Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Voorts

Tryptofish's comment

RfA candidates obviously have no control over what other editors say in support comments, which is why I'm placing this comment here, but I feel the need to point some things out about a support comment that was directed at me. I'm referring to this: [1]; there's also some discussion about it between SFR and me at my user talk. And I will note this: [2]. If it wasn't intended as a personal attack, I'll accept that it wasn't the intention. It might be the kind of support comment that is appropriate to direct at an oppose by a troll or an idiot. I don't think I'm a troll or an idiot, however. If we want to reduce the toxicity of the RfA process – and we should – we need to recognize that this applies also to editors who support, not just to those who oppose. A better kind of support, intended to make the same point, would be something like: "Support. I've read Tryptofish's neutral comment, and I'm not persuaded by it." That rationale passes the test of civility, but suffers from stating disagreement without explaining why. Better still would be something like "Support. I've read Tryptofish's neutral comment, and I'm not persuaded by it, because [link] and [link] are examples where that's not true." I see that the other editor is concerned that voorts might not be able to respond to the concerns that I raised, but that concern is unfounded: see Q10. Wikipedia should not be like the more toxic social media websites, and I hope editors will consider these points. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC) moved from main RFA page ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC) from the General Comments section --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

SFR, you moved this here on the grounds that it was a meta discussion, not part of the request. I guess one can distinguish between a general discussion and a meta discussion, sort of. But I am very much talking about a specific !vote in this RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Tangential discussion moved

Acting under the extended authority of WP:MONITOR ("Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors ..."), I'm moving a tangential discussion of a opposer's vote to this talk page. RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

1. linking this context here (without comment), for ease of participants: User talk:Voorts/Archive 41#Tamara (given name) review ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   In addition, it looks like there's a significant ongoing dispute between The Blue Rider and a number of other editors at Talk:Tamara (given name). Hey man im josh (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   What are you trying to imply? The Blue Rider 01:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   @The Blue Rider: HMIJ is not "trying" to "imply" anything; they are stating, as an objective, empirical fact, based on observable and presented evidence, that "it looks like there's a significant ongoing dispute" between you and the subject of this discussion. I can understand why, although I also suggest that HMIJ is being generous: since 19 October (two weeks ago—when voorts joined the discussion), you have made nearly 50 comments on that page, with around ten other editors commenting, most of whom seem to be in disagreement with you. To put it another way, you appear to be in "a significant ongoing dispute" with almost everyone there, including voorts. SerialNumber54129 12:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   HMIJ is very intentionally trying to discredit my opposing vote because of unrelated ongoing disagreements on the Tamara talk page, a classic case of a red herring. What's the issue with my 50 edits? We're working towards consensus, and claiming that the majority disagrees with me is simply blatant defamation. The Blue Rider 13:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   @The Blue Rider: Please don't use words like defamation. See WP:LEGAL for more information. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   WP:LEGAL specifically mentions the word repeatedly which is not the case here. Don't WikiWP:LAWYER me. The Blue Rider 21:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   The word "repeatedly" does not appear in WP:LEGAL... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   That's an interesting one, I wouldn't require citations for that list of notable people named Tamara. On the other hand, like voorts, I would not have passed the article at GA, and all the other issues they pointed out were entirely correct. Unfortunately the article doesn't have much chance of passing GA at present either (lack of stability). In the end, my difference of opinion with voorts here is far from a dealbreaker when it comes to adminship. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   Yes, the article would definitely be quick-failed for failing criteria 5 at the moment. It was completely abandoned when I started editing it, but since then, an array of editors has become involved, leading to a lot of drama—sigh. I understand that this may not be a dealbreaker for most people, but that's my only interaction with him, and it was negative, so my vote is going to reflect that. The Blue Rider 01:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully @RoySmith, I do think the context added by the first two levels of replies are relevant enough context that they should have stayed there. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I spent a bit of time trying to figure out what to move and what not to. In the end, I decided that the best thing would be to move it all, since that eliminated having to make judgement calls about what was relevant and what wasn't. I ask your indulgence on this. RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I recognize my bias on the matter, and don't want to push the issue too hard, but I do have concerns that the relevant context will not be seen (especially because it's not linked). Instead, I believe the better option would be to collapse the text, at the very least beyond the second level reply, though I would not push back if my comment was also collapsed (again, recognizing my bias on the matter as a nominator). I would also think leaving Ganesha811's uninvolved reply uncollapsed would also be reasonable. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind having either Ganesha's or Sawyer's comments, but yours, in my view, is completely irrelevant to my oppose. The Blue Rider 03:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• RoySmith You surely should not move all comments. Per WP:MONITOR: they must be contra user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA. The two responses to the oppose were clearly addressing the reason for the oppose and not the opposer, so there is no personalization of the dispute. At least two other editors also directly called out the oppose.
  I can't speak for the later comments, which probably fall within your remit, but mine and Hey Man I'm Josh's do not.
  The problem is, it gives the impression that Opposes are unresponadable, however misplaced they are. Note that Espresso Addict's oppose has not been queried; it is a reasonable oppose. Tryptofish looks like he may oppose (apologies for pre-emption), and judging by what he has said already, that will not be commented on; it would be a reasonable oppose. The Blue Rider's oppose was based on a dispute in which the candidate disagreed with TBR, as did several other editors.
  In other words, TBR could not persuade the candidate to their opinion then, so they oppose them now. This is an unreasonable oppose.
  It is rather unfair to Espresso Addict and anyone else who opposes on reasonable grounds to have their !vote given equal weight—as it looks now—with an unreasonable oppose. They are clearly not all the same, yet at the moment they appear to be. SerialNumber54129 13:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)