Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Robert McClenon 2

This is an RfA talk page.

While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Waiting

I'm going to address SoWhy's comments here, since things seem to be getting a little lengthy. Besides the fact that I... am really uncomfortable with the apparent assertion that being the spouse of a notable person is ispo facto a CCOS (perhaps a discussion for another day), I can't help but feel that some of these are problems with the system interpreted as problems with an editor. Maybe not all of them are, but maybe some of them.

With the fact that some CSD criteria include a generally accepted waiting period and others don't, comes... at some minimal level, an implicit... at least... suggestion that others in fact don't have a generally accepted waiting period. Beyond that, "scary templates are scary" seems a lot like an argument to change the templates, and not to condemn editors for using it as it is. Finally, perhaps the most important part of the user notification is the You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. And that's where a lot of the biting, ignoring, or actual conversation seems to happen. No one seems to have addressed whether Robert is responsive in this area, which is, at least in my opinion, the area that really matters.

I dunno SW, I think in some ways you're special, since you have a lot of influence on CSD as an editor, so I can't help but think that if you feel so strongly about time limits, it's at least worth the effort to put it on the community for a thumbs up or down, at least if we're going to hold feet to the fire over it. And it seems a bit under-the-table to hold folks to it as if it was part of CSD, when it really isn't. TimothyJosephWood 21:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: As I said before, I don't believe in strict time limits (see my reply to Lourdes to that effect). There are plenty of valid A7 taggings within minutes of creation because there is no chance those articles will ever meet even the lowest standard. This is not a speedy deletion problem after all which is why WP:BITE applies to all kinds of taggings and which is why I have never supported any strict time limits for A7. As for the first part of your comment, redirecting a spouse's name to their spouse's article is standard practice and a valid alternative to deletion. And if such an alternative exists, tagging for any kind of deletion is wrong. Regards So Why 06:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I... was looking down onto some sort of slippery slope there not related to redirects. If that's all you were suggesting, then we probably agree on all points undiscussed as far as that goes.

I think you're making some good common sense arguments. Don't get me wrong on that account. I would totally be in favor of adding some footnote or something to the effect of Consider whether the new article appears to actively be under construction, including things like empty but plausible subheaders, and consider watchlisting rather than immediately nominating for deletion. (And this may seem petty, but why exactly did we pick red of all colors for a big scary warning banner on the top of someone's new article?)

But the absence of a time limit on one criteria when there is the presence of one on others still implies the active rather than passive absence of a consensus for even a strongly suggested bias toward waiting even in principle. One way or the other, it's pretty self-evidently confusing given the follow up comments to your !vote by pretty uncontroversially experienced editors. But I think that if BITE so clearly applies in such a...comparatively objective way, then it should be made somehow explicit, and if it isn't then we should consider whether we should be treating it as if it is. TimothyJosephWood 10:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question #12

@Gerda Arendt and Robert McClenon: the G4 tag links to the deletion log ("previously deleted"), which lists the discussion (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox), which took place in August/September last year - the notification Gerda links to was from August 2016 for that MfD. It's not fair to ask a non-admin what they would do about a (valid) G4 request, since it requires access to deleted revisions to judge. ansh 666 22:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To tell me that would have been also a valid answer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point! ansh 666 21:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice

Floquenbeam created an edit notice discouraging people from opposing on September 1. More than 48 hours later, the RfA is still open. I'm wondering if we should delete the edit notice. If this RfA stays open for 7 days, and the percentage miraculously creeps into the discretionary range, any debate will be tainted by the existence of this edit notice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, can you delete the edit notice? It's rather clearly not a good idea to have an edit notice up long-term discouraging editors from participating in one direction. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I would do so myself but I participated and thus might be biased. But Robert has stated he sees no reason to withdraw, so the discussion should continue as scheduled. PS: Since Floquenbeam has not edited since Friday, maybe an uninvolved admin or crat can delete it? Regards So Why 19:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it as an uninvolved admin. BethNaught (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could I enquire what this notice actually said? Could it have skewed the result? Aiken D 21:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It said:

"Apparently from something he said on his talk page, Robert is going to concede soon. Until then I guess this shouldn't be closed, but please consider that there is no benefit now to adding oppose votes.

RFA is hard, and there is no benefit to kicking someone when they're down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

I'm fine with removing the edit notice; it was based on my apparently misreading Robert's comment on his talk page. It seemed pretty clear to me that he was in the middle of crafting a withdrawal statement, and opposes had begun to be increasingly nasty. If I'd known he wasn't going to withdraw soon, I wouldn't have added it. My bad.
However, worries about being "prejudicial to the RfA procedure", or "tainting" the result, or "skewing the result" are significant overreactions; there would have to be a further 72 supports with zero opposes to get this back to the very low end of the discretionary range. Or alternately, 26 people would have to switch from oppose to support. This is not "unlikely", it's not even "miraculous". It is impossible. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK fair enough, and yes it is impossible but some are arguing for it to be kept open because the candidate wants it left. Aiken D 21:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam: I think the concern is more that it could be prejudicial, not that it will be in this situation. It creates a no-win situation in which the candidate either fails naturally or "succeeds" with a significant cloud over the RfA. Candidates know more-or-less what they're getting into at RfA, and they're able to choose to withdraw at any time with or without a statement. I would recommend leaving it to them in the future, or at least not using the admin toolset while dissuading editors from piling on (by editing edit notices). I don't doubt your intentions for a second, but it seems likely to cause more harm than good. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]