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)

   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)