Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/GreenMeansGo

Sorry!

Sorry about this and [1]. Some bug issues on my browser. - Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 14:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I take exception to Q8

@Chris troutman: I take very strong exception to the general tone displayed by Chris Troutman in question 8. I did not pluck the word adversarial out of the ether, it was used by the nominator himself during the GA review in question. And to include a completely irrelevant link to a comment I made about civility four years ago can only one have purpose, to impugn my credibility as an editor fit to offer an opinion on anything. As many will know, I am unable to take part in any further discussion in this thread, which offers the perfect excuse to ignore my concerns, which is undoubtedly what will happen. Eric Corbett 15:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Eric Corbett, I am in agreement with your assessment of the situation, and I consider the link to your 2014 comment to be a cheap shot. I noticed your positive contribution to this RfA before I delved deeper, and thank you for it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought the answer insightful.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, maybe, Dlohcierekim, but that doesn't mean the question was OK. It was not. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The standard 3 questions may or may not be outdated, and I guess we'd never see agreement on a new official set. Already up to 13. Mine only had 6. If thee'd been more, the stress would have exploded my head. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: My question to GMG/Timothy was relating to his lessons learned through exasperation, which back in November 2016 he claimed had put him off the process. I think mine is a fair question as he rebounded despite his frustration at the time. Eric Corbett said he liked "the way [GMG/Timothy] dealt with an unnecessarily adversarial GA review", characterizing my editing. I don't think Eric is the best judge of what's "unnecessarily adversarial", especially when he points to how I conduct business. I enforce WP:WIAGA and GMG indicates that my thoroughness helped him improve. I imagine my diff designed to "impugn [Corbett's] credibility as an editor fit to offer an opinion on anything" is what rankles you and others. WP:NPA doesn't prohibit cheap shots, if that's what citing someone's words in context is. I would think a guy like him knows a guy like me is going to respond in kind. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of what a guy like you is about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Collect's oppose

1. @Collect: Can you clarify slightly, no new real content please? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

   @Collect: Can you also clarify what the second ground is supposed to be here? It seems like you only listed one criterion (that there are too many delete nominations/votes). Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

   I read the edits on new articles. I suggest you do the same. Creation of disambiguation pages, and pages with virtually zero actual content do not appear to me to be of great values. By the way, attacking folks who carefully listed their reasons for opposition seems to me to be contrary to any real intent to do anything other than discourage oppose votes in the first place. Is that your intent here? Collect (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

   The reason people are asking, Collect, is that editors did indeed understand you to be saying there was a lack of content creation. So, of course, we wanted clarification from you first that you just hadn't noticed the GA- and FA-quality material. Incidentally, asking a(ny) voter to clarify their position is certainly not a personal attack. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

   Actually it does come across as an attack on the oppose, and I regret that you seek to discourage reasonably held statements of opinion and fact in a desire to discourage any opposition. If you wish to discourage such positions, just come out and say so, but this sort of "debate" makes me feel that the entire process is turning into manure at best being flung at any who dare to vote the wrong way. I have done my darndest to participate in just about any activity on Wikipedia in a civil manner, and that means working on GA, image creation, AfD, MfD, essays, and a scad of BLPs. Can you "clarify" your position on my opinions? Collect (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

   Calm down Collect  :) no one is throwing anything at you or trying to discourage you (three times). I merely remark on the dichotomous position one takes when one attributes a lack of content creation to an editor with 83 articles created, of which two have Good Article and Featured Article status thanks to their efforts. You can see, perhaps, the slight anomaly that was being commented on. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

} see below. This "colloquy" has gone on for far too long now, and is absolutely badgering in a desire to discourage anyone from ever casting an "oppose" vote ever again. Collect (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No; it is a desire for votes (of all directions) to be based on facts and not a blind misreading which then becomes entrenched opinion. But never mind eh. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Collect: The confusion here arose because the sentence beginning "Nice enough" reads like a continuation of your first point, rather than independently as your second point, so people assumed there must be something missing. A simple copyedit to simply insert the word "Second" or "Also" would clear things up. Not commenting on the merits of the (former) oppose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I have been moderately familiar with the English language for nigh on seventy years, and I find the idea that I need to say "second" to make the difference between two sentences obvious is at odds with common usage in this case. I further note that my intellectual honesty was impugned strenuously, and thus I shall not unstrike my vote, as the clear intent of those saying I had not read the applicant's edits was odd as I went through well over two thousand of the article edits - and noted vast stretches of minor edits on single articles within a few minutes, and the like. Collegiality is ill-served by some of the vituperation presented, and that is a precedent which may tarnish this process. As long as a reason for an oppose vote is given, that well ought be sufficient. Collect (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Here we are, still dancing. Collect: You said that GMG has only Creation of disambiguation pages, and pages with virtually zero actual content do not appear to me to be of great values; I have repeatedly pointed out that they are the creator of GA- and FA-quality material, which is the opposite of what you suggested in your original statement. The reason your vote was questioned originally is becasue it is impossible to parse these two statements, sorry. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Um --- try quoting what I write. That you are "unable to parse" statements is not my problem. I noted that a great many edits were done in sequences of trivial edits. I noted that a number of pages are disambiguation pages. I did not say what you appear to think I said. Collect (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

In as gentle a fashion as I can muster, let me address your points. With regards to "second". The usage of first and second is not to clarify the difference between two sentences, that is done by a period. It is to separate two arguments. First, argument 1. Second, argument 2. It took me three reads of your oppose, and this was before any comments appeared, to determine what the second argument actually was: deletionism. With regards to my intellectual honesty was impugned strenuously <- what? where? by who? If you are referring to SN's comment linking you to a GA and an FA authored by the candidate, SN suggests that you might have missed these. Not that you willfully ignored it. If anything, your comment here is "thou doth protest too much". With regard to the clear intent of those saying I had not read the applicant's edits <- you, and I assure you with utmost confidence, did not read every single edit, and nobody, bar nobody, expects you to look at all 44k+ edits. You should not take offence to someone suggesting you missed something. You must have, as must everyone else have, missed a lot. It would be wilful ignorance to ignore evidence after it has been presented. Finally, with regards to collegiality is ill-served by some of the vituperation presented, <- Ignoring the necessity for me to pull up a dictionary to find out what vituperation is: bitter and abusive language. I can only say, perhaps myself excluded if "rational" and "irrational" was a bridge too far, that the only individual who has been abusive here is you. You opened up with immediate hostility; you drew the accusations of "attack"s and "badgering"; you implied ill-intent in your first response. I am not blindly telling you to reassess. I have solid justification to do it. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I have already stricken my vote utterly and completely. Your telling me now to REASSESS uses three letters about yourself at that point. Collect (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

-_- your behaviour Collect, I am talking about reassessing your behaviour. You made multiple behavioural accusations, all of which apply to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh? I fear your XXXXXXXXXX outranks my candor. [2] I never called others "irrational" by the way. I consider use of that word as being a "behavioural issue" even if you assert purity of soul. Collect (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll make this my last response. I don't know what XXXXXXXXXX means, I presume it's a curse word of some kind that you've hidden ... why I don't know, I'm sure I can handle it... I'm going to take a guess and say "dumbassery" as it fits. I sincerely hope it is because that would be a hilarious coincidence. I went ahead and reduced the language from "rational" and "irrational" to "reasonable" and "disproportionate" quite a while ago. Precisely for the reason that if the gentlest touch had succeeded in upsetting you, then my blunt approach would do nothing to help. I mean it has done nothing anyway. Hence my calling it quits here. That said, I directed it at your behaviour and not you. Every individual has done or said something irrational at some point. I failed at trying to get you to see reason, but then so did everyone else who has responded here. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Haven't seen you around lately. Good to see you.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

badgering

I find that where an "oppose vote" states its rationale clearly, that repeatedly asking the oppose-voter for further details and accusing that voter of not having a strong basis for their opinion is badgering entirely. I am willing to strike my vote if there is no badgering in such behavior and to cease giving any inputs on RfA where such extensive attacks on an oppose voter are made. This is not how this process is supposed to work - the aim was to prevent an oppose vote sans reasons at all. not to engage any oppose voter in an extended argumentation that the vote is wrong. Collect (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No one did badger you. It was based on two individuals asking you to politely clarify; a perfectly reasonable stance. The fact that two editors needed to ask perhaps suggests your position wasn't quite as clear as you thought? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Congrats. You have succeeded in your quest. Collect (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean, you can oppose away if you want Collect. It's not gonna hurt my feelings any. I mean, I'd appreciate your support. But overall, I think we'd be better off as a community if we moved away from this whole idea that admins are an aristocracy and giving a mop or taking it away is somehow super consequential in an earth shattering way. It's just extra buttons. I think I probably hang around enough to be able to push a few without breaking anything. If I screw up and break something then I'll give it back and happily go back to expanding stubs. I like the project and I like the community. So I don't plan on going anywhere anytime soon one way or the other. GMG^talk 12:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Asking someone to clarify an apparently illogical or contradictory position is definitely not the same thing as "badgering" or "attacking" them over that position, or treating them unfairly simply because they voted "the wrong way". Moreover, accusing people who ask for such clarifications of attacking or badgering you is not the same thing as providing an answer to the legitimate questions they have asked you. Every morning (there's a halo...) 12:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

My position was neither contradictory nor illogical . In fact, this "colloquy" makes me doubt the fitness of those engaging in such aspersions to even be editors on a collegial site. Sorry guys, you have succeeded beyond your wildest ambitions here. And I still find a mere 5% "keep vote" record to be a tad "deletionist." Your mileage appears to vary. In any event I struck my vote as a result of these attacks on me. And I suggest that the same standard be applied to "support" votes as is now required of "oppose" votes. Just to be honest. Collect (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:RFA: Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)m::::

Please assume good faith Collect - your oppose was rather confusingly worded and I read it several times without fully understanding it. It is not badgering to politely ask for clarification and you should not jump to the conclusion that people were trying to get you to withdraw your oppose. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Eh? I explained the meaning now several times Are you saying my points were not clear? That 5% support for "Keep" is not unusual? What precisely do you mean that I did not make myself clear - when others clearly understood exactly what I wrote. After the third explanation you still think the problem is not clear? After I write the same position a hundred times will it still not be clear? Sorry - the evidence to me suggests that the game is to prevent even a single oppose vote - and that is not how RFA is supposed to work. The "problem" was a few people opposed everyone in the past - and if you check my record, you will note that this is not and has not been true of my positions here. Collect (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Collect: I think you should unstrike, and I think everyone else needs to drop the stick. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

See my comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeesh. The reaction of Collect here is at least mildly perturbing. The two inquires could not have been worded any more gently. There is no, objectively speaking even, attack here. This reaction was not reasonable. Sorry Dlohcierekim, but that shouldn't just be passed over. Collect: your reaction is disproportionate. Reassess. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Dunno why we need to have this sort of discussion every RfA that has snow-esque support Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This is why I try to restrain myself and not comment about the !votes of others. It turns into needless drama and generates more opposes. I've seen it sink otherwise solid RfA's for qualified candidates.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

off topic replies to pythoncoder's oppose

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.

---

NOTE: The text below is archived here while the main RfA page is under full protection.

Question @Pythoncoder: - "per Collect and Mparrault" - Collect struck his !vote and what is there in Mparrault's to base yours on? - ^theWOLFchild 7:36 pm, 29 April 2018, last Sunday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)

That they are "clearly a deletionist". Collect struck his vote but his concerns are still relevant. This RfA will probably pass, but that doesn't mean I can't have concerns about their deletion patterns. Please read all of other people's comments before badgering Oppose voters. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 7:18 am, 30 April 2018, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Wow... you consider one, simple question as "badgering"...? Why not just add your reasons in the first place instead of insisting that everyone read all of other people's comments before... [seeking clarification]? Wouldn't that be simpler? Anyway, thank you for the additional info. - ^theWOLFchild 2:56 pm, 30 April 2018, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

NOTE: The text above is archived here while the main RfA page is under full protection.

Your question (as well as both this comment and your response to another oppose voter) is obvious badgering, and you should knock it off. --JBL (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis - Strange, an admin agreed with my question above, and my question here was just that, a simple question. You'll notice that in my reply, I thanked pc for the additional info. So, no... this doesn't come close to "badgering". Go find something better to with your time, and stop 'badgering' me, mm'kay? wolf 15:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This entire shtick is obnoxious and pointless, and you should take your own advice instead (Personal attack removed). --JBL (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm at a loss understand how you feel justified in launching such an absurd and hypocritical personal attack over what was a simple question (that was not even asked of you). If you feel you really, really must reply again, could you please strive to be more civil, mature and on topic? (and perhaps post on the talk page instead?) Thank you. wolf - 04:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if both of you knocked it off. This is not something worth getting worked up over. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 13:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"Knock it off" (and STICK?) I'm just responding to replies directed at me. And I'm not "worked up", JBL is for some reason, you seem to be, but I'm not. Like I said, why all the hostility and insults over one simple question? But, that said, it would seem we are done here. I've also moved all these off-topic posts here to the talk page. Have a nice day. wolf 14:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You are suffering from a severe case of lastwordism, but you have nothing of value to say. The result is a lot of vacuous hostility. Knock it off. Also, I have corrected your oversight by bringing all the off-topic posts here, rather than just the ones you personally disapprove of. --JBL (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, enough. I'm going to invoke WP:IAR and close this off-topic discussion here. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• "You are suffering from a severe case of lastwordism," - says the guy posting 'the last word. What irony.
• "but you have nothing of value to say." - Well, considering the source of that criticism...
• "The result is a lot of vacuous hostility." - There is nothing "hostile" about my posts. You, OTH, need to chill the duck out.
• "Knock it off." - how about you 'knock it off? You haven't posted a single, on-topic, or even civil, comment yet. It seems your only intent here is to be disruptive.
• "Also, I have corrected your oversight by bringing all the off-topic posts here, rather than just the ones you personally disapprove of." - Yeah, Well, it's not your place to moderate that page. Editors here are free to pose questions to !voters, which is all I did. One, simple question seeking clarification. That was followed up with an on-topic comment and I thanked the respondent for his reply. Then you came along and... well, I have no idea what the purpose of all your hostile and immature nonsense is, but it has nothing to do with that RfA. So how about you let it go already? - ^theWOLFchild 15:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

Shame

In my humble opinion this RFA should have passed without problems and I'm disappointed in the wiki community that it hasn't. Sure, we all have our opinions, but the way this "Nazi-gate" got out of hand is an embarrassment. Yintan  19:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the kind of RfA that dissuades otherwise exceptional editors from trying to pick up the mop, and this is why RfA has a rightfully earned impression of being a crucible to get through. It's ludicrous. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

We had an RFA each in February, March, and April which passed in the high 90s despite token opposition. Most users don't have a "Nazi-gate," so I have a tough time seeing how this RFA would dissuade others. Andrevan@ 23:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Because all admin candidates are imperfect humans who have made some errors in the past, and it's a roll of the dice whether those errors will be picked up on and be serious enough to cause opposes at an RfA. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how many of those imperfect humans, however, considered it alright to defend racists and bigots in what is supposed to be a collaborative and academic(-ish) environment. My guess is very few.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to speak generally. It might not be as significant of an issue for any given person as this was, but it could be a big deal for enough people that the candidate's general competence or temperament begins to be questioned, as happened here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The RFA process has become all too reminiscent of politics, with its egregious mudslinging and the desperate attempt to smear people by misrepresenting remarks out of context to make them seem like they are Nazis themselves (as unequivocally happened here). I do hope that the process will finally be reformed to at least limit all the inevitable hostility one must currently willingly face as a "rite of passage" to become an admin here. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No one misrepresented remarks, and diffs were provided to give a fuller context, which was when the opposes started occurring. While I understand some people may have different views, and respect those, I also think that people who are upset that this failed should be able to understand why there was opposition. This should have been RFX200, and I was personally hoping it would be when I cast the third support !vote. While it sucks it turned out like this, instead of blaming the process and getting angry at the opposers as people who just wanted to derail an RfA, maybe it would be better to think that perhaps some of our users who historically have been very supportive of bringing in new admins might actually have had a good faith reason to oppose. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's time for this page to stop being used. This request is closed, and there isn't any value going over the specifics anymore, especially regarding any individual's behavior or participation. Discussions on the RfA process in general should take place at WT:RFA. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, perhaps we should protect the page. Everyone should remember to WP:AGF and get back to work on articles or backlogs. We are all human and make mistakes. Some moreso than others, myself included. It's not a problem as long as you learn from it. Andrevan@ 00:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Out of 60 opposers, I count 9 who based their opposition solely on the Nazi thing, 10 if you count Tryptofish. The other 50/51 either had some other concern, had multiple concerns (sometimes including the Nazi issue) or didn't give a specific reason for opposing. Many late opposers cited SandyGeorgia, Martinp and/or Bbb23, who all posted their comments before the Nazi thing was even brought up. The Nazi issue was a significant one (why shouldn't it have been?); but boiling this RfA down to "Nazi-gate" is a disservice both to opposers and to GreenMeansGo, who has excellent chances to pass his next RfA as long as the message he receives from this one is more nuanced than "avoid being seen as a supporter of Nazis." Sideways713 (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've protected the page. It doesn't seem fair to the candidate to keep the discussion going. If there are general concerns, they can be discussed at WT:RfA. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)