Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dane: Difference between revisions

Dane

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (20/5/0); Scheduled to end 15:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Dane (talk · contribs) – Administrators need be proficient editors who we can trust not to abuse the tools; they must operate with unbiased judgement, a level-head, and the ability to listen and learn from constructive criticism. Dane has shown that he more than fits the bill. I’ve observed Dane judiciously closing discussions over at Articles for deletion, for a while now. But, the first real close-up encounter I had with Dane was during the handling of a confidential request for the Wikimedia Foundation (which I had been notified of due to a later issue) some time ago. Dane, while not an OTRS volunteer, was delegated by an OTRS admin to handle a sensitive issue. Without much knowledge of this arena, I saw him calm and assure a bemused and stressed individual like an expert mediator. His professionalism was beyond outstanding, as it has continued to be in every other interaction that I’ve observed since.

Since he decided to join our wonderfully free knowledge emporium over 10 years ago, he’s amassed over 12,000 edits to the site. But, don’t let that fool you, most of those have accrued over the last 10 months. When he’s active, he’s definitely active. What I see is honest dedication, and a user whose access to the tool will, without a doubt, be a beneficial addition to the administrative community. As he sails through my criteria for adminship with flying colours, I see no reason to withhold the mop from him any longer. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Dane (talk · contribs) – It is my great pleasure to co-nominate Dane for this RfA.

There's no doubt that Wikipedia has the need for Administrators, but more-so we need Administrators who are clueful with policy and procedures, dedicated to the project, welcome and help new users and treat them with complete respect, communicate well with others and never resort to uncivil or unprofessional conduct towards anyone, keep absolutely cool and remain level-headed and calm when things get extremely stressful, know when to ask questions and get second opinions and input from others, and err on the side of caution and good judgment instead of erring on the side of "take action first, ask questions second". These are traits that wise and level-headed editors who are respected by the community demonstrate proficiency and consistency with on a regular basis; they separate the experienced from the new, make leaders out of followers, and are critical skills that I look for in candidates (among other things as well).

I believe that Dane demonstrates these skills well and that he will make an awesome administrator. His positive and enthusiastic attitude is an asset to this project, and having admin tools will only carry more weight and shine this rare and much-needed trait much more brightly. I really hope that the community feels the same way as I do. Please give him your support. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and thank Coffee and Oshwah for the opportunity to serve. -- Dane ^talk 15:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to deal with anti-vandalism work as well as continue my work at AfD, Requested Moves and SPI. As I spend a great deal of time per day on Wikipedia, I look forward to being able to help clear backlogs at AIV, RPP and UAA. I would also like to provide undeletions at WP:REFUND. I am not afraid to ask for a second opinion in situations where I may be unsure. I will likely be cautious with using the tools during my first few months as I learn things from situations I may not have encountered in the past. While I have been a registered user for over 10 years, I admit I am not the typical candidate (with 10 months of consecutive editing and sporadic editing before that). I feel we have a need for responsible individuals to help tackle the backlogs and I believe my contributions speak well about my judgement.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think some of my best contributions to Wikipedia include my anti-vandalism work to ensure that the encyclopedia stays factual and free of issues. I also am very proud of the work i've done at ACC - helping to bring a backlog of over 500 requests down to 0 and working every day on it to maintain a backlog free experience for our newest editors. I am very active on IRC and will give input and advice to users when they request it. In terms of content work, I have created 7 articles and i'm very proud of my contributions to the Shooting of Philando Castile article, my work on sockpuppet investigations as well as the collaborative effort I have had with new users.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I was in a major conflict last year regarding an infobox on the Noël Coward article. Throughout the process, I remained respectful and objective. This experience taught me a lot about how infoboxes are a contentious topic and how civility can affect a situation. I urge people to bring errors to my attention (I am human after all) and am always open to hearing others opinions. I try to take my personal opinion out of the matter as much as possible and review a situation objectively (This is a good example of me making a mistake, owning up to it, re-evaluating and fixing it.)

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Gerda Arendt

4. What do you think about User:Gerda Arendt/User talk before you block? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A: It is absolutely essential to talk to users directly before blocking them and to consult with other admins when in doubt. Wikipedia is here for the content and as an administrator, I would not want to block someone who contributes positively unless absolutely necessary to prevent disruption to the project. Obviously, there are some clear exceptions like serious BLP violations, but in general I believe there should always be dialogue and a block should be a last resort. I would be willing to develop recall criteria as well if this RfA passes to ensure that I am held accountable for any of my blocking actions.

Additional question from Vanamonde93

5. Hi there, and thanks for offering your services. On 15 January, a new user created the page Geoff Cottrill, with their third edit. At this point, the page looked like this. Two minutes later, you tagged it for WP:CSD#A1. Was this tag appropriate? If so, why? If not, why not? Vanamonde (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A: Per WP:CSD, "Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice.". Under CSD:A1 and CSD:A3, we also have "Don't use this tag in the first few minutes after a new article is created." This is one of those occasions where I did a simple Google search and determined that the sourcing I found did not show notability, which is why I tagged so quickly. The tag itself was inappropriate as I used A1 instead of A3 (I was aiming for content (A3), not context (A1)), which was correctly swapped in by another editor.

Additional question from TParis

6. Have you ever been coached, either publicly or privately, on how to pass this RfA or otherwise manipulate the outcome?

A: I do not believe I have been coached (unless you consider my ORCP to be coaching).

I do not believe receiving feedback is the same as coaching. Thank you for your honesty, though.--v/r - TP 18:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Ad Orientem

7. Thank you for your offer to serve. Do you believe it is ever appropriate for an admin to unilaterally delete an article or page without it first being tagged for CSD or some other form of deletion? If so, under what circumstances?

A: I believe it is appropriate for administrators to delete pages unilaterally without it being tagged first only if they're eligible for speedy deletion or oversight. Personally, I would not unilaterally delete pages unless they are already tagged for CSD criteria or if they were obvious copyright violations, BLP violations or oversightable material.

Reply- Since I asked the question I think it only fair I should give my own view which is close to yours. The one area where I would disagree is that I do not think admins should unilaterally delete a page because they think it meets CSD criteria. But you saved yourself in the next sentence when you said you would not do that except in some narrow circumstances. There have been instances where I have nominated a page for CSD and the reviewing admin spotted something I missed. Otherwise your answer was good. (Extra points for mentioning oversight - suppression which in my ten years on Wikipedia I have probably given all of 30 seconds of thought to.) My general rule is that I only delete unilaterally in cases of gross and naked vandalism of the sort that no reasonable person could look at it and think it was anything else. G10 attack pages directed at living persons would fall under this heading along with serious threats of harm etc. Pretty much anything else, I want another set of eyes on it before it goes away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Amortias

8. You come across an article that may be a copyright issue, you delete the article as there are reasonable grounds for it being copyvio based on review of the possible source and it appearing off site before it appeared on wiki. The user who originally wrote it requests a copy of the article is sent to them via e-mail so they can work on a copy offline. How would you respond to such a request.

A: As in this scenario copyright violation with reasonable grounds, I would deny it per WP:REFUND - "Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all." I would invite the editor to create the article from sources that comply with our reliable sourcing policy.

9.An editor who you have been in several previous lengthy disputes is edit warring on an article by including content that it in breech of BLP, the issue has been ongoing for over two hours and appears to have not yet attracted another admins attention. The information being included includes private information with regards to the persons life that is not readily available in the public domain. How would you respond? Amortias (T)(C) 19:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A: Assuming that by "private information" you're referring to oversightable private material, this is one of those cases where I would overlook WP:INVOLVED and revert the edits with the BLP violations and revision delete under criteria #4 until oversight handles the suppression.

Additional question from Ivanvector

10. At WP:ANI you see a report about a user, "Bufens10", who created their account one month ago and has made a dozen or so edits each day in a variety of topics. A more experienced editor, "Ambecardabi", complains that the user is "too familiar with wiki-markup to be a newbie". Several more experienced editors have agreed the newer user is "suspicious", and two have insisted that the user must reveal the name of their former account. Bufens10 hasn't responded, but two days ago they blanked their talk page with the edit summary "Stop erasing my edits! LEAVE ME ALONE!" and then stopped editing. Reviewing further you discover that Ambecardabi has reverted 6 of Bufens10's edits all on different pages with the edit summary "rv sock" and has left four {{uw-vandal4im}} warnings on Bufens10's talk page, prior to it being blanked. You cannot determine what about the reverted edits is improper, and no other information is available. As an administrator, how would you respond?

A:

10b. Same question, except this time you see that three of Bufens10's edits restore edits made six weeks ago by JRR Trollkien. How would you respond with this new information?

A:

Additional question from Glrx

11. Please comment on WP:ORCP#Dane: April 6, 2017 that you closed after less than 72 hours when they often run for a week or more. What did you expect and what did you take away from it?

A:

Additional questions from BU Rob13

12. In the following situations, explain why we can or can't host the content on the English Wikipedia. If we can host the content on the English Wikipedia, explain why we can or can't transfer it to the Wikimedia Commons. For simplicity, ignore potential non-free use.

• I take a picture of a new sculpture created by one of the best living artists in the United States. I want to offer it under this license.
• I find the following logo online and want to upload it to Wikipedia. [1]
• I hand my phone to a friend and have them take a picture of me. I want to offer it under this license.
• I take a picture of a building recently created in Iran. I want to offer it under this license.
• I take a selfie of some trees in Central Park. In the distant background is a billboard with a picture of Pikachu on it. I want to offer it under a license I wrote myself which states anyone may re-use the picture, including in derivative works and commercially, so long as they attribute it to BU Rob13. I also state that I may not revoke the license.

A:

13. Assessing consensus requires one to weigh supports and opposes. What goes into such weighting when there are policies and guidelines which directly apply? What goes into such weighting when opinions are more subjective?

A:

Additional question from Bigpoliticsfan

14. Here comes the infamous UAA question: You see the following usernames, none of which have edited yet. What do you do?

• BushdidKatrina
• 1 Normal Avenue, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043
• Steve Bannon must die
• New York University Langone Medical Center
• Eat kitties all day every day!!!!!!!LOL HAHA YOLO
• Ritchie334
• Chad Duell

Discussion

• Links for Dane: Dane (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Dane can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support never been the first support before, but more than happy to be here! Great editor and Coffee and Oshwah say it better than I could. Also, echoing Nick below, Dane as a whole is very level-headed and his response to having a close of his taken to move review shows the level-headedness and thoughtfulness we need in an admin when someone asks them a question about their actions. I see the reasoning behind Ritchie's oppose, but I am not convinced. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Support As nominator. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Support super duper support Dane is incredibly level-headed and has a well rounded Wiki-career, despite his shorter active tenure. Dane is always courteous and welcoming to people and is able to efficiently communicate with other editors, which I believe is a key in fulfilling admin duties. The combo anti-vandalism, ACC and content creation work really just seals the deal for me too. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Support I've seen Dane on IRC many times, and he's a very good editor and will be a very good admin. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Support I'm very much familiar with the candidate and have no significant concerns with their behaviour, knowledge or temperament. I expect them to make an excellent administrator, should this request pass. I would also add that Coffee has been editing and administrator-ing for a very long time and knows what's what, so for them to co-nominate is an indicator of an excellent candidate. Richie333's Oppose is generally unconvincing - either a candidate should have learned from a controversial incident and then be suitable of becoming an admin, or they should have to wait a very long time, this short, pointless and arbitrary six month 'wait period' does nothing. I also worry slightly that we're starting to focus on candidates who have avoided any sort of controversy and who we have no idea how they'll behave, rather than giving candidates who have been a little controversial, and who have learned from their faux pas, a fair hearing. Nick (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   That's only one facet - the other is for reasons documented in User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   just some evidence that a candidate can evaluate multiple sources and write prose around it. Christopher Kerze, Philips Hue and Murder of Alayna Ertl (looking at the last edits made when Dane was the only contributor) would seem to show that Dane is perfectly capable of evaluating multiple sources and writing (good) prose around it. Nick (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

6. Support Net positive to the project, yes I would like to see some more content creation, however I believe Dane would make a capable administrator on this project. He has the right temperament and his work at AFD, Requested Movies, and SPI are laudable. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
7. Support I see no concerns. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
8. Support - It's very promising to see us returning to more compelling candidates. I support 100% especially since we need more skilled admins to work at Afd. His access to the tools will be a positive to the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
9. Support He showed willing when I chided him about the state of Gopher Ordnance Works and has actually created several articles like this. This looks good compared to the last candidate and so natural justice applies. Andrew D. (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
10. Support Absolutely no concerns, level-headed user, all my interactions with them have been nothing but positive. Penskins (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
11. Support as co-nominator. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
12. Support, like - answer to my question - how you request comments --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
13. Support - Ive seen Dane around and I am confident he'll make a good admin Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 18:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
14. Support because this candidate is qualified and also to counteract oppose below from an editor who no longer contributes to this community but who magically reappeared to attempt to influence community proceedings on the basis of a personal vendetta. Lepricavark (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
15. Support Looks like a solid candidate, opposes are utterly unconvincing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
16. Support His answers here show judiciousness and intelligence, and the fact of not one but two nominators is impressive. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
17. Support. No problems. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
18. Support Solid candidate with a good record. Dane checks pretty much all of the boxes on my criteria list. Reasonable answer to my question. Looks like a net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
19. Support Excellent, cool-headed candidate with good judgement and contributions. Sn1per (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
20. Support - Although Dane usually doesn't do much content creation, he is certainly amazing with MoS compliance, and very helpful in cleaning up the prose for FACs. Also, he has a good record with CSDs and AfD voting record—93% of his votes match the outcome, although that is a low number, as some of the AfDs he has voted on have not closed yet. Additionally, Dane is very helpful to newcomers on his talk page and has good non-mainspace participation. Overall, I think that Dane has a good knowledge of policy and the correct temper to be admin. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose You still don't meet WP:WRITE in my view; your most edited article, The Conjuring 2 only seems to have reverts and minor template-based edits. The drama-fest that was Talk:Noël Coward/Archive 2, where you went hammer and tongs with Cassianto and SchroCat is just still too recent, and I need to see more distance put between you and that. Very specifically, your comment under the "Collapsible infobox" : "I couldn't roll my eyes any harder at your comment. Opening an RfC is hardly damaging to the community, you should be more grateful that I was bold enough to get us to a firm conclusion. Notice the consensus above and the fact that I didn't "challenge it". I wish that could be said for the people who immediately challenged the first closure because it didn't go their way. Clearly some editors have issues with collaboration". If you have the block button and write that, you will raise a complete and utter can of worms. I don't mind you raising an ORCP to gain feedback, but going straight from that into an RfA shows an over-eagerness that just leaves me uncomfortable. You should have left this RfA for about six months at least, in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   "I would also add that Coffee has been editing and administrator-ing for a very long time and knows what's what" I would also add that over the past fortnight, I have had to deal with four incidents on the noticeboards that have had Coffee right at the centre of them, including the block on Winkelvi, blocking Mlpearc for trivial edit-warring, and reverting some constructive advice from me with a comment of "take your cute replies elsewhere", so as far as a nominator goes, it's a poor choice in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   I'm left struggling to understand if you're opposing the candidate based on a fair appraisal of their editing and suitability for the role, or simply because of who one of their co-nominees is. I would appreciate some re-assurance in this respect. Nick (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   So, you're opposing because Oshwah and myself found him to be more than capable of taking on the sysop responsibilities, after he asked the community for such input at the place designed to do so (an OCRP that had zero impact on my original inclination)? And I hardly think a singular article dispute totalling a grand total of four comments from the candidate themselves (6 months ago) can be called a "drama-fest". Of course I can hardly bring myself to think how you "have had to deal" with any of the noticeboard issues you just brought up either, considering you weren't a party to them... and considering my administrative actions have yet to be reversed, I'd suggest you take your problems with me elsewhere before me and you really do have a problem. Your behavior simply is not fair to this candidate. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   I have had to deal with four incidents on the noticeboards that have had Coffee right at the centre of them This is probably a good time to remember that even being an admin is a volunteer position, like every other editor (exception being WMF staff) and it should cause you no hardship as you willingly participate with every edit you make and are not contractually bound or otherwise obligated to do anything. That being said, I'm pretty sure this isn't an RFA for Coffee and if you have doubts or questions about Coffee's competency or ability as an admin, this certainly isn't the place for it. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   It's early, and I've only scratched the surface of this nomination, but I'm a little confused about your ORCP over-eagerness concerns. From the first line of that page, This is an optional polling page available for experienced editors who intend to request administrative privileges in the near future. Many of the polls are archived because the user received positive feedback and decided to initiate the real thing. Do you believe that there should always be a six-month interval between ORCP and RfA, or just for this candidate? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   To my knowledge, applicants regularly go from ORCP to RfA and I do not recall Ritchie ever employing this rationale in their oppose prior to this. Ritchie, frankly, you should have stopped two sentences before you did in your first post and never made the second. It is obvious to me that the meat of your oppose is because of the altercations Dane has had with Cassianto and Schrocat, both of whom have now retired. The argument you made up to that point was ... sufficient enough on its own and was centred around temperament. I've seen one of the Coffee embroiled messes, but, the community not only endorsed Coffee's block of Winkelvi, but, very nearly escalated it to an indef and instead put a 0RR restriction to be applied at the moment of the blocks expiry. I am fully aware that you were opposed to Winkelvi's block, but, the portrayal of Coffee here is ... unfair at least with respect to the Winkelvi mess. Further, it's not relevant or fair to the candidate. You're assessing Dane here, not Coffee. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Ritchie. I don't discuss my votes so don't bother asking me to elaborate any further. Cassianto^Talk 18:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   That's fine, don't expect your unexplained oppose to carry any weight either then. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   He already knows. Let's just avoid giving him attention this time.--v/r - TP 18:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   Considering you were canvassed (via ping) to vote here, I don't think anyone needs elaboration. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   Match, meet gasoline.--v/r - TP 19:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   It is well established policy, as far as I can recall, that pinging is not canvassing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   If it's "well established" I imagine you will have no trouble providing us all with an actual link to where this establishment has occurred. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   Since when are all community norms written in policy? Many of our norms are de facto.--v/r - TP 20:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose It is true that the candidate registered ten years ago, but they started editing actively since June 2016. I believe more editing experience is needed to become an admin.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   Jetstreamer have you seen the last RfA? That editor's experience was not considered big enough of an issue; I think Dane's shouldn't be either, especially since Dane has five times more edits.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   @TheGracefulSlick: I opposed to that nomination for exactly the same reasons. I'm not influenced by bureaucrat decisions. I'd like people to first become an experienced editor, and then become an admin.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   Jetstreamer While I disagree, I respect that you have come to an unbiased conclusion. Just saying, I also opposed the last RfA based on the lack of experience so I understand where you were coming from.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

4. Oppose because of the circumstances around this discussion, the whole thread is archived here. When an editor went to ANI to seek an independent review of another administrator's actions, Dane proposed that he be blocked with a WP:BOOMERANG block for raising the complaint. I don't find much merit in the editor's complaint, but I don't think he was being disruptive or out of line, even after his thread was repeatedly closed in a pretty dismissive manner by other editors. The editor had a complaint, wanted some independent review of what went down, and was told that he'd be blocked if he complained about how he was treated. After a full reading of the various threads, I just don't trust Dane with the block button. Neil916 (Talk) 19:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   A very convincing oppose rationale. Care to elaborate? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   I'd rather not, certainly not in public. I understand that oppose votes without discussion doesn't seem to count, but look at all my past RFA votes. I don't think I've opposed too many. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   It's not that opposes without rationales don't "seem" to count, they actually don't count. This isn't a vote, if you don't give a reason then your opposition has no weight. If there is something compelling that should prevent this user form being an admin that you can't share publicly, you should immediately contact WP:ARBCOM about it. If it's just that you'd rather not say, that's your problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   What is your purpose in making people justify their oppose !votes? You may think it's genius to dismiss me with dickish summaries like this, but the fact is nobody has to justify anything to the likes of you and Coffee. But in the interests of impartiality, maybe you'd like to irritate those who leave one-word "support" votes as well. Cassianto^Talk 21:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   I will grant that there is at least the pretext of an explanation in your oppose as you cited another user. This person has cited "I have a reason and I'm not going to tell you what it is". It isn't that they have to explain it to "the likes of me" (but thanks for getting all condescending about it) it's that they have to explain it to the community. As I am sure you already know, it has long been held that simple supports at RFA are acceptable as they are seen as endorsing the nomination, while opposes are expected to have a rationale of some sort, and dark hints at some unspeakable problem are not sufficient. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

   One word support !votes can just as easily be disregarded without comment. It's not as if anyone is asking the pressing question of "is there a reason you're supporting that the community isn't aware of?" That's not the case with opposes, and if there is some compelling reason to question the editor's judgement that hasn't been brought to light, then it's fairly consequential whether that happens. Whether that happens to be to an ARB or directly here is less so. TimothyJosephWood 21:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• What I will call the "is a ping a canvass" discussion has been moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)