sexual innuendo. So why is this a problem? As there's potential to cause offensive to several demographics, including but not limited to: 1) chaps with small dicks –a problem that while far from insurmountable, still causes great distress to some. The user name can be read as meaning 'peak girthiness'. 2) The increasing proportion of young people that don't get to have sex may not like the reminder, one of the many reasons to edit here is to get away from real life issues. 3) May be offensive to some with a deep religious faith. 4) May be annoying to those who think these sort of innuendos are harmful to children, my friend Kiefer Wolfowitz felt that way. So why the weak oppose? As there's a lot to be said for not encouraging censorship & prudery. As theres another admin with a sexual user name who'd Id still support, but their user name is much less offensive, & has a wealth of interesting possible interpretations. This one crosses the line IMO, and I hope the candidate will do the decent thing & re-name. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   @FeydHuxtable: A new low at RfA.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   In the participant's defense, I personally suggested on the talk page that if one was going to stake an oppose on the username concern that they expound on the reasoning for greater understanding. –xeno^talk 12:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   There's expounding and then there's expounding. Clearly, FeydHuxtable runs in different circles in RL than I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   @FeydHuxtable: I've admittedly disagreed with you in general over a few things, but this is by far one of the worst oppose rationales I've ever read.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks for the assessments Walt & Bbb23. My rationale was always going to be ill received by some. I judged it to be for the best, as better to cause some offence on an RfA than have an admin potentially causing offence for decades. Especially as some of the sort to be distressed by the innuendo might find it difficult to articulate why without being dismissed & possibly mocked as a prude. Of course the candidate may chose to retain the current name; all one can to is try. It was an option to email the candidate but many would find such a message intrusive. Also, much of whats been said on talk suggested a somewhat narrow perspective on this matter, and what are we here for if not to share knowledge :-) . Putting this another way, much as I'm normally a fan of badgering & have been glad to be talked out of past rare opposes, Im unlike to change my vote in this instance. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   FeydHuxtable, hi - I'm not commenting to ask you to change your mind, you must of course vote how you think best. I'll just point out that on the talk page (in the closed section about Mr Ernie's vote), I invited people who have a perspective on this to give me their views on my talk page. There has been some joking around there, but I'm actually serious - I'd welcome people's views on this. If it transpires that a significant number of people think it's inappropriate, then I'll be willing to consider a change - I don't want it to be a distraction. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Feyd, I understand you associate the word "girth" with penis. But there is evidence on this page that 160 people do not. Yet, you think the wider world sees it the way you do, and not the way 160 other people see it. How many people would have to say "nope, not an issue", before you were convinced that it's not an issue? – Levivich 15:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   Non-genital uses of girth are all over Google news. E.g. "The SC also asked Mumbai Metro to submit pictures of the afforestration, transplantation, measurement of girth and height of trees planted, and tree felling done in the area by November."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   I don't like this oppose. However individuals suggesting it as "a new low for RfA" need to have a look at other opposes that have been made (and indeed permitted to remain). This is an articulated point with a valid (if, I believe, unsound) reasoning Nosebagbear (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   Hi Feyd, you and I may move in different circles, but to me, girth is a word that sometimes comes up when people ponder as to how fat I now am (and yes I mean round the waist). Morestothepoint, we have a plethora of strange and sometimes unsettling usernames here, some of which have simply been adopted because the editor has been using them as a nom de plume in gaming. We usually judge them in the context of their edits - if girth summit had a smattering of edits that confirmed your interpretation of their username then we would be in a different place. ϢereSpielChequers 18:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

G'evening WSG. Having recently enjoyed a few minutes of your cultured conversation at the Penderel's Oak, I don't doubt that your friends might be the sort to use 'girth' in the sense you suggest. On the other hand, the circles I move in are diverse. And other than my twice per decade visits to said pub, & a couple of other outliers, I can't see anyone unironically using the term girth to refer to a chaps waist. btw, unless you have piled on the pounds in the last few months, you are in too good shape to be considered fat! (not saying that losing a few pounds would not be healthy of course.)

As to your main point, you are of course correct. My point was with this particular username, it might be offensive to some regardless of the candidates good faith. I remain of the opinion that while mild sexual innuendos are ok, ones open to a particularly charged interpretation are not ideal for admins, even when there is clearly no intention to offend. Obviously the vast majority here don't share my view. There's just been an agreeable conversation on G.S's talk page, and hopefully no more needs to be said, at least not from myself.FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

For the record I did some googling, and the only thing I came up with that was an exact match for "Girth Summit" was a facebook page mocking pictures of Donald Trump And Kim Jong Il shaking hands. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that got a laugh out of me.--WaltCip (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Facepalm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Beeblebrox You missed this one. Girth Summit is officially an amazing username! GirthSummit _(blether) 21:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• You know, I commented earlier that Mr. Ernie's oppose was the stupidest I'd seen. Thank you, FeydHuxtable, for the reminder not to speak in superlatives. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Now I am reading Hemingway completely differently: "Until the dead are buried they change somewhat in appearance each day... The dead grow larger each day until sometimes they become quite too big for their uniforms, filling these until they seem blown tight enough to burst. The individual members may increase in girth to an unbelievable extent and faces fill as taut and globular as balloons." From Death in the Afternoon. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment WP:BEANS already! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: Hi. Have you never heard of Dick Cheney of Dick Van Dyke? And right here in Wikipedia, we have Headbomb (bomb!), Dgpop, Premeditated Chaos, Worm That Turned, and worst of all Bbb23. Really, dear colleague; without an open mind, you're going to have a tough time here, especially when you could otherwise have had the support of the awsome person behind the username. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

In FeydHuxtable's defence, my reaction to this editor's handle was also that some kind of poor-taste innuendo might be intended. However, I don't think I would have voted oppose without asking what the handle was supposed to mean first. I think the editors who responded that there was no way in which that could be what was intended live sheltered lives, as even coming from a not extremely liberal background this also appears to be potential innuendo to me. FOARP (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Well said. Actually, I myself try not to choose a handle that could potentially cause the spam filter to categorize the associated message with ads pertaining enlargment of certain things. But then suppose one ran into a questionable name. One has to ask oneself: Do I want to be like Pi Patel, or like those bullies who made fun of his name? flowing dreams (talk page) 08:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Surprised nobody has brought up this -- the first thing that pops into the head of many people (dare I say most people in the US; not sure about elsewhere), when they see "Huxtable" is likewise something that could make people uncomfortable. This is, of course, just an unfortunate coincidence. Thankfully, just as the candidate indicates he has never received a complaint prior to this RfA, I think most people understand there are likely other explanations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I had thought of it, but I think it's a dangerous road to go down if we start trying to point out offense in usernames, even in jest. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And of course Feyd Rautha was a (fictional) sociopathic murderer, known for his use of poisons. Obviously this username implies wanting to incapacitate people with poison and do bad things to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly if you look at [2] and compare it to Wikt:girth there is a difference in nuance. One puts the waistline example before the saddle strap, the other does the reverse. Neither mentions the issue that concerns Feyd. ϢereSpielChequers 08:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Dictionaries can lag behind change in spoken word & informal web use, especially when we're not talking about a change in meaning, more like a change in the context with which the word is used. Ajraddatz has said they "never heard the word said without a sexual connotation" and that's true in 90% of cases for myself. No doubt it's different for say mechanical engineers or lumberjacks.

This discussion could perhaps be improved by a little more breath of vision & sense of proportion. Obviously we ought not to object to names with obscure & mild -ve connotations. For example, it's unlikely more than a small minority would sea 'Worm that Turned' as a sexual reference - and if they did, it would likely be in a self -depreciatory sense, so far less of an issue than 'Girth Summit'.

On the other hand, obviously highly offensive names are prohibited, it's a question of where one draws the line, and it maybe deserves a little more attention when it comes to an admin.

Some seem to be making a big deal of the fact the candidate obviously didn't intend any offence. The potential to cause distress is mostly still there regardless of intent. If anyone can't see why the 4 demographics in my rational might feel distress on seeing 'Gith Summit' as an admin user name, then I respectfully suggest their ability to empathise with other PoVs could use improvement.

This doesnt mean it's not the right thing for GS to keep the name - they have good personal reason to do so, and there is a case for not setting a precedent that could lead to even truly tenacious claims of offensiveness being acted on.

Looking on the bright side, as someone firmly in the 'need more admins camp', it's heartening to see so much energy spent on badgering. Some of it was almost moderately hard hitting. I hope there will be equal determination when a good candidate is next at genuine risk of failing thanks to unreasonable opposes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Ajraddatz oppose

Username is a bit of a concern. I think that a good administrator should take feedback into consideration and make changes if issues are identified, even if they are not required to do so. It seems to me that "girth" may not have sexual connotations in the UK but does elsewhere. Now that that has been identified, I think it would be responsible to step back, say "huh, didn't even consider that", and then change the name to something a bit more professional. This request will obviously pass, and the candidate will very likely be a fine admin, but I think this is something that the candidate should consider. And I don't think that this concern is trivial to the point of deserving the response it has previously been given. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The concern that the username may be considered offensive by some is not at all trivial, and the candidate should consider it (and has by my observation). It is nonetheless a less-than-rational starting point for an argument in the oppose section, suggesting your opinion is that the candidate's username on its own (and absent a clear or even marginal violation of WP:DISRUPTNAME), for no other reason, disqualifies them from consideration for adminship. You'll have to forgive me for calling this stupid a third time, but this argument that boils down to requiring a candidate to change their twelve-year-old username that nobody has ever raised any objection to at all other than one or two users who apparently needed to find some reason to be the only names in the oppose section of an RfA is indeed stupid. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The username is not a concern on its own; my concern is with the candidate's reaction once the concern with the username was raised. I also find it unfortunate that you feel the need to dismiss my opinion as stupid -- I think that it should be possible for people to disagree in a professional and calm way without demeaning or diminishing the other or the other's perspective. But that is your choice I suppose. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it was a deliberate attempt to demean or diminish you as a person. There's been some humor tossed around (including my own "it doesn't intimidate me in my support), and the majority feel the user name shouldn't be a concern. Perhaps Ivanvector shouldn't have drifted into sarcasm, but you're not a new user, and I'm sure you've seen this kind of thing on wiki before. Please don't take it personally. — Ched (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't take it personally. When any of us respond to someone else's comment, we can choose to do so in a respectful and collaborative way, or we can choose to be dismissive and demeaning. I think it is very unfortunate that the latter way is ingrained within the Wikipedia culture and goes unchecked, so I note it whenever I see it (and try to remain respectful myself). -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Ajraddatz, if I understand you correctly you're objection isn't the username it's Girth's reaction? To me I think Girth has reflected on it at [3] [4] [5] [6]. He has indicated that he will continue to think about changing his username after the close of this RfA. Given that these responses seem to have been unsatisfactory to you what would you have been hoping for from him? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe I missed it. Ajraddatz says the username is not offensive in the UK. Where exactly is it offensive? As an American, I am wholly unaware of the sexual connotations ascribed to it by FeydHuxtable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Bbb23, it could be an age thing? It's definitely US slang I was aware of (as is Urban Dictionary) but also I obviously never saw it as an issue in this context. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link, but hopefully there's more than an entry in the urban dictionary to demonstrate that girth is used that way by a sizable (forgive me) population, even if they're all teenagers on the Internet (heaven help us).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not just Urban Dictionary. I typed "girth" to Google, and it showed "What is the girth of a man?", and I clicked that, and all of a sudden I was glad that nobody was looking over my shoulder.

"Sizable population" isn't really the issue. Suppose that a person has just come across some website in which "girth" has been used in a sexual manner. Then he ditches that and goes to something else, which happens to be, working on Wikipedia. Now he looks at some talk page or some edit history and sees a user named "GirthSummit". He will naturally wonder, what is up with this user? Did he deliberately pick a username that is a sly innuendo? Now that I've read the RfA, I know that the candidate didn't deliberately pick a name that is a sly innuendo. But, now that he knows that there could be a problem, he might want to head off problems in some way. I am inclined to let him decide on that. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Google search results are personalized. I type "girth" into google and it's all horse saddle straps. – Levivich 21:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I just checked 5 dictionaries from both sides of the pond, Collins, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com, and wiktionary. None of them mention anything sexual. – bradv🍁 17:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think that the username is offensive. I have never heard the word said without a sexual connotation, so it strikes me as unprofessional to include it in an administrator's username. It is probably an age thing. Looking over the diffs by Barkeep shows a pretty mature reaction that reassures me, but I've also seen some joking on the candidate's talk page which formed the basis for my initial reaction. This is more of a bigger picture concern with the "locker room culture" on this site, and ultimately my one vote is not going to change anything on this RfA. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Bradv, try commons. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Bbb23, search for girth on commons and report back please. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Since when is the Commons some kind of barometer for what's normal? – Levivich 21:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• This, and the other oppose based on the username, is simply ridiculous. "Girth" is a perfectly normal English word that can apply to a penis, just as "length" can, but that is far from the only thing that it can apply to. I would suggest that those who immediately think of penises when they see this word are those who lead sheltered lives, where they only see playground connotations of a word rather than its general usage. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  I understand that you feel this is not an issue. I do not appreciate your comments regarding my personal life. It should be possible for you to get your point across without insulting me. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  But don't you see that you are the one who is following "locker room culture" here, by interpreting "girth" in this way? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  No, I don't see it that way. I don't define how and when words are used, but I can identify when a word has a commonly-used sexual connotation and suggest that a candidate for adminship take that into consideration. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Ajraddatz, hi there. If you've read my conversation with Feyd, you'll understand that while I'm sensitive to the concerns, it's not as simple as saying 'sure, no problem', and you'll also know that I've discussed some different ways to potentially mitigate any concerns. If you'd like to give me your thoughts, you'd be welcome on my page. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  I do see some good responses from you above (and linked to by Barkeep). I'll think about this some more. Your request is going to pass regardless of my vote, so I wouldn't be worried about that. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• The bit I'm really confused at is an attack on Girth's response. There's diffs to them above, but his response to it seemed everything we could possibly want and more (it was, in fact, enough to convert the first username to an oppose) - a look at his talk page and the several threads on this are well worth reading for an example of how it should be done Nosebagbear (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  "I find it offensive. How dare he not change! Oppose!" is basically what this is. – Levivich 21:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  No, I find it unprofessional, not offensive. And I don't think he should need to change it, but I would advise that he does in this case. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And therein lies the rub. We're not here as "professionals" .. we're here as volunteers, often sitting at home relaxing and adding to the sum of human knowledge as enjoyment. — Ched (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ajraddatz, thanks for the clarification. I engaged with you after not engaging with previous opposes because you are suggesting that GS's reaction, more than the name, cause concern. Some people are finding your oppose as a protest against "locker room culture" rather than Girth as an individual candidate unprofessional. As a steward does this mean you need to change it? It seems like by your own standards you should change it. However, you've clearly taken on board the thinking of other (as GS has) and can make a decision about the right action moving forward. Change or not change I think Girth Summit's conduct in these discussions have shown his suitability and readiness to engage in sysop work and I'm sorry to see you feel different. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Ajraddatz This discussion will soon be closed, and as such it will form a prominent part of the permanent record of my participation on Wikipedia. Since your oppose concerns my behaviour, rather than just my username, and since you haven't come to my talk page to discuss exactly what you think I did wrong, I'd like to take the opportunity to respond here.

You seem to highlight two areas where you think I could have behaved differently - my decision not to immediately change my username upon request, and a 'locker room culture' atmosphere on my talk page. I'll address each of these separately.

At present, there are precisely zero people, other than yourself, telling me that I should change my username. I had conversations with both of the other people who opposed on these grounds: one withdrew their oppose after I explained the history of the name, the other had a friendly and constructive discussion with me about it on my talk page, and ended up explicitly telling me that they no longer want me to change it, and that they believe I am suitable for the role of admin. (They have decided not to change their vote for reasons they didn't want to elaborate on - I haven't pressed them to do so.) A number of other users have told me I should consider changing it, which I am doing, along with other possible options; but FWIW, that number is actually outweighed by the number of people asking me not to change it. Alternatives under discussion on my talk page include a change of signature, and an explanatory note on my userpage. I will certainly do something about what people have told me is an issue - I haven't firmly decided what yet, and remain happy to hear anyone's views on this on my talk.

With regard to the locker room culture, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that - my understanding of that phrase was that it was about men talking in improper ways about women behind their backs. What you see on my talk page is a number of people - some I know to be men, some I know to be women, and some whose gender I don't know - making a few light-hearted jokes about double-entendres. I meant what I said on my talk page though - if anyone had posted any comments that disparaged the opposers, I would have removed them - I like to think that my talk page is a friendly space where anyone is welcome. What would you have had me do if another person comes onto my page and, in good faith, makes a joke about possible ways to interpret my username - revert them? Tell them coldly that I don't appreciate their humour? That would be very unfriendly, and it would just not be me.

So - apologies for the wall of text, I just wanted to say my bit while there is time for you to respond, if you'd like to, before this is closed and archived permanently. You and anyone else are very welcome on my page to comment on the proposed options for mitigating any possible misconceptions about my name, up to and including a change of username. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if my responses have been somewhat fragmented, I suppose that happens when trying to respond to a number of people. To summarize my concern: half of your username can be interpreted as innuendo, and I think that we should present more of a professional image than that despite being volunteers. I am not suggesting that a policy should be made prohibiting such names, I am not going to forcibly rename your account (there is not a policy justification for it, nor would I want to enforce my opinion in that way), and I would not oppose this request if I thought you would fail because of it. We present an image to the world with how present ourselves online, and I think that it would be a very low-cost move for you to pick a new username and avoid potentially making people feel uncomfortable in the future. But that is just my opinion: one out of hundreds expressed on your RfA, and nobody else agrees with me. Or at least nobody wants to endure the stream of insulting and demeaning comments that would result in doing so, as shown by some of the other opposes that have now been struck. And that's fine: there is room for dissenting opinions on Wikimedia sites.

I had originally expressed concern with your responses because I had only seen a couple where you had joined in with some of the joking. After seeing further responses, I no longer have that concern, because I do see some evidence of serious reflection. And it is absolutely a fair response to say "only one person has an issue with this, I don't have an issue with it, so I'm not going to change it". As I've said before, you're going to pass this request and will probably be a fine admin. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)