Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/331dot

Neutral count

As I type this, the count listed on the page is 30/0/1, yet both Oppose and Neutral sections are completely empty. Why is it showing 1 in the Neutral camp when there is no one? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It’s something to do with the general comments every time. Cyber can you comment on this? TonyBallioni (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cullen328#Glitch in the automated tally? and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing#Untitled. Removing the hash symbols (#) fixes the numbering. Mz7 (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Except this time it also broke the bot... oh wait. You removed both. Not just the neutral. That might be the issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh shoot. That's strange; for past RfAs I seem to remember this working, but you're right, removing the hashes seems to have broken the bot completely. Let's see if just removing the neutral hash and not the oppose works... (though I suspect fixing the bot's underlying logic would be the most satisfactory resolution to this). Mz7 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that seems to have worked. Mz7 (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Weird. I thought removing the neutral hash only was what borked it hours ago, and was going to wait until Cyber was around to ask him about it. Anyway, it’s working now . TonyBallioni (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

When this happened on Cullen328's RfA, I got the impression from Cyber's comment that the old age of the code is partly what causes this, so it might not be worth patching if a complete rewrite is in order soon anyway. I guess we'll just have to remember for the next RfA to remove the neutral hash only. Mz7 (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I've got a rewrite pending, but it's on hold favoring the IABot rewrite.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 10:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose #1 by Andrew D.

1. Oppose Too deletionist. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grenfell Tower. Andrew D. (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

   I don't know his AFD history, so I can't speak conclusively overall, but is that really the best example you could provide - where he !votes redirect on an AFD that closed no consensus? I don't see anything particularly problematic or extreme in his brief sentence he left there either. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I make a request to everyone? It has been fairly well-established what RfA regulars generally think of these !votes. Can I ask that we try to not derail yet another RfA? On behalf of no-one but myself, and with no implication or opinion on the !votes or the replies, thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he says, I believe censoring him is exactly against the kind of principle this encyclopedia holds. As long as he desists from personal attacks, maintains conduct and isn't disruptive, I don't care what his argument for opposition stands for, it should stay. Over accusations of trolling tho, I don't think that is as always, but then again, I have only seen their comments a few times. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 17:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anyone suggesting censorship here. I noted that his dif didn't support his stance very well, and the other response was saying that it wasn't worth arguing with him because his arguments have a history of not persuading others anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I have clarified on my talk page as Eggishorn asked me the same. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything, just citing the debate and the fact that we should disengage debating about any of his opposes, that's all. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 18:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@QEDK: The thing is, Andrew's repeated oppose !votes on trumped-up/irrelevant/misleading grounds IS disruptive, which is why I think he should be banned from voting in RFAs. Every morning (there's a halo...) 18:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You have to be kidding us! The Colonel's example was compelling, preventing me from supporting even as someone strongly in the 'need more admins' camp & who is normally happy to support a deletionist. Grenfell Tower is one of the most notable towers in the world. The brief rationale was blatantly fallacious even by AfD standards. I understand opposes at RfA are annoying, per my 10 year history of badgering them. But it's good to be respectful about it, especially when the opposer is someone as illustrous as Andrew D, one of our most scholarly editors! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Should we just preemptively open one of these threads on the talk page of every RfA from now on? GMG^talk 18:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes and my point is one man's fallacy is another man's argument. The best way to deal with him is to hence, ignore his arguments, which we are clearly aren't doing by continuing this debate (and I'm guilty of it as well). --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 18:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

And I hadn't realized this was a recurring problem - I'm not a RFA regular, I just wander my way over to here here and there. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: If this didn't work then nothing will. --JBL (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Here, Here QEDK if we silence a voice that we find annoying or disruptive….could that next voice be mine…..I know, I know a paraphrase but looking at some of the opinions above, most definitely applies. Nothing wrong with disagreement, that is how change comes about. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Well—let’s keep in mind, the community regularly blocks voices when we find them disruptive to the project of building the encyclopedia, and we would have no encyclopedia if we didn’t do so. The site would be overtaken by advertisements and vandalism, just to pick two examples, though there are so many more ways to disrupt the project. Never blocking disruption isn’t a meaningful option; all we can do is try to evaluate whether it’s appropriate in a specific case. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this argument - any admin can have "political views" (like being deletionist here) so long as they use their access according to the established policies and guidelines. That said, the oppose rationale is not disruptive, and doesn't need to be censored or removed. Or really argued with, because I don't think many other people are buying into it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

To be entirely fair to Andrew, while I certainly don't agree with him, this is probably his most sensible oppose on an overwhelmingly passing RfA in quite some time. I'd much prefer he stick to these type of straight forward political judgements than go around writing a paragraph about that one time you tagged something with a maintenance tag and forgot to fix a typo while doing it or the like. He has a right to his opinion, and the straightforwardness of this I think is actually refreshing compared to his usual opposes. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with that; this is one of the more relevant things he has identified. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It's just a shame he's trotting out the completely irrelevant "what is the meaning of your username" question again - which I really hope 331dot ignores.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• The candidate spends a lot of time and effort hassling other users about their account names at WP:UAA. So, per WP:SAUCE, it is therefore quite appropriate that they should be asked to explain their own user name. I would not ask Pawnkingthree this question because their username is obvious -- it's a chess move, right? Andrew D. (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Well thank you for giving a rationale for your question Andrew - at least I know where you’re coming from now. And yes, you are correct about my username. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Can we all for future reference ignore Andrews !votes no matter what he says? ..... The closing admin will ignore him as does mostly everyone else so all of this constant replying to him is just a waste of time and energy, If you want to reply to him then add the "Discussion is on the talkpage" on the RFA and reply on the talkpage ....., But by now everyone should be used to him and should be ignoring him. –Davey2010^Talk 19:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Grenfell Tower is big deal to some of us, as FeydHuxtable confirms. I drive past the burnt-out shell quite regularly and it's quite a landmark. The candidate may say something of their more general stance on deletionism in response to Q9 and so we should wait on their response. As for the rest, I note that Eggishorn points to the last RfA in which I opposed Lourdes. It's good to report that, when Lourdes and I discussed another matter recently, we did so amicably and she kindly wrote, "I actually commend your discussion style ... and applaud your persistence in something you believe in. I'm also in awe that you don't cow down to number pressure – that is, the social pressure of having a huge number of editors against you." I likewise commend Lourdes' tolerant and forgiving character and accept that this is a promising sign that she may indeed be a good admin. Andrew D. (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson: It certainly is noteworthy that you stick to your standards and in what you believe, and I'm not going to try to stop you from doing that, but don't you think your olympic level of standards are just a bit too high? They do offer balance to the RfA in some way, but we are all volunteers and we all make mistakes or have lapses in judgements from time to time. The important part is that whether or not it is evident that said user can learn from those mistakes. Just my opinion.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• No, my standards are not too high. Consider that this is a powerful bundle of privileges which is being granted for 50+ years. Compare with Arbcom, for example. There, the position is less powerful and is only granted for two years. But even the most successful candidates there get hundreds of opposes and so arbs are appointed with only a 60% approval rating. RfA is ridiculously lax by comparison and most !voters seem to have no standards at all -- they just vote with the crowd. The difference shows how important it is to have a secret ballot. Andrew D. (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson:. I see your viewpoint, but I have to disagree with it. Admins are nothing but editors with more buttons. And what do we admins do? Janitorial work. We clean up other people's messes and enforce community consensus, reflected in either policy, or discussions. We have no real greater authority than an IP for instance, except in areas where ArbCom authorizes discretionary sanctions, and controversial RfCs. And that is only because admins are viewed as users whose judgement can be trusted in those cases. ArbCom on the other hand has absolute power. If they take on a case they can unilaterally ban, desysop, or do anything they want if they deem necessary. They are automatically given access to CU and OS. So it makes sense that they only be allowed to actually have that power for 2 years before needing reconfirmation.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Andrew, I left this because I am against your oppose views tooth and nail at the ACTRIAL reconfirmation; and after I had left a very strong response to your oppose there, I was expecting a flare-back from you, but you didn't do that; you gave a fine response per your stand and you didn't change your views on ACTRIAL either. My silent applause is for your deportment at that Rfc (I stand by it). Having said that, I understand your stand here that you don't agree with 331's view in that AfD or that they've !voted delete in other AfDs ; but I don't agree that you should oppose them for this issue. 331's like me, you or any other editor trying their bit to add to improving Wikipedia. In a forum seen by thousands, you shouldn't be calling them hostile, negative, obstructive, just because you feel so. You should not be using words that bring you out as perhaps being mean (because I feel you really aren't). You want to oppose, fine, I don't agree with it, but we'll settle for that; but please do change the way you've asked the questions here too, as you seem to have done so so finely at the ACTRIAL thing. And maybe leave a note for 331 that you will give them a fair chance to change your !vote stand per their responses to your queries (once you re-word them). If you do that, I'll stand by and fight for your stand here too. What do you think? Lourdes 00:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Personally if I was going to oppose on any kinds of ground close to what you consider an offense, I would oppose for the general lack of AFDs participated in, plus all the bounced nominations in 2015/16. his vs mine which show 131 delete votes out of the past 200. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul LePage question

Everymorning, could you clarify in your question whether you are asking about the article or the individual? The former seems fine, if a bit of a non-sequitur, while the latter sounds like a clearly inappropriate question. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• I meant to ask about the latter, but I will remove the question now if it is in fact inappropriate. Every morning (there's a halo...) 13:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the speedy retraction ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)