Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sro23

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.

Q17 (Checkuser)

I don't think it's reasonable to ask candidates to speculate about future permissions they might request during an RFA. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy ping @L3X1: power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine to strike it then. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be left...but only if Sro23 answers, "Yes, next week...and the Founder's Seat the week after—BWAHAHAHAAA!" :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind answering this one. To be honest I haven't given it much thought, after all I'm not even an administrator yet and I don't want to get ahead of myself. I don't think I possess the technical skill required to be a CU, so to answer your question, probably not. Sro23 (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Random trivial stats

Looking at WP:RFX200, it seems if this RfA gets 13 more supports (as of the time I write this), this will be the highest-supported self-nomination of all time. Gosh. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saturnalia0's oppose

Pointy and pointless, but doesn't violate a written rule. If participants wish to bring this to a topic ban discussion, ANI is the place to do it. Discussion seems to have died down or is going in circles.--v/r - T P 17:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Oppose Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Saturnalia0. Just a friendly FYI; in an RfA oppose !votes w/o any supporting rational are almost always discounted by the closing crat. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not the first time they threw a grenade and ran away. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if we had any sense and would really want to clean up RfA, this is the kind of vote that should be struck and such 'Status: Mostly not contributing to this project any longer. Not seriously at least. For stalkers' people topic banned from it. Maybe one of the words that Everymorning ventured may be applicable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that the closing 'crat will give this !vote all the weight that it deserves. —DoRD (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a TBan. They've been doing this for a long time. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the opposes above just as the supporters agree with the supporters above. If you're going to ban votes, then don't call it an election, call it an appointment. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saturnalia0: Please refer to Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters#Voting 'Oppose'. It is discourteous to not back up your vote of opposition with a constructive rationale. Zingarese (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of it, thank you. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, Saturnalia0, you're aware of the community's expectative norms, and yet are breaching them deliberately? That's just trolling then, and you should be blocked for not trying to build the encyclopaedia but for disrupting it. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Block me from voting I don't care, seems like I'm blocked already for all intents and purposes. If it wasn't for the mass message thing talking about the rfd I wouldn't even bother bothering you. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, blocked from editing, not just voting. Tsk. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: it might be poor of Saturnalia0 but they aren't obliged to explain their !vote, though it would presumably be discounted. A failure to do so can indicate disagreement with any need to explain opposing !votes rather than a specific desire to troll - and thus suggesting a blocking seems a tad OTT. I can't speak as to what Saturnalia's reasoning (or lack thereof) is, and I find the bare !vote irritating to, but responses should suit actions and the rules we have, especially if you're going to quote them Nosebagbear (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Nosebagbear, and if this wasn't the third time, with absolute deliberation, that this has occured, then the fount of good fath would runneth over. But it is, so it isn't. The block is would be for trolling, not for not explaining one's RfA vote—that's the difference. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both pointy and pointless, perhaps, but I would not go so far as calling it trolling. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nosebagbear. Serial, request the block if you want I don't care either, as for your reasoning I can't guess what it would be since I haven't made a single edit in the last 4 or 5 months, except tagging lack of citations, submitting AfDs and voting in RfAs. As for the other votes I believe I did explicitly mention support for the other opposes. If you want to strike my vote go ahead, just stop pinging me. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking oppose votes because they're unsubstantiated now? I came here to support, but I think I'll take a pass from this process until the fix-RfA-by-creating-a-chilling-effect-on-opposing tack gets reined in (or, realistically, unless I feel very strongly one way or the other). Not to take anything away from Sro23, who doesn't need my support for this to pass anyway. In fact, it's bizarre that it seems opposes get the most negative attention when they don't make a lick of difference to the outcome. There's no obligation to back up either support or oppose, even if it's preferential to do so. Crats can and should disregard as they see fit, and it doesn't hurt to let someone know as much. What's most problematic here is even floating the idea of striking it altogether because of it. If someone's an editor in good standing, even if not all that active, they can participate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get that Saturnalia said If you want to strike my vote go ahead but seriously, there's no need. This thing is passing with flying colors, who cares if there's an unsubstantiated oppose? We have 'crats for a reason, and in the long run badgering and bludgeoning Saturnalia does more harm then good. On that note, The ed17, I've restored the !vote; besides, as you !voted support just a minute earlier, better someone else do it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the only person on this wiki who thinks that RfA should be a vote, I like unsubstantiated opposes. (As a supporter, I also like them: unlike opposes that come with diffs or pseudo-reasons, they don't harm the candidate's chances nearly as much, as the opposer is not campaigning for their position inside the ballot box). Would you prefer an oppose with "I view self noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger" as rationale? ;) —Kusma (t·c) 16:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kusma for the memories. I agree; I don't really mind unsubstantiated opposes either; but I do think oppose rationale that masks themselves with pseudo-reasons are far more damaging to the process. Alex Shih (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I trust Sro23 as an admin and consciously voted on him, Saturnalia0's vote is very far from "entirely inappropriate", as the linked essay states, and there is no chance of this RfA failing so I don't see why all overreaction... Pointless IMHO, and the candidate himself doesn't seem to be bothered. I take Kusma words as mine. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 05:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am firmly in the support crowd on this one, but in all fairness, is it really much different for someone to vote oppose without a rationale than for someone to vote support without a rationale or with "per someone else" or "great guy" as the rationale? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Deacon Vorbis oppose

Pointy and pointless, but doesn't violate any written rule. Moral supports and opposes have been used for a long time and as it doesn't affect the candidate, a reasonable person could see this as a yellow flag against a process issue rather than a smear on the candidate. Wikipedia_talk:RFA is the place to have a discussion about process issues, though.--v/r - T P 17:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Moral Oppose per the (mostly, not all) inappropriate behavior at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sro23#Saturnalia0's oppose. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's that got to do with Sro23? \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 16:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nothing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you opposing an RfA candidate for reasons having nothing to do with them? How is that fair? \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 16:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a moral oppose on a request that has no chance of failing anyway. Since my !vote will have no impact on the outcome (as intended), I don't think it's unfair to Sro at all. I simply added it to hopefully make others think twice about badgering those giving a dissenting voice, regardless of how useful or not it was (again, not everyone who commented there was at fault, but some were). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This !vote may need to be struck. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 16:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Even as someone who doesn't really have any problem with unsubstantiated opposes, and thinks that striking them is uncalled for (the closing 'crat can afford said votes the weight they feel is due), this 'moral oppose' really smacks of disrupting proceedings to prove a point. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 16:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I may have made it to prove a point, but I disagree that it was disruptive. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People have a right to oppose even a popular candidate, which is the point this is trying to make. I obviously want this to succeed, but the point is valid (and it was a point made in my RfA as well.) Most candidates get why people might be frustrated with badgering opposers, and I don't think harping on Deacon Vorbis is useful. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This should be moved to neutral or general comments, as the voter has stated plainly that this is not a comment on the candidate but on other users' behaviour in a subthread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about we just leave it here and stop this discussion, saving us all some time? We have a pool of people (crats) whose job is to moderate RFAs if needed and if they see no reason to move this comment, we should just accept it and move on as Tony correctly says. Regards So Why 17:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not valid, though. We have a user saying "Sro23 should not be an administrator because of the way that some other people have behaved". If it were intended to be a constructive general comment on the process, it would be on one of the pages or in one of the sections intended for such a thing. But it's not, it's here in the oppose section, and in doing so Deacon Vorbis obviously meant for this to get a reaction and disrupt the process, rather than to comment on the issue in good faith; in other words this vote is nothing more than trolling. It should not remain here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, the only thing that needs moving to the talk page is this discussion, not the oppose. Lourdes 17:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has some of most ridiculous behavior I've seen here since... well, the last RfA. "Oppose" entries #1 & #2 should be be given zero weight or consideration by the closing bureaucrat, "Oppose" #3 should be deleted simply as nonsense and the poster of "Oppose" #4 should be given 24 hours to strike their entry and apologize to the candidate, or it should be deleted and a warning registered against them from posting further disruptive entries at RfA simply to "prove a point" which violates an established guideline: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. It's the page title of the guideline for cryin' out loud. - ^theWOLFchild 23:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't think any weight given to any of the opposes is going to matter at this point. It's probably better to ignore it and move on. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is how the United Kingdom wound up with Brexit. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And how the last two (maybe even the last three) U.S. Presidents got elected. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last one, sure. Obama? Not really. He was elected based on his policy positions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In Obama's time it was enough not to be a Bush to get elected. Although true a fraction of voters do try to understand the proposed policies and their implications. More or less like on this board where only a percentage of !voters heed the policies ;) — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, McCain was also not a Bush. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, this pointy !vote is really pointless and will have little impact on anything. On the other hand, I see no reason to discourage anyone who wants to badger Deacon Vorbis or Saturnalia. They knew it was coming. Lepricavark (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a never-ending pattern here: RfA is filed; support votes pile up; one or a few oppose votes pop up; supporters (including myself sometimes) argue with opposers; oppose section, general comments section and talk page get filled with arguments about the validity of the votes; supporters debate about whether to strike this vote, topic-ban that user etc.; candidate passes by a landslide anyway. And it seems like that's how it's always going to be. Linguist^un Eins ^uno (Linguist111) 16:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.