Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Fram 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:58, 26 September 2019

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.

Watchlists?

The general comments about watch lists also include other questions - so moved back to general. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should functionaries be allowed to vote on this?

Given that the WMF placed a wildly inappropriate ban, should functionaries (myself included) refrain from voting on this RFA? I will happily strike my vote if people think it's inappropriate of me to participate here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow the logic. Are you asking if you shouldn't participate in protest of the WMF's action? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think people who are paid by WMF should consider staying well clear. There was also a discussion at WP:BN about whether current Arbs should comment. But I don't think volunteer editors who happen to be functionaries could be said to have any conflict of interest etc. that means they ought not participate. Those positions are not in the gift of WMF... WJBscribe (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 Given that the WMF placed a wildly inappropriate ban, should functionaries (myself included) refrain from voting on this RFA? I will happily strike my vote if people think it's inappropriate of me to participate here. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 16:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 :I don't follow the logic. Are you asking if you shouldn't participate in protest of the WMF's action? -- [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 16:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
-:I think people who are paid by WMF should consider staying well clear. There was also a discussion at [[WP:BN]] about whether current Arbs should comment. But I don't think volunteer editors who happen to be functionaries could be said to have any conflict of interest etc. that means they ought not participate. Those positions are not in the gift of WMF... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong>
+:I think people who are paid by WMF should consider staying well clear. There was also a discussion at [[WP:BN]] about whether current Arbs should comment. But I don't think volunteer editors who happen to be functionaries could be said to have any conflict of interest etc. that means they ought not participate. Those positions are not in the gift of WMF... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 16:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)