Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sro23: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:30, 7 July 2018

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

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]

Tohank 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]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ::::::::::{{replyto|Serial Number 54129}}  it might be poor of [[User:Saturnalia0|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 [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 18:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 :::::::::::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. [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:dark blue">'''—SerialNumber54129'''</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">''' paranoia /'''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|'''cheap sh*t room''']]</sup> 18:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
+Tohank 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. [[User:Saturnalia0|Saturnalia0]] ([[User talk:Saturnalia0|talk]]) 18:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)