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)

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)

  A polite oppose on reasonable grounds should get the same respect and treatment as a polite support on reasonable grounds. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. I also note that RoySmith has been editing this afternoon. Hi, Roy! SerialNumber54129 17:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I am aware of this thread. I'm going to stand by my earlier statement. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks RoySmith; so to clarify, you believe that both mine and HMIJ's responses were against user conduct policies and guidelines? Could you please iterate which ones? SerialNumber54129 17:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129 Let's please not go down this road. I understand that you do not agree with my decision. I'm not trying to be a hard-ass here, but I'm not going to nit-pick about which comments were good and which were bad because whatever decision is made, somebody will think it's the wrong decision. I know it's not exactly the same thing, but perhaps meta:The Wrong Version will be useful to read. Anyway, it's a beautiful sunny afternoon here so I'm heading out on a photo expedition. Hopefully I'll have some nice birds shots to upload to commons this evening. RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  @RoySmith: You're not being a hard-ass, just in breach of adminacct: having made a decision expressly in your capacity as an administrator, you now decline to clarify what policy basis there is for that decision, even when alternative interpretations have been presented. Much as I appreciate the attempt to fob me off, I note that WRONGVERSION is a) "humorous" and b) completely and utterly irrelevant. SerialNumber54129 17:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129 I don't why you are so fixated on a reasonable oppose that clearly isn't going to change the outcome of voorts RfA. My reason for oppose was regarding the GA review, not the current discussions on Tamara (given name), in which voorts hardly participated. You are not addressing my oppose, instead, you are trying to discredit me, as an editor, due to other unrelated discussions about the Tamara article. Disengaging would be the best for you because you are on reaching the border of WP:UNCIVIL. The Blue Rider 17:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  The issue is not the oppose, the issue is the meaningful context being removed when it typically wouldn't be at RfA. I certainly wasn't trying to discredit you, but to be blunt, your oppose is quite disingenuous. It's clear there are issues with verifiably in the article given at least three other people on the talk page, aside from Voorts, have also said so. My intention was to let others draw their own conclusions, but you decided to escalate the matter by accusing me of defamation, which it obviously isn't to mention there's an ongoing dispute about the article on the talk page (clearly factually accurate).

  I'm quite disappointed the context is removed, as I believe it's contextually relevant to link your aggressive reaction and Voorts response, as well the fact that others also felt there are verifiability issues, and I don't actually understand why that context was removed except for the fact you escalated the matter. But I won't push @RoySmith on the matter further. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  We have had a problem for a while with moving germane replies to opposes to RfA talk pages. There is nothing in policy supporting it, and it's just a bad practice. I'll copy what I wrote at Elli's RfA as it basically still applies:

  As I have in the past, I object to the practice of moving replies to opposes like this to the talk page without moving the description of the !vote itself. Per the talk page header, the discussions that should be moved there are those not germane to the candidacy. That applies to disruptive/badgering replies to opposes; it does not apply to legitimate responses. It should be stated for the record here — not on the talk page — that the responses to this oppose are germane to the candidacy, in that they seek to discredit this oppose's rationale. We should not be moving discussions to talk for the sole reason that they are replies to an oppose or that we want to reduce the length of this RfA, as that elevates the opposition rationale held by one editor over the rebuttal held by almost everyone else.

  It's particularly disappointing to see this bad habit extending to RfA monitors, who have a special responsibility to know correct procedures in this area. @RoySmith, I think you have clearly erred here. Please either reverse the move or open a wider discussion to see whether guidance should be changed to support this sort of action. Sdkb ^talk 18:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have restored the on-topic replies to the discussion. As someone who has been in this position before, I can say that it is sometimes easier to just move the whole kit and caboodle rather than try to parse out which parts are relevant and which aren't while editing an active RfA page. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Until the matter is resolved, refrain from restoring and going against RoySmith's decision. The Blue Rider 18:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Roy stated they were moving a tangential discussion of a opposer's vote, I am simply restoring the not-tangential discussion. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Clearly tangential content was restored, specifically hey man im josh's comments. The Blue Rider 18:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  The interactions between you and an admin candidate seem fairly relevant. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  HMIJ comments talk about everything but my opposing reason. The Blue Rider 18:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's not your call to make. Next revert goes to WP:AN3. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Next revert they get blocked. GiantSnowman 19:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  You accuse Voorts of not understanding verifiability requirements. I believe neutrally adding context that others agree there's concerns of verifiability is, in of itself, absolutely responding to the context of your oppose. I'm sorry that you do not see it that way, but referring to that as defamation is obviously incorrect and inappropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I did not say your comment is defamation, but Tamara's discussions are not about the GA review, as so, it is irrelevant and a case of red herring. Further, people unilaterally templating me for edit warring but not the other parties alongside all other comments on this talk page it is harassment and I will be taking this into the appropriate noticeboard. The Blue Rider 18:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree it's a red herring, but I won't debate that fact with you at this time and place. Who do you want templated? The crat acting within their purview? Frankly, even if you disagree, you're pretty clearly in the wrong on that one. I disagreed with Roy but I did not edit war with them. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  They are referring to Special:Diff/1255208215 with regard to the edit warring. Primefac (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I did see that, but they said the other parties not being templated constitutes harassment, which is why I asked who they expect to be templated. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, that was probably me; my edit summaries probably indicated I was aware I was at risk of breaking 3RR, hence the lack of a formal warning. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't familiar with the "crat" terminology, if your duties as a crat is to have the final word on these matters then fine. The Blue Rider 19:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I'm back. I saw four deer and one egret. Not what I was looking for, but still a nice walk in the woods so an afternoon well spent at any rate. I see things have resolved themselves in my absence. I still think my original action was reasonable, but it's clear I'm alone on that so I bow to consensus. Thank you Primefac for handling this. RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth I don't think it was an unreasonable action (as I somewhat said above), always happy to lend a second set of eyes. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Tangent on closure-review management in general

Refactoring this material in my response to FOARP, in the "General comments" section, to the talk page instead, since not pertinent to this candidate in particular:

This problem [i.e. of closure review running off the rails] is becoming more frequent; admins who are effectively moderating the review process (i.e. assessing the consensus in the review and closing it in turn) too often fail to really observe this [i.e. that closure review exists only for determining whether the closer erred in determining consensus based on the original discussion and how well it comported with applicable P&G and sourcing]. There's a tendency to treat review as a relitigation of the original question, not as a review of original closer's judgment and behavior (or to effectively just treat it as a vote count, siding in a rather chicken way with whatever the head-count majority wants, despite the fact that those unhappy with the original close are an order of magnitude more likely to provide any input, producing WP:FALSECONSENSUS and WP:OTHERPARENT system-gaming). I don't know how to fix this, but it needs fixing. And it's not just about general (RfC and such) closure review, but also RM→MR and AFD→DRV.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any wisdom to offer about a solution, but I fully agree with this diagnosis. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)