The difference five years makes[edit]

I notice the growing discussion about my "five years" comment so I'd ask interested parties @Tavix, Steel1943, Newyorkbrad, and Ritchie333: to discuss here (if you like) rather than derail the RfA. Arguing with opposers is unseemly. I just pulled the "five years" figure out as an example. My criteria only question anyone with "less of an edit count or less time served" than I, which isn't all that much. I expect that with time comes wisdom and this candidate needs more of the latter. Look at the answer to Lourdes's question: point by point explanations of why they reverted themselves in one case or the other but no real logic behind the question why they are continually making mistakes (or using articles to test). At the answers to my questions Godsy says "I felt my contributions to the article namespace were adequate enough" when anyone with time spent around RfA would know that's the wrong answer. ORCP was set up specifically to teach aspiring editors about these issues and Godsy replies with "I understand why polls are useful, but I have never personally cared for them" which must be ingenuous. The poll was created to avoid this mess. I point out to @BU Rob13: that I neither supported nor opposed your candidacy because you seem clueful although your longevity is so short. Your promotion by the community is the exception, not the rule, and it's too early to tell if that decision was appropriate. To editor Mr rnddude: Your claim that KGirlTrucker81 is basing their vote off of me is probably wrong. However, if editors are swayed by my opinion, that's fine with me. I don't think it's appropriate to denigrate opposite opinions when we regularly have support voters that vote with the words "why not?". I think expecting opposers to cite a rationale you agree with is unreasonable. Promoting admins is not progress if we endorse the wrong editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the majority of your oppose as you're entitled to your opinion, but using "five years" as your example is draconian and extremely deterring to the long term health of this project. That's what I objected to, and would appreciate if you withdraw that specific phrase. -- Tavix (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Perhaps I should have said three years or two years. Regardless, not only would someone still object I disagree about what's "deterring to the long term health of this project". I withdraw nothing. Perhaps those who intend to police this community should find out about the residents therein. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point being, and you seem to agree with it somewhat with your BU Rob13 example, is that one's length of service does not correlate with how competent of an administrator one will be. Requiring draconian lengths of time does nothing to help the project and does everything to deter good, experienced editors from helping out. -- Tavix (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chris troutman - you may have misunderstood the intent of my comment. It was not to slight an attack towards you, but, to point to a less experienced editor drawing on more experienced editors for guidance. I have no quarrel with your vote, it made sense for the most part although the "five years" comment threw me off a bit. The main point behind my comment was this; Think it through for yourself and make up your own mind. This is particularly important if you're a newer or less experienced editor. In this case, Ktruckergirls' vote was, and I do not mean this offensively to either party, a "bastardization" of your own. The words used were the same - or so similar as to be indistinguishable - but the conveyed message completely different. From your vote I gather a lot more than "five years is not enough", your vote tells me that the answers Godsy gave failed either to key in on important things - e.g. Ritchie's question - or to give an appropriate answer altogether - e.g. Lourdes first question. The answers to me demonstrated both impatience and imperfect temperament. Not only that, but, to a certain extent I could agree with you - though again, five years? really, Trump is president we don't even have five years. I'm joking, of course. Still, I would have thought a year or two would suffice. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad:You say "there have been no changes that require admins to have ten times more experience now than they did then" and that's true of course. There are no extra rules or requirements. Not officially, anyway. Yes, the RfA process itself has changed a lot since 2007 and I believe that's the reason for the steady decline in admins. There's no fixed system. Some candidates are drowned in additional questions while others aren't, support votes without a decent rationale are generally considered acceptable but oppose votes aren't, etcetera. Right now putting yourself up for adminship is like jumping blindfolded into a pool. You may be a brilliant swimmer but that won't guarantee your survival. There could be sharks in there or goldfish, it could be deep enough or not, the outcome is anybody's guess. Why? Because people come up with their own requirements for an admin. I agree that "opposition !votes based on non-individualized, overgeneralized grounds" are damaging but as long as Wikipedia itself doesn't come up with a fixed set of requirements for adminship, this problem will not go away and admins will become an endangered spieces. If they aren't already. Yintan  11:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explain self-nomination oppose votes[edit]

I was checking this page Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship/2015, and I found that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyclonebiskit 2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wbm1058 and arbitrator Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Opabinia regalis 2 made self nomination along with another arbitrator Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare. --Marvellous Spider-Man 07:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We had a previous editor who opposed all self noms a few years back. At the time it got no traction and eventually he went away. I'm hoping this oppose too will pass. We get various proposals for new or tightened criteria at RFA, because we don't have a set criteria as we do for rollbacker, template editor etc most proposals to change the criteria appear as unusual rationales in the oppose section. Some such as the fad a few years back for no more than a certain percentage of certain types of edit fail to get traction and eventually fade away (though one of the people I'd like to see as an admin is still convinced by that that he would need to give up huggle and do 30,000 manual edits before he could run an RFA). Others eventually get the 35%, now 40% support needed to become part of the defacto criteria and thenceforth they are part of the expectations at RFA, even if a clear majority think that the additional criteria is harmful to the process. For example "no need for the tools" is an argument that can sink an RFA even if most think it a bizarre objection, while the defacto criteria for the most easily measured things about candidates have gone through a surreal and unhelpful process of inflation. Tenure has gone from 3 months to 6 months to 12 months and now I suspect 15 months - with a few outliers now arguing for two years or more. I'd much prefer that we set a criteria for adminship that could only be changed if there were consensus to change it. ϢereSpielChequers 08:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this kind of rationale isn't that it's dangerous by itself (though I agree with NYB on the merits), but that it shifts the Overton window of RfA discourse. The dangerous part is the five or six other people who then turn up to wave their hands vaguely in the direction of unspecified "concerns" about the self-nomination, or offer "many people are saying" type arguments about the candidate's failure to anticipate unspecified others who might have "concerns" about self-noms. The net effect is to legitimize the claim without ever seriously engaging with it.
I've been opposed to pre-defined criteria in the past, mostly because it seemed implausible to expect that the criteria wouldn't then be subject to the same inflation effect, but I'm starting to come around. I am all the way on board with a blanket "show evidence or your vote doesn't count" rule, though. We don't put up with it at SPI, we don't put up with it at AfD, we sure as hell don't put up with it at RFAR, and we shouldn't put up with it at RfA either. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The best analogy I can think for for self-noms is this essay; it's talking about how people who learn CS theory aren't equipped to tackle real-world problems. Isn't that true of adminship - once somebody gets the tools, we let them loose at absolutely everything, and while there is the admin guide, how many people look at it? Specifically it's talking about how being completely self-taught in isolation isn't necessarily going to make you the best at something : "One day I went down to buy a building permit. The person ahead of me in line was being heavily grilled by the person behind the counter about things like shear strength of the connection of his deck to his house, load-bearing of the floor of the deck, etc. I kept thinking "I'm doomed. I can't answer any of that!" My turn came. I presented my plans. The person behind the counter picked up my plans, looked at the embossed "Registered Professional Architect" seal down in the lower corner, looked at me and said "That will be $15". That was it. The plans cost me $400. Worth every penny." Similarly, more than a few people have supported an RfA with a rationale of "these nominators can't possibly be wrong!" Hopefully that explains why that self-nominations may be problematic; of course taking it to the other extreme and saying "all self-noms are bad, period" is just boneheaded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UNSC Luke 1021's oppose[edit]

@UNSC Luke 1021: I'm a bit confused. How does the amount of images one has uploaded or number of WikiProjects correlate with one's competency for adminship? -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@UNSC Luke 1021: To explain, with the images, I like someone who knows the ins and outs of all the technical stuff on WikiMedia. Having enough images to count on two hands is kinda short, in my opinion. I would upload some more. As for the WikiProject problem, I like someone who can relate to the other users and know their problems. Admins have a significant amount of power at their disposal, so they can sometimes act... weird. If they were part of more WikiProjects as a regular user, they would be easier to get along with and generally more liked by the majority. Hope this helped! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@UNSC Luke 1021: Godsy has shown technical competence to upload files, since he's done it. The quantity might be a red flag if he was running for an admin at WP:COMMONS (Wikimedia's repository for images) or possibly if he expressed a desire to help out at WP:FFD, but that's not the case here. It seems like you desire a candidate that is collaborative. While WikiProjects are one way to be collaborative, they are also pretty niche. A better way to look at that would be to look at one's edits in collaborative namespaces, like "Wikipedia:" and "Talk:". Combined, Godsy has over 5,000 contributions in these two namespaces, which shows a lot of experience "relating to other users and know(ing) their problems." -- Tavix (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix:; I'm sorry if my decision upsets you, but it is final. One of the main points I ask all of the running admin-hopefuls is if they belong to WikiProjects and how they can help improve smaller ones. He wasn't part of any content improving WikiProjects and he didn't really answer the second part. My main selling point on admins is how they stand with WikiProjects, especially small developing ones. My stances on WikiPedia reflect upon my political ideologies in real life, so I won't change them. I hope you can understand! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an administrator and I've never uploaded an image in my life. Do you think I should resign? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: and @Newyorkbrad:,I will NOT change my vote, so there's point in arguing. Also, don't manipulate what I said. I have a right to my own opinion, and this could easily fall under a WP:PERSONAL. Stop trying to argue ad hominem and leave me alone. Good day. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all in this case it's more ad nauseum. Second of all you havent been personally attacked. Third this is in a long string of votes on this RfA that is frankly ludicrous. Fourth and final of all, when editors put forth good faith comments and questions, accusing them of wrongdoing without cause is both bad faith and a PA. That said, consensus is that arguing over a vote is pointless, the beaurecrat closing the discussion is expected to know what to count and what to discredit. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just dont want to be harassed like this, as I have an entitlement to my own vote. If I didn't, they wouldn't have the votes. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your !vote but people are also entitled to question your !vote especially when it doesn't make much sense, If you don't like people questioning your !vote then my best advice would be to stay clear of RFA infuture. –Davey2010Talk 14:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I add to that; Keep in mind, that RfA is one of the only places on Wikipedia where 200+ people are allowed to "discuss you" and "your content" at the same time - the nominee's I mean. Going through RfA is stressful for most candidates, I have read from some voters in previous RfA's that they wouldn't want to go through this process themselves because it gets that vicious. This "feature" - if you will - of commenting on the candidate unsurprisingly gets spread to all commentators/commenters. I will grant though that it is true that a baseless support vote is far less likely to be questioned then a baseless oppose vote. It's probably far harder to vote oppose without being questioned then it is to vote support. That's why, if I was giving a single piece of advice it would be this; if you're going to oppose a candidate, be sure that your reasoning is one that would at least plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the voter, if not grow a tree of dissent against the candidate. Finally think about this; if you were the nominee, how would you personally react to your own oppose rationale? - I think it is best practice to throw yourself into that ring - figuratively of course - and chuck your rationale at yourself. If you find that you wouldn't oppose your own candidacy for the reason you cited, most probably, it's not an oppose worthy issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One other reason I was trying to get clarification, UNSC Luke 1021, is that I was confused about how different your !vote here is from the one at Samtar's RFA. There, you wrote Strong Support SamTar isn't an administrator yet?? I am legitimately surprised!. I just want to figure out why your "standards" are so vastly different between candidates. Samtar's user page offers no WikiProjects they are a part of and you never asked them a question of whether they are/were in any WikiProjects. Same concept with images. Why is Samtar qualified to be an administrator but Godsy is not? -- Tavix (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to hold a double standard or anything. I somewhat know Samtar, so I trust them. I know they would be a good administrator, partially because I actually thought they were an admin. If I don't know who the person is, such as Godsy, I like to probe them with questions and check their edit history. I'm not trying to be hypocritical, but this is actually how I feel. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting to the root of what makes a good administrator: trust, and I appreciate your response for that reason. You think Samtar would be a good admin because you trust them. That's kind of what I'm trying to get to with your rationale for Godsy. You're using superficial reasons for Godsy, like number of images uploaded and WikiProject participation that does nothing to determine whether someone would be a good admin or not (of which Samtar and Godsy both have similar resumes in those areas, illustrating a lack of correlation). Since you said that you checked Godsy's edit history, did you find anything untrustworthy or could otherwise cause trust to be lost? -- Tavix (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. However, had I not previously known Samtar, I probably would have voted 'no'. If I knew Godsy a little bit more, even just a little bit of interaction like how me and Samtar interacted just three or four times, I probably would vote for them. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@UNSC Luke 1021: I'd like to offer a bit of a different perspective as a recently elected administrator, admittedly in the hopes that you'll change your mind. If you do not, fair enough; everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do feel compelled to try because I think editors often overlook three major things in opposes such as yours.

First, no administrator is familiar in all areas of the project. If we desysopped every admin who doesn't understand how to use abuse filters, we'd be left with a couple dozen maybe. If we desysopped every admin who didn't understand copyright law, we'd be left with a similar amount. The reality is that editors have a limited amount of time to dedicate to the project, and admins who are very knowledgeable in the areas they exercise their tools are worth more than admins who understand everything at a basic level. I highly value ability to learn quickly in an admin candidate, but the mere absence of knowledge in one or two niche areas isn't something that I think is concerning so long as I believe they could pick those areas up if pressed. In fact, it's the normal; I've seen exactly zero administrators who have knowledge of all the various niche areas of the project.

Second, the best learning is truly on the job. Going into my own successful RfA, I thought I was ready to hit the ground running and be a great administrator. I can say wholeheartedly that I was incorrect. I think my tenure as an admin thus far has been successful, but there have been missteps and mistakes. There were also plenty of times where I stumbled upon a situation I had no clue how to handle. I can also say that I've never learned more about the project than in my time as an admin, and that includes when I first joined. The devil's in the details, and you can never truly appreciate all of the details until you're facing the pressure of using the tools yourself and working with other administrators to learn how to handle difficult situations. Here, that ability to learn quickly comes in again, as does a willingness to ask questions and detect when you're out of your depth. Those are key traits I look for in admin candidates, and I believe Godsy has them, although I welcome you to evaluate him for those traits yourself.

Lastly, the current RfA climate makes "not quite yet" opposes difficult to justify. I would love if it were possible for an admin candidate to come to RfA, get some pointers about how they're almost there, and then come back a month later once they've gotten that last little bit of polish. That's untenable, though. If Godsy attempted a second RfA within the next year, it would fail. WP:SNOW fail, even. Somewhere along the way, the community decided that there is an effective minimum of one year between RfAs, so if Godsy is almost there and you believe he could easily take the last few steps to make you feel fully comfortable with his candidacy within the next month, a failed RfA deprives us of an administrator you'd fully support for at least 11 months over the next year. That's a lot of lost administrative actions, and that's utlimately harmful to the project. Whether you like it or not, your choice is unfortunately between Godsy gaining the mop now or Godsy maybe gaining the mop after a minimum of 12 months. And that assumes he still wants to stand up for RfA again after this outing. I could hardly blame him if he decided it wasn't worth it, since I almost decided it wasn't worth it and withdrew my candidacy during my successful RfA, where I wasn't ever that close to the discretionary zone.

I'm not saying your !vote is particularly unreasonable or trying to attack you here. I just want to make sure you've fully considered all aspects of your !vote. If you have some time, please think this over a bit and see if it changes anything for you. I respect your opinion no matter what it is, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I hope you will reconsider. Cheers. ~ Rob13Talk 00:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BMK's oppose[edit]

  1. As a matter of personal policy, I oppose all self-nominations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ridiculous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    +1Tazerdadog (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any particular rationale behind this personal policy, or is it merely arbitrary? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is a method to my madness. This is a pretty small community. Anyone who wants to become an admin who has the necessary goods should have no trouble in finding a sponsor to nominate them. The reputation of the nominator(s) is something of a fail-safe, and, indeed, the reputation of the nominator(s) often plays a part in support votes. I myself have voted "support" for someone I was slightly unsure of, and my vote was based on the word and reputation of the nom(s), so I don't see why that should be acceptable but this would raise eyebrows. In any case, well, I'm not asking anyone else to follow it, it's my personal policy, and that's the end of it. (Sorry, Brad, I respect you immensely, but this is far from "ridiculous".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining, even if I don't share your concern in this instance. =) Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I self-nominated because I wanted to be judged just for myself and what I could offer, without any preconceptions from nominators who already knew me - others had previously offered to nominate me, but I declined. (As a disclaimer, I won't suggest that my time as an admin has gone without incident ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This takes me back to a bygone era... Kurtis (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Having done one of each, I'm somewhat convinced that the better system would be to require self-noms, not to oppose them uncritically. Unfortunately, the number of candidates would probably decline, which we can't afford, but I've never much liked the idea of candidates having to seek out sufficiently high-wattage names. (Now, I'm told 🐱 will trade a nom for, well, noms. Nom nom nom. 🐟 🐭 🐤 ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Self-noms get automatic plus points from me; good on you, Godsy. Is adminship a country club? Hopefully not. You don't need a sponsor, and doing without one shows a laudable spirit of independence. Incidentally I particularly dislike the multiple sponsors which seem quite fashionable now (why don't the redundant ones just support, like a regular person?). That said, I need to do some more research before I decide about supporting Godsy. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    I disagree. If adminship isn't a country club, it ought to be. I don't want "the wrong sort" with tools and I support organizational insularity for this reason. RfA is very political and those nominations signal which political allies the candidate has. If an editor can't get the support of the big names on en-wiki then I doubt they should make the attempt. I have been a long-time supporter of Ian.thomson but I didn't dare nominate him because I know my reputation doesn't bode well, here. I waited for someone else to do it and he's since gotten the mop. Godsey screwed up by not learning the process and availing themselves of the help they might have gotten with the RfA. Because of Godsey's inabilities to read and think this RfA has turned into the mess so many editors bemoan. What's worse is that these are unforced errors; totally preventable. Believe me, discussions like these help me decide whom I voting against in the ARBCOM elections, so thanks for your honesty. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chris troutman: "It ought to be a country club?" No offense, but that's probably the most ludicrous comment that I've ever seen. Politics doesn't matter, all you should be focused on is bettering the encyclopedia. You know we have an admin shortage, right? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bishonen: Courtesy ping as there are only 20 hours left make a decision if you still want to. (Special thanks to BU Rob13 for reminding others.) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Godsy, I can't make up my mind. Bishonen | talk 08:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Co-nomination by SilkTork[edit]

I'm sorry but is it normal/acceptable that a co-nomination is added when the RfA is already running? Yintan  20:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally not done, but there's never been any rule against it. In this case, where editors have explicitly stated they're concerned a lack of nomination indicates a lack of support from well-established editors, this seems appropriate. ~ Rob13Talk 20:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Sorry but I find this very strange. A bit like moving the finish line halfway the race. If SilkTork had shown up within the first hour or two, okay, but more than a day later? No. O well, I guess this only goes to show what a random process RfA has become. Yintan  21:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The finish line constantly moves at an RfA as questions are answered and supports/opposes are added. A co-nomination is simply a strong statement of support. ~ Rob13Talk 21:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When the RfA starts, sure. But when it's already running it's acceptable as well? In that case, support voters, go and co-nominate. Now. Yintan  21:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to what SilkTork has done. This isn't how the process works and we shouldn't be doing stuff just because there aren't specific rules to prohibit it. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination implies a great deal of scrutiny or experience in working with that editor from the nominee. How much scrutiny or collaborative experience is up to the nominee to disclose or establish a reputation for. A late nomination may have less effect in that many !voters won't see it. But it isn't against any rule, in fact I'm fairly sure I remember at least one precedent. ϢereSpielChequers 21:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on your opposition to this co-nomination? It seems that it boils down to the fact that it's not traditional to add a co-nomination later into the process. Did I understand your position correctly? AlexEng(TALK) 21:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider this much of a "race," personally. I think of it as establishing consensus on the promotion of a user. Any information that can be useful in establishing this consensus, including the addition or removal of a co-nomination is fair as far as I'm concerned. Do you disagree? AlexEng(TALK) 21:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexEng:Assuming you're talking to me, the 'race' and 'finish line' are an obvious (I would think) metaphore, so don't take 'race' literally. And yes, I disagree with adding co-noms to an RfA that has already started. It is very uncommon and the fact that there are no rules preventing it isn't much of an argument IMHO. The nomination and co-nominations are the basis of an RfA. That's the foundation, that's where the whole thing starts off. Changing that half way doesn't seem right to me. Yintan  22:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Yintan: Yes, it was directed at you; sorry I didn't make that clear. I understand that you're using a metaphor, but my intent was to show that it's not exactly apropos given that consensus-building should not be considered competitive (a fact emphasized by the !vote). That said, it's totally fair to have an opinion grounded on tradition, and I won't argue with that. AlexEng(TALK) 22:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe I should have said 'Changing the foundations while building a tower'. It doesn't have quite the same ring to it, though. . Yintan  22:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexEng:By the way, I just saw this: "Make sure co-nominators are handled before transclusion". Makes perfect sense, I think. Yintan  23:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. @SilkTork: can you comment on this? AlexEng(TALK) 23:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes sense, as it makes everything neater, so it is good advice.

I'll give my thinking on why I decided to co-nominate, I wasn't able to expand on it yesterday as I was otherwise busy. On reading through the RfA I paid attention to some of the opposes, and looked into them. SMcCandlish's oppose, in particular, caught my attention. I found when looking into the concerns that Godsy was operating with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and was doing so boldly, but not aggressively, and was following proper process. He was able to stay civil and patient, and was able to explain his actions with reference to appropriate policies and guidelines. He also, when the issue wasn't important, was able to walk away without a fuss. I saw a person doing what I hope admins would do, and yet these very things were being held against him. I found that odd. I don't fully agree with what he was doing in the Legacypac incident because I have long advocated that articles should only be removed from mainspace through a consensus process, but I understand why he did it, and I also understand that moving an article into draft or userspace is a grey area. So even here where I disagree with him I again see he was operating in the right spirit, and was explaining his actions in a civil manner. Added to which he was self-nominating, which I think is the right spirit. I want admins who are confident, and who are prepared to do things themselves. Others have different views on self-nominating, and that's fine. Each to their own, and I can understand that they may feel that Godsy should have got someone to look over his application first. Partly to allay those concerns, though mainly to quite boldly and strongly lend my support, I thought it would help if I offered to co-nominate, and to make public that I would assist, monitor, make myself available to Godsy in his first year. I am not just co-nominating or strongly supporting, I am offering to stand by him during his first year so folks have less qualms about him going off the rails. My standing by him doesn't mean he won't delete the mainpage or block Jimbo, but it does mean he will have someone to consult, and also someone who will tap on his shoulder and have a quiet word if it looks like he is making poor decisions. I hope this helps - if not, please ping me. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: All fine reasons to say Strong support in the RfA, no problem there, but co-nominating over a day after the RfA started? What about that? Because that's the thing I find a bit hard to stomach, especially since there's "Make sure co-nominators are handled before transclusion". Cheers, Yintan  13:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think what I am trying to say is that due to the circumstances of this particular RfA, I felt it was appropriate for me to step up and do a little more than say Strong support. I also agree that it makes sense to get all of the nomination details sorted out before transcluding, which would include those who have agreed to co-nominate. In this particular set of circumstances that was not possible because my co-nomination was prompted by the way that the RfA was going. It needed to have started and gone the way it did for me to feel impelled to co-nominate. The community may decide after this RfA to explicitly forbid co-nominations after an RfA has gone live, and that would be fine. I have no opinions one way or the other on that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this was an attempt to try and sway those who opposed his nomination because he self-nominated himself. He took it upon himself to nominate himself for adminship and that was his decision, I think the co-nomination should not be accepted nearly 2 days after the nomination process has started with almost 90 people participating in this nomination. The co-nomination also says Godsy "has the right stuff" that is not very convincing or re assuring to me. I don't know what makes someone "have the right stuff" as that is quite a blanket statement. In addition SilkTork stated that he would be responsible for Godsy's actions within the first year if he does become an admin, for someone who self-nominated themselves for adminship Godsy should be responsible for all actions they take as an administrator if they are promoted to one. JayJayWhat did I do? 22:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish's oppose[edit]

I just spent the last 3 hours or so reading the context and content of this quarrel between you and Godsy. Your issues with the candidate seem to be: 1) a non-acrimonious discussion of a WP:BOLD edit and your subsequent uncontested revert and 2) a very acrimonious debate in which you constantly cited WP:PI even whilst using WP:NOTBUREAU yourself—all this while refusing to AGF and insisting that the candidate was forum shopping for simply reopening a closed discussion that he didn't have a chance to participate in. I'm not here to re-litigate that issue, but I think the fact that so many other users have cited your reasons for opposition without (I presume) reading the details is frankly staggering. My admittedly unsolicited advice is not to let a WP:GRUDGE color all your future interactions with a user. AlexEng(TALK) 03:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexEng: Forum-shopping does not have bad faith as part of its definition; its a procedural matter. Reopening a thread just because you missed out on it (and more to the point here, perhaps, because you want to round up others who agree with you to storm the gates and overturn the result) is the very definition of forum-shopping. My concerns with Godsy are not rancorous, as I think my comments that are partially praising here make clear; any heat in that debate has long since dissipated. My concerns are about judgement, approach, and rationale, and I've already conceded that from a temperament standpoint (often a major point in RfAs) Godsy is a better candidate than I am. Secondly, there is no issue at all citing WP:PI and WP:NOTBUREAU, when one actually understands them and how they interoperate. Next, see WP:ASPERSIONS before you go throwing accusations like WP:GRUDGE at people. Please provide evidence I've been, say, hounding or badgering Godsy, taking up positions against what he advocates just because he's advocating them, following him around to argue with him for the sport of it, or any other evidence at all. Or kindly admit you don't have any and strike that. Being unnecessarily hostile toward those who aren't voting your way at AfD generally tends to make matters worse. No respondent here who has provided clear reasoning and diffs needs to defend their opinion from further demands for justification. Having an actual memory and "bearing a grudge" are not synonyms.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: I don't think I suggested that bad faith was inherent in forum-shopping. What I said is that you refused to AGF, and I will strike that, because it was inappropriate. I don't know what your motivation was; I only know what it looks like to a third party. Second, I'm not here to re-open that can of worms, but I think any careful analysis of the content of that discussion would lead one to the same conclusion as the consensus reached. Next, thank you for your concern; I am familiar with WP:ASPERSIONS and when it applies (as well as when it doesn't). I'm sorry that you felt my advice was "unnecessarily hostile" and/or an "accusation," but I will not change it, because I think it is highly relevant to the topic of Godsy's RfA. It's particularly important because so many have cited your reasoning in their own statements. Finally, you are free to participate or not participate in the discussion as you wish. If you don't feel the need to defend or justify your position, then I respect that. AlexEng(TALK) 23:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds battlegroundy to me. Your argument amounts to "I refuse to change what I said about you, because others are agreeing with you and I don't like that"; it's not substantive, it's trying to WP:WIN. Others are agreeing with me because they have their own minds and are coming to similar conclusions. They don't need you to act in loco parentis for them and correct their thinking.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misrepresentation of my point. I refuse to remove my statements because they are relevant to the discussion and appropriate for the forum in which they were posted. I don't care about winning—indeed there is nothing to win. I care about other editors and 'crats seeing my valid rebuttal to your valid argument. If you can't or won't understand that, then I don't know what else to tell you. The content of my rebuttal is simple: I believe your past interactions with the candidate (in which your favored position was overturned in a broad consensus) have led to an unfair judgment. You can disagree with me, and that's fine. Others can read our discussion and make up their own minds. My goal is and was to draw attention to an issue, not to "correct their thinking." AlexEng(TALK) 19:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexEng: I refuse to retract my oppose and the concerns I raise because I consider them relevant and appropriate with regard to the candidate being made an admin at this time. I don't think your rebuttal is valid; all RfA is, is a personal assessment of a candidate's readiness, based on our direct and/or researched experience of them. We are not robots, so this necessarily involves impressions, feelings, memory, opinion, and other subjective human qualities.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have also looked at the discussion, and am unclear on what you perceive to be the problem with Godsy's behaviour. I have looked at Godsy's edit history around the time he opened the RfC and I'm not seeing the forum shopping you mention. Can you explain to us what aspects of his behaviour you feel meet the description at WP:Forum shopping? From your own comments it appears you may have mistaken him for someone else, because he didn't take part in the earlier discussion, so I can't see any evidence for him asking the other parent. I see him legitimately querying whether an earlier discussion which got little participation had genuine consensus, and I see him notifying a wide range of people, including yourself, so as to ensure a fair and balanced discussion per WP:APPNOTE. From my own observation, his behaviour is what I would hope for in an admin - see something that doesn't look right, open up a wider discussion to see what others think. It may well be that as you display irritation and frustration in the discussions you link to, and you appear to have personalised the issues, that you are not quite seeing the discussions for what they are. But, then again, I may have missed something so it would be useful for those like me who are not seeing Godsy's inappropriate behaviour, if you could pick out some difs and explain why you feel what he has done is inappropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I said in my OP was clear enough. I'll add that if one is convinced than an RfC was improper, the venue for raising concerns with that closure is WP:AN, not immediately launching a counter-RfC in a venue you think will be more favorable to you. I'm pretty sure that 95% or so of Wikipedians who've been active for 2+ years know better than to go the route Godsy did, so why didn't Godsy, and why should he be given admin tools if he's doing stuff like that? Or usurping guideline shortcuts for proposals? Yes, of course, his straw-man version of the RfC question concluded the way it did; it was engineered in "they're gonna delete your toys" wording to achieve that exact result (which also made it an invalid RfC per the neutrality requirements). The whole point, however, is that it was a bunch of pointless handwaving so one editor could get his "right version", which got in the way of doing needed cleanup work, and that's far from admin-calibre behavior. The situation that was to be addressed in the original RfC has actually notably worsened since Godsy's bogus counter-RfC. Consequences. And no, this is not the place to dig around in the details of all that stuff. This has already gone on too much here. The salient thing was the tactic of trying to skirt an RfC's closure by immediately shopping an anti-RfC against it in a separate forum. That's wrongheaded and we all know it. My OP was fair and balanced, an observation of questionable actions and their consequences, moderated by also noting positive qualities of the candidate, and suggesting he try again later. You are not helping Godsy's case in any way by badgering opposers for more details and diffs about negative stuff, especially an opposer with a reputation for prodigious diff piles that net things and show patterns most people would have missed. I only spent a few minutes on this, because I still had some unease about Godsy's readiness. I don't believe in using RfA as a diff-digging witch-hunt. The point of it is to gauge general community trust level, not to vet someone for national security clearance. Just accept that if an editor had a concern about something that they actually remembered, and didn't have to spend an hour digging for, they had a concern about it whether you did or not, and move on. (Unless their concern is completely irrational as one or another of the ones below were, like being angry that the candidate created an important article ... WTF?)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph is very good evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. SMcCandlish, you know policy and you know Wikipedia very well. I struggle to understand why you aren't seeing this in your own posts even as you accuse others. AlexEng(TALK) 19:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexEng: You'll have to explain to me how it's "battlegrounding" to state what proper venues and procedures are, note how RfCs can be manipulated, that consequences arise from doing so, and that when I've already explained my oppose I need not do so again and again and again, nor do I need to go on a diff-digging hunt to prove my point even more when I have a good memory and already provided salient diffs. Is just disagreeing with AlexEng "battlegrounding"? I don't think so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: The paragraph I responded to wasn't even directed at me, so I don't see how you came up with the hypothesis that merely disagreeing with me is evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND in my book. Rather, it's the need to WP:WIN that troubles me. The RfC process and Wikipedia in general are not a contest over who can get their way. I presume you understand that. Yet, in this particular instance, you seem to take umbrage at the fact that Godsy deigned to re-open the discussion instead of respecting the result of your RfC, as if that settled the matter once and for all. The argument that he chose the village pump instead of using the talk page in order to forum shop rings hollow to me. Why not assume good faith and take him at his word when he said that he was simply trying to broaden the audience? Like I said previously, you don't need to explain your oppose again and again if you don't want to. And I'm quite sure I never asked you for any diffs. I've already read the context of the discussion. AlexEng(TALK) 17:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexEng: This is getting circular. Again: The way to try to change consensus after it has recently been assessed and did not go one's way is not to launch a counter-RfC, with non-neutral straw man wording, in another venue. That kind of thing is why we have WP:FORUMSHOP to begin with. The usual processes are: a) if you think the close was wrongly assessed, take it to the venue (e.g. WP:AN for RfC review) appropriate for reviewing the close; or b) if you think the reasoning and evidence presented was wrong or insufficient, wait 3+ months, gather new data, and present new or under-represented arguments (don't just rehash) and see if consensus will change. I expect not only for any admin to already know and apply this to their own behavior but also when dealing with anti-RfC behavior from tendentious editors. I do not yet have this comfort level with Godsy, and would feel the same way if the RfC issue in question had involved entirely different parties and been about potatoes in Lebanon.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: and it did not go one's way This is why I bring up WP:BATTLEGROUND. Why do you keep insisting that Godsy launched a counter-RFC because he "didn't get his way"? Godsy didn't even participate in the initial RfC, so there is no "way" for him to have not gotten. I'm assuming good faith on his part in saying that he quite simply re-opened a closed discussion in a more public venue, according to policy, I might add. Frankly, it seems that you are the one who didn't get his way, since consensus leaned toward not deprecating the template. I think your claims of WP:FORUMSHOP are completely unfounded here. But you're right about one thing: this discussion has become circular. You tell me that Godsy was forum shopping and launching a "counter-RfC". I tell you that the only logical conclusion to arrive at, without assuming malice on Godsy's part, is that he was not forum shopping and that his RfC was a continuation of the previous discussion. You re-iterate your original point. I don't know where to go from here, so if there's no additional information in your next post, I think this discussion will have run its course. AlexEng(TALK) 07:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, because a) people don't dispute the outcome of RfCs when they agree with the outcome, b) because he explicitly disputed the outcome, and c) because of his stated rationales, one of the first was that he and several other people he had in mind did not participate in the first RfC. By this reasoning, every new editor should dispute every single consensus discussion that ever took place without their input, just so they can have their say. And, no, my oppose requires no assumption on my part of any kind of bad faith, just observation of typical human nature and poor judgement in restraining it. I do get that this happened a while back, and I conceded that it wasn't the freshest example one might come up with, but others came up with more recent ones that reinforced my concerns about the original. PS: "my" way is of no interest or consequence here. The consensus at WT:MOS (i.e., the editorial pool who have to deal with ENGVAR matters, and would still be dealing with them if I had never existed) was to deprecate a particular class of those templates and merge them into a more manageable and less dispute-prone system. Godsy's later straw-man RfC misrepresented all of this (it was not a "continuation" of that discussion, but a driving of it off the rails), has blockaded cleanup work for some time, but did not in fact change consensus about any of the underlying real issues, which were discussed again only a month ago, in exactly the same terms as in the original discussion. The thing is, most of us know how to approach this stuff correctly. When a site-wide consensus does not emerge (either at all, or because of two conflicting localized consensuses) you leave it alone until you have additional, better arguments and evidence to present. And that will happen, and the cleanup will proceed (probably exactly as originally planned), even though I'm unlikely to initiate it and may not even participate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I consider your oppose the most substantial issue here, SMcCandlish, but it's worth noting that he wasn't an editor of 2+ years at that time. He had been around for 9 months, with the early months having low activity. Godsy is now an editor of 2+ years, but the action you're basing your oppose on is 1.5 years ago. ~ Rob13Talk 06:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)\[reply]
Yeah, I had actually thought of that a bit after the fact myself, and was thus considering a shift to "neutral", but then saw the Legacypac stuff others raised as questionable, which (without excusing Legacypac's own issues) involved a similar approach by Godsy as in the event that raised my own eyebrow, and the Legacypac thing was more recent. I.e., it didn't seem anything was learned from the original incident. And maybe it wouldn't be, since Godsy "won" from what I surmise his perspective would be. In reality, the community and readership lost, since we still have a growing mess the cleanup of which Godsy's misplaced activism derailed. People are creating all kinds of nonsense WP:OWNership banners, in two increasingly inconsistent sets of templates, proclaiming that "their" articles are written in Scottish English, Barbadian English, and other dialects that do not actually exist in a formal register as distinct in any way from British English, are only distinguishable in low-register vernacular, and thus have nothing to do with Wikipedia writing, instead encouraging non-encyclopedic colloquial "local colour" dialect writing. This all would have been dealt with those 1.5 years ago (hardly seems like that long, probably because I track the issue), but is an even more intractable problem at this point, all because one editor misread the situation and stirred up a teapot-tempest of misguided, territorial nationalism that has yet to dissipate. (The second RfC's closure is also questionable; there was an enve, with sound reasoning one side and weak on the other, but the closer sided with the latter and proclaimed a firm consensus for it when no such consensus was evident at all; you can't overturn one RfC with nothing but failure of a second to actually come to a consensus to do so!) What happened is nationalism-driven, argument to emotion-based, Wikipedia-unrelated politics, pure and simple. If Godsy now understands the problem and wants to help clean up after it, then that would be appreciated, and would go a long way to assuaging concerns if he returns to RfA in 6, 12, or 18 months.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: To return a previous point, someone else commented, "some of Godsy's decisions in that [Legacypac] dispute were poorly thought through, and reflected a willingness to fall back on process-wonkery to get his way." That's exactly the same complaint, in different words, that I have to Godsy misusing RfC processes to get a Godsy-desired result. I don't share the concerns of others that Godsy was generally in the wrong on that; Legacypac was clearly WP:WIKILAWYERing in a really bad way, but abuse of process in the opposite direction of another abuse of process is basically a WP:POINT problem, so I circle right back to: Godsy's RfC behavior (entirely aside from the content/topic of the RfC in question, which I stress because neither AlexEng nor SilkTork seem to get it) gives me doubts about Godsy's admin-readiness, as did the shortcut switcheroo thing. I reiterate to both of you that I will not be badgered for raising a concern and providing diffs in support of it. If you don't share my concern, vote differently, and go back to doing something constructive. I've refactored this WP:BLUDGEON mess to the talk page, since that seems to be the order of the day for RfA back-and-forth that is just a distraction from evaluating the candidate instead of bickering among people in the peanut gallery.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no comment on the rest of the vote, and I think there probably are sufficient question marks that I may end up voting neutral or oppose for this RfA, but I do agree with AlexEng that the "reopening" of the discussion around the engvar template (if we can even call it that, since the original was never formally closed at all) was not improper at all. And the fact that the subsequent RfC was closed with a decision not to deprecate suggests that this was an issue that needed to be revisited. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we have standardized approaches to revisiting things. Launching an immediate, argument to emotion-based anti- putsch is not among them, whether it be an RfC, and RM, or whatever. We all know that. Launching "reversal" attempts immediately after something is generally considered disruptive, other that revision discussions in forum set aside for that (RMs at WP:MR, deletions at WP:DRV, RfCs at WP:AN, etc.). As I also already covered, an alarmist straw-man RfC doesn't indicate jack. To spell it out in more detail: The original RfC was to deprecate a certain class of such templates, merge several classes of them, get rid of redundant ones, and produce a lean, stable template system for the issue in question. The anti-RfC was b.s. suggesting that every such template was simply going to be deleted willy-nilly, so of course it closed with a "consensus" against such a notion, just as if you put a referendum on a real-world ballot opposing the practice of, say, burning kittens alive, everyone would of course vote that yes, we should not burn kittens alive, even though there was never any proposal to do such a thing. Finally, see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RFC; formal closure of RfCs is and always has been optional; it is not necessary when the result of an RfC is already clear, as it was in the case of the original, sensible RfC. If you want to hash this stuff out in any further detail, please take it to my user talk, since this stuff has nothing to do with this RfA; the concern I raised was about procedural judgement, not any RfC details and rationales, as I think I've made clear about 5 times now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SMcCandlish for your explanation. I think we can agree that we are taking different things from the same incidents, and that's not an uncommon things on Wikipedia! Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keen.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: See also Ivanvector's commentary in the thread immediately below this one (the name of which keeps changing, so I won't link it). It's essentially the same set of judgement-related concerns. As my original post was careful to do, in also affirming some of Godsy's good qualities, it hasn't been my intent any more than it has been Ivanvector's to suggest bad faith or the impossibility of Godsy rising to the challenge at some point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steel1943's neutral support neutral support neutral and Ivanvector's oppose[edit]

In regard to, "I am thus concerned about what damage could be done by a user with access to deletion who prefers semantics to readability, concerned enough to land myself in the oppose section on this one.", I have a short reply. If accorded the ability to delete pages, I would never do so unless their was community consensus for it (i.e. from a discussion at the appropriate deletion forum, through uncontroversial speedy deletion, or proposed deletion). I've been an outspoken critic of out of process deletions throughout my time here, but I apologize if I've ever given either of you cause for concern that I would misuse the administrator toolset in that manner. I deeply respect both of you, and thank you for your participation here.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC) comment copied from [1] Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)[reply]

I feel the need to respond to this, but the thread under Steel1943's various comments is already getting pretty long. Nothing that Godsy has ever done that I've seen leads me to believe that they would deliberately misuse the toolset, and I apologize to Godsy and everyone for my comment implying otherwise. However, RfA must be equally careful to evaluate whether a candidate will carelessly misuse the toolset; that is, they will in good faith perform administrative actions boldly where disagreeing users cannot revert, or if they will perform actions which they believe to be uncontroversial which are not. On especially the last of these two points, there are a few valid opposes which give me cause for concern regarding Godsy. There's a hypothetical in my mind, regarding the issue I linked in my !vote which we're currently debating at RfD: say for example the user who nominated that redirect had instead tagged it for speedy deletion (absent prior discussions) as he's had a history of doing, and Godsy encountered it while patrolling CSD. I'm not confident that Godsy doesn't see a tagged redirect which violates that contested point of policy and delete it, all in good faith of course. Godsy has indeed been a critic of out of process deletions and I think we've participated in many discussions on the same side of that issue, but would this be out of process, if we're being pedantic? I have the utmost respect for Godsy but I just feel like it's not the right time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by SuperCarnivore591[edit]

Oppose for many reasons

1.I am also concerned about paucity of article creation. I've been harangued by a few overzealous admins, but the ones who have been most understanding are the ones with sufficient article creation under their belts. Also, as others have noted, his gross intemperance with those who disagee with him, and inability to separate his apparent left-wing views with NPOV editing.
2.There is a destiny that has the control of our actions, not to be resisted by the strongest efforts of human nature. Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. Wikipedians who edit for ideologically-oriented purposes overzealously are unfit for governance with the admin kit. They're labor to keep alive in that little spark of celestial fire called conscience. Truth is ultimately to prevail where there is pains to bring it to light. In this case, he will suffer the pain of losing an adminship, and won't be able to join the elite club of admins. However, it is far better to be alone than to be in bad company. Be courteous to all, but intimate with a few. After all, discipline is the soul of an army – it makes small numbers formidable (very necessary given relatively few active admins), procures success to the weak and esteem to all. If given admin tools I don't believe he would have discipline. Sorry if this sounds preachy, but I just wanted to fully explain, as opposed to a curt, one sentence oppose. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Striking obvious trolling that has occurred one too many many times before on other RFAs. Go away and find a new hobby. Patient Zerotalk 09:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
omg did you just quote George Washington verbatim for an Rfa oppose? Lourdes 08:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I knew my oppose might seem untoward by some people, and I thank you for giving me this chance to clarify. I don't like opposing people; I considered sitting this one out. I ultimately had to either oppose, or not participate at all, leaving me with a hard choice. Think of it this way. There were once two sea monsters that guarded the straight of Messina, according to legend. Charybdis hid in the darkness of the sea, its mouth formed a whirlpool on the surface, lined with rows of razor-sharp teeth that would tear a man to shreds. On the other side of the straight there was Scylla. A six-headed monster whose heads would fight over the men it caught. Odysseus had to pass through the straight of Messina between the two monsters. But they were too close to avoid the both of them. So he had to make a choice. What was the lesser evil; what monster did Odysseus choose? What he decided doesn't matter. Six of his men died getting through that straight. But at the end of the day, he made the decision he felt was best to get through with as little casualties as possible. In this case, I am picking the lesser evil of opposing him, rather than abdicate my duty and sit out. Thank you. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Just so we're all clear. This user has been previously blocked for trolling on RfAs. AlexEng(TALK) 09:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I was within my rights to strike AlexEng? Also I am unsure if reverting trolling is an exemption from WP:3RR so I won't revert further. (BTW, my apologies for the Washington/Bush mix-up. Easily done.) Patient Zerotalk 09:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Enough, ENOUGH with the personal attacks, calling me a troll. If you took care to read my oppose with good caution, you would see I had legitimate, policy based reasons for my oppose, particularly the Caitlyn Jenner incident, which had been mentioned by others, as well as temperament concerns, all of which are valid criteria to consider someone seeking adminship. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strike seems reasonable. Last time, it was hatted. I wouldn't revert again, though. A third opinion might be valuable. AlexEng(TALK) 09:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Third-opinion; don't strike votes, we have 'crats that are capable of doing that themselves. Commenting, discussion, etc is fine but really only a 'crat should strike a vote. I'd only except PA's and SOCK votes from that rule. I don't think that was a troll vote, but, I'll let the admins and 'crats decide that for themselves. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you on content, but not on policy. That grandiloquent speech screams "trollery" to me, but it's not a WP:SNOW situation. In any case, you're right that a strike isn't necessary in this case. AlexEng(TALK) 10:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It also should be emphasized that SuperCarnivore591 came out of a four-month wikibreak to post the above gibberish (and, disturbingly, he's not the only person to come back from a wikibreak to oppose this RfA), and that the accusation that the candidate has engaged in POV editing is totally unsupported and baseless. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This crosses the line from poor rationales to blockable trolling, given the previous block. ~ Rob13Talk 19:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relatedly, see here for talkpage discussion last year. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I'm not sure if that's a veiled suspicion of WP:MEATPUPPETry, but I've not seen any evidence of that myself. It seems to be a slow trickle of (in my opinion) uninformed opposes hanging off each other. While frustrating, I'm not ready to call foul.

@Rob: He seems to have stopped adding gasoline to the fire for now, at least, so I'm not sure a block is warranted. Even if this behavior isn't "trolling" in the strictest sense, I would certainly call it disruptive. ANI? AlexEng(TALK) 20:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting "meatpuppetry" (a term I usually find unhelpful anyway) in the classic sense, and in any event this issue affects a very small percentage of the overall opposes. But in the context of a !vote rationale that is troublesome anyway, the fact an inactive editor shows up just for the RfA may be a relevant piece of information, at least in the absence of any explanation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The funny thing is that for all these objections to my oppose rationale, not one of you has addressed any of the concerns I raised in it thoroughly or disputed it. This editor does indeed have a history of combative editing and fighting. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your most serious accusation against the candidate is that he's shown an "inability to separate his apparent left-wing views with NPOV editing," an assertion that as I mentioned above you have not supported with any form of evidence. And while some other editors have raised arguable concerns about specific incidents in which the candidate was involved, "gross intemperance with those who disagree with him" seems a significant exaggeration. Thus far your oppose comments have tried to skirt the Scylla of accusations without evidence and the Charibdys of strained and unsuccessful metaphor, yet have fallen into the evils of both. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's because we refuse to lend legitimacy to the bizarre poetry you wrote as "concerns." If you're actually interested in a discussion, you can easily read the rebuttals to similar allegations that have already been posted. AlexEng(TALK) 23:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crat discussion?[edit]

Will this RFA go to a bureaucrat discussion or be closed by a single bureaucrat? I'm asking because it seems there are a number of controversial support and oppose votes that if clerked out because they're inappropriate would move the line and potentially make this a much closer percentile than where it stands now. Mkdwtalk 01:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it definitely should go to a crat chat. That recent RfC puts this within the discretionary range, albeit at the lower end, but there are a significant number of opposing votes that really don't have much to do with the candidate's suitability to be an administrator. I think it at least deserves some public thought and comment. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same is true of support votes. Samsara 06:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have quite the interesting habit of commenting in the edit summary, don't you? You're right, I do have a bias - I think that the default position of these requests should be approve, unless there are significant issues raised by a large portion of the community. You're absolutely correct that some of the supporting votes lack good rationales as well, but on balance, I see a bit of a difference between "no issues with this user being an admin" and "he only has 5 edits to the portal namespace so he shouldn't be one". -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "I think he would be a good admin" is a good reason to support. "I think all admins should have five years on the site" is a horrible reason to oppose. It's clear based on comments around this page that there is even consensus that such an oppose is absurd. ~ Rob13Talk 06:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like a sure bet for a crat-chat. Or at least a very careful analysis and rationale from the closing crat. -- Ϫ 02:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brianhe was at 67% and didn't go to crat chat. Though, that decision ended up being controversial. Mkdwtalk 03:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With 68% support and a discretionary range of 65-75%, this should definitely go to a crat chat. Especially because there seems to be clear consensus, even among many of those opposing, that some of the opposes are some of the worst we've ever seen. ~ Rob13Talk 03:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a bot that automatically protects a RfA page when the time deadline is reached. I's beginning to leave this RfA open to the possible conjecture that it's being left open in the undeclared intention of getting more votes one way or the other to make the 'crat's/'crats' decision easier. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010, I think you;ll find the 'crat chat started a couple of hours ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know but I'm simply agreeing with it..... –Davey2010Talk 16:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More