Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ganesha811

Sdrqaz's oppose

1. Part of being a candidate at RfA is having demonstrable competence in areas in which you intend to work, to allow for proper community scrutiny. Part of being an administrator is knowing your limitations.
   The candidate's first area of interest is page protections, but their last five requests go back over a year and last three go back eight months. Their penultimate request was for a page that had only experienced recent disruption from a single IP. Before that IP, the last disruption was over a month prior.
   Another area of interest is blocking vandals, but their track record is also unfortunately thin: the last five requests go back 11 months and last three go back over eight months. Their last report from March involved calling an IP a "vandalism-only account" after the IP was reverted by ClueBot NG once. That IP had received no other recent warnings. The report before that was for an IP that hadn't edited in over a day and had received no warnings.
   While it is commendable that they believe that "administrators should help out where they feel comfortable, and where they do not, spend time learning the ropes like any other editor", I have significant doubts over whether the candidate can follow core policies in areas they wish to work. I unfortunately cannot support. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to talk page Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

   The IP 163.47.50.46 (talk · contribs) does appear to be a school with a yearslong pattern of vandalism; if I saw a report like that at AIV I would likely block for several years. I am also reminded of this sentence from Ritchie333's essay on adminship: Any editor who has written two featured articles can walk up to the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard and address reports there successfully without having ever filed a single one themselves. Ganesha is an experienced editor and I have no doubt they will be able to successfully help out in these areas. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

   That essay doesn't seem to have worked in this instance, given that the candidate would've blocked the other IP that hadn't edited in over a day. The AIV report would certainly have been addressed, but I'm not sure about "successfully". My issue isn't just inexperience in administrative areas – it is that looking through their existing track record, these fundamental policies are not being followed enough. The community deserves administrators that know those policies well, especially since the candidate wants to work in those areas. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

   @Sdrqaz, there is a difference between filing an AIV report and actually blocking a user. I would think the candidate would be more cautious when actually blocking. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

   I would certainly hope so too, but based on the current evidence, it's unclear. It is a common practice that anyone who makes a report at AIV is requesting a block; I think it's reasonable to assess them based on their AIV reports if they're planning on working there. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

   Question regarding Another area of interest is blocking vandals, but their track record is also unfortunately thin -- how... exactly does a non-admin get experience in blocking vandals? _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

   By making reports at AIV, just like how non-administrators get experience with CSD by tagging pages for speedy deletion and how they get experience with protections by requesting them at RfPP. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

   FWIW, the second to last RfPP request in question ended with the page being protected (albeit for PC protection instead of semi) by Ymblanter. VickKiang (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

   This was the edit that Ganesha811 reported. To be honest, if I saw a diff like that, I would revert block for at least 24 hours as "vandalism" with no other comment, per WP:RBI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, based on the persistent but infrequent vandalism I probably would've protected too (probably PC too though rather than the semi requested). Galobtter (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

   I concur Itisi5 (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Moving opposes

Comment I wish editors would stop this fussing with oppose ivotes. Moving discussion here seems like an attempt to sideline. How about moving the nonsense/banter which has nothing to do with ivoting like General comments? There is no rule about this constant meddling with the oppose discussion but maybe there should be. Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

100/100. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree fully. It seems like an attempt to conceal any opposition. Is there another reason for moving to talk? Nikolaih^☎️📖 14:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Per the header at the top of the talk page here, the discussions that should be moved here are those not germane to the candidacy. That's a set that often overlaps with (badgering/disruptive) replies to opposes, but that's not what's happening here, and we should not be moving discussions to talk for the sole reason that they are replies to an oppose. I'd ask @Ritchie333 to please undo the move. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems ok to me to move big comment threads to the talk page. Kind of like a WP:SPINOUT. I also think that it may "benefit" the oppose vote a bit by downweighting all the badgering. I am definitely not convinced it is disadvantageous for the oppose voter to have all the badgering put on a different page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)