Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sdkb: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) →Ensuring an accurate tally: comment - copyedit |
Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) →Ensuring an accurate tally: comment - typo |
||
Line 72:
::::{{tq|They chose to oppose the candidate}} Well, no, they've chosen to make some comments that happen to appear in the oppose section, but from a plain and straightforward reading don't actually express any opposition to the candidate. {{tq|Whether or not it's actual expressed opposition to the candidate is besides the point.}} I would say it's absolutely the point – the entire purpose of an RfA is for other editors to express their views on whether the candidate is suitable for adminship or not. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 16:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
:RFA is not a vote; it is a consensus-building process. The numeric tally acts as a visual metric of the progress of the RFA and a guide for the bureaucrats, but at the end of the day the user will either be an admin or not, regardless of the specific percentage shown on the page. As such, we do not need to "adjust" the numbers because someone decided to throw in a joke !vote or put in a meritless Oppose. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
:I understand that [[User:Teratix|Teratix]]'s suggestion to adjust the tally is unlikely to be accepted, and the two !votes also probably won't be struck. That outcome is understandable, as a matter of allowing this dispute to die out rather than perpetuating it and since it obviously doesn't come close to affecting the result. I can certainly live with this outcome as a matter of practicality; but for what it's worth, I think that if considered as a pure matter of logic, Teratix's position would have merit. The two !votes are questionable not because they are poorly reasoned oppose votes, but because they are ''not'' oppose votes in any meaningful sense. Regards, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
| |||