Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Greenman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SerialNumber54129's vote[edit]

Thanks, but we are done here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. Too much disingenuity in the supports not to comment, unfortuantely. WP:PAY is pretty clear that a ((tq|financial conflict of interest}}—including being an employee—is paid editing (clue: it's under a L3 section header called 'Paid editing), uniquivocally and regardless of the nature / quality of the edits. But my position is, rather, that that is somethng of a distraction: the important thing is that we have a candidate for advanced tools who either doesn't know or doesn't see the significance of making such edits and then baldly declaring the opposite—equally equivocally—that they have done so. Combined with ignorance of WP:V and WP:BLP—not just policy, but two of he most important editorial policies we have—their is an unreadyness for the tools. Their comments on their own talk page also give pause for thought: continuing this RfA for the lulz? The opposition are all systematically biased? No thanks. Mind you those who have mentioned WP:NOTYET in either their supports or oppose are your friends, it definitely applies in this case, as I see no malice in Greenman, only a commitment to the encyclopedia, bringing personal qualities which in some cases should be developedand and others, adjusted. At the moment it appears that the latter outweigh the former; see you in a year though. ——SerialNumber54129 10:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The header is a navigational aid (and should probably read “Paid editing and financial conflicts of interest”); you need to refer to the actual content. This seems more akin to a “financial conflict of interest” than dyed-in-the-wool paid editing. I’m curious: if an editor wants to revert obvious vandalism on their employer’s article, they must disclose their employer on wiki? And if candidates have to disclose whether they have edited in a position of financial conflicts of interest as well as being paid directly to edit, the advice needs to be changed (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Candidate disclosure of editing for pay). –xenotalk 11:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I clearly referred to the content as I directly quoted from it; I'm sorry if it was not obvious to you. As to your suggestion, what it probably should read is less convincing (and relevant) that what it does say. Suggest you start an RfC on getting the change you want; I might support it. But in any case, you completely miss my fundamental point, which is that a candidate who cannot see in advance that there might possibly be an issue as a result of editing their employer's article while stating that they never edited for pay does not demonstrate that they have ever read and understood policy. It is very much the same (lack of) approach as has been taken to V, for example, so should probably come as no surprise. Thanks for engaging here today, though; that's all from me. ——SerialNumber54129 12:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You should make your point without needlessly blurring clear and meaningful distinctions, and then people won't complain that you've needlessly blurred meaningful and clear distinctions. --JBL (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank goodness we are under no pressure to adhere to your interpretion of policy. ——SerialNumber54129 09:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Luckily "you making shit up because you don't understand how words work" is not how policies are decided here. --JBL (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Luckily your incivility and aspersions had received as much attention as your arguments :D ——SerialNumber54129 14:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow crats to extend this RfA by 24 hours[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am closing this RfC as moot for the reasons stated by Amanda below. In accordance with the closing procedures documented in the front matter of RfA, bureaucrats already have the discretion to extend RfAs beyond seven days in exceptional circumstances. Additionally, even if this was not the case, the level of consensus attainable by this RfC at this stage of the RfA (10 hours left) cannot plausibly be sufficient to overturn longstanding practice. Mz7 (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, supporters, opposers, discussers, I'm aware of my oppose and how it has affected the RfA. My oppose remains the same. I am not comfortable handing this candidate the admin bit until the COI lines are drawn clear. Along the way, there are other significantly stronger oppose reasonings provided by my fellow editors.

And there are as strong, if not stronger, support reasonings, growing in number by the hour.

With all good faith and keeping the candidate's interests in mind, I propose this time-limited RfC for just this RfA (that is, any consensus reached/not reached below will apply just to this RfA and not to future RfAs):

  • that crats be allowed to extend this RfA by 24 hours at their discretion;
  • that this discretion will not be considered a bureaucratic overreach;
  • that any crat will retain the independence to close this RfA at any time after 7 days of !voting are over, irrespective of whether 24 hours extension has been allowed or not.

Thanks, Lourdes 02:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Oppose[edit]

  • Lightburst (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Ched (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC) If crats aren't going to follow the rules, why should anyone else?[reply]
  • They can always come back better prepared in a new RfA. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions[edit]

  • It is already within 'Crats discretion to not close this RfA immediately that the minimum seven days are up. I think the decision to do so should remain with the 'Crats. While a discussion about it is valid, I'm not sure that this is something we should be voting on, as the way it stands right now, if all those opposing voted oppose to extension, and all those supporting voted to support an extension, then there wouldn't be an extension. As such I don't see a vote as valid or appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I !voted oppose in the RfA and am !voting support here; Lightburst is vice versa (supported the RfA and voted oppose here); there would be more like me and them; so your logic might not stand true. Further, xeno has already suggested that as of currently, extension would be considered a bureaucratic overreach. This RfC would ensure that the community gives them some independence. Additionally, in honesty, I think the candidate deserves this. Lourdes 03:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not take anything from this RfC, because of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Also, WP:RFA says "In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer." This is not an exceptional circumstance, this is every RfA in this percentage zone. Even without that, this RfC maybe has 48 hours at best to finish, not enough time to have a real discussion on established practice. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly with Amanda — Ched (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Applying WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to an agreement within a specific RfA sits oddly as that implies the RfA itself is subject to LocalCon. But regardless of that, any voting here on extending the RfA, LocalCon or not, is moot as community consensus already allows 'Crats discretion on when to close a RfA - it is up to the 'Crats to decide to apply it or not (and that should be done before the time is up on a RfA, otherwise we get a stopped and restarted RfA which would be more problematic). As regards exceptional circumstance - well, that is exactly the reason why this is being discussed. It is exceptional for a RfA to swing the way this RfA swung and then to keep that momentum - such swings are taken into account in 'Crat chats to project the direction a RfA was taking at the point of closure - this one was heading upwards toward consensus at a strong rate, and may have broken into 70% if progress continued at that pace for a few more days. However, having said that, the momentum now seems to have stopped, and there is a gradual movement the other way. At this particular time stamp I'm not seeing that it would be valid to keep this open beyond the standard seven day minimum. SilkTork (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) WP:RFA already states that "Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days ... In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days ... to make consensus clearer." So, as SilkTork says above, the bureaucrats already have specific discretion to do this. It's not clear what the exceptional circumstances might be. An outage or interruption would be a reasonable reason to extend. A low turnout might be another reason, like a relisting at AfD. We shall see... Andrew D. (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2019 (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.

Some comments[edit]

Another travesty of an RfA that I can't keep quiet about. The COI policy explicitly permits an editor in a conflict to make non-controversial edits. Moreover, even if the editor was in breach, pointing to policy violations is generally not enough. A further step needs to be undertaken: linking the violation of policy with a practical negative effect on the encyclopedia. This is why WP:IAR is there, because the former does not necessarily lead to the latter. What practical negative effect was suffered by his/her/their editing?

To avoid doubt, I do think some of the opposes were justified. The COI/paid editing ones were not, and I think they should have been struck out. 130.95.175.240 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Greenman&oldid=921137525"