Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thewolfchild (talk | contribs) at 23:47, 11 March 2019 (→RfB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user knows that there is no dark side of the moon really — matter of fact it's all dark.

RfB

That is a ridiculous oppose and you know it. Just a link () and a sig. It doesn't matter if there is an edit summary, everybody shouldn't be expected to go scouring through the history to find and match up the edit with !vote to see if there was summary. The explanation should be in the !vote anyway, not buried in the page history. Regardless if you think or personally feel my response was "crude" or not, the analogy was apt and on point. You can't just remove responses now because you dont like them... there is already enough problems with this process as it is. You should self-revert, my response is just as valid as the others. (More-so in some cases). - wolf 15:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Added note; I had it my mind that you had said the edit summary explained the diff, in your edit summary. But now I see that I was mistaken, as there was no edit summary to explain the 'oppose'. The "diff thing" you mentioned does not explain the 'oppose' either. This makes my comment even more appropriate and your removal less so. Please put my comment back. Thank you. - wolf 16:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The diff to which I was referring was the one posted on the oppose line, not the edit summary.

You are welcome to submit a fresh comment that doesn’t call another editor’s position “a pile of dog shit” . This is not appropriate for the venue. As far as explaining the oppose- it’s perfectly clear with the diff provided: DeltaQuad, an an arbitrator, chose to oppose an admonition for a bureacrat action that ignored rules. The participant is entitled to use that to make presumptions about how the candidate would act as a bureaucrat in a similar context.

From a purely strategic standpoint, pulling this explanation out of the opposer does more harm to the candidate’s chances than good. –xeno 21:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

My original post was; "What is with these bizarre opposes? No explanation, no context. Just sitting there... kinda like a dog just shat on the carpeting and left". It was a passive analogy and certainly an appropriate one, when looking at the !vote; "opppose sig". No explanation what-so-ever. Your assertion that I called the !vote "a pile of dog shit" is incorrect and misleading, hopefully not intentionally, but you should strike and re-phrase with a proper, correct quote.

The !vote tells us nothing. So, to try and understand the reasoning for the oppose, we're forced to look at the Arbcom case; Three admins went a little nuts at an Arbcom election with the first admin doing some pretty stupid stuff, the second and third admins kept blocking him, but he kept unblocking himself, all the while they're all edit warring with each other. Finally a Crat steps in and IAR de-sysops the first admin. The Crat then starts an Arbcom case to report his actions. The first admin gets nailed; desysop + admonishment. The other admins are warned. The Crat however gets a free pass. Only 1 of 11 Arbs voted to de-crat him. There was also a vote to admonish him, but it failed 3 to 8.

The candidate, DQ was one of the 8 and it's her vote that is linked in this RfB. It tells us nothing. Nothing at all about why the !voter feels DQ would be incompetent or disruptive as a Crat. There is obviously a history here we're not aware of and it has no legitimate relevance to this 'oppose'. The contributor might as well as posted "Oppose - because I don't like her (sig)". Which would've been removed as disruptive, just as the current, actual 'oppose' should be removed.

You advised I could post another reply. I did, hoping to solicit an actual reason for the 'oppose'. They replied, but it is one step above "Lorum ipsum...". It's nonsense. Basically, because of DQ's vote noted above, in the majority of the 8-3 decision to decline admonishing Maxim the IAR-desysop'ing-Crat, she believes that DQ doesn't have "the proper temperament or ability to gauge community consensus to be a bureaucrat". What a pile of dogshit.

"From a purely strategic standpoint, pulling this explanation out of the opposer does more harm to the candidate’s chances than good." - I'm not trying to dismiss 'oppose' !votes of candidates I support. I just think that all opposers should be able to provide solid reasoning, with diffs, that show either a pattern of problems, or a singular problem that is so egregious, that the candidates is likely to be incompetent or purposefully abusive and/or disruptive. If an opposer can clearly demonstrate that, then it should be added to the RfA/B for everyone to see, regardless if I supported or even nominated the candidate. If they can't, their !votes should be removed from the page until they can. From a purely practical standpoint, we absolutely should be pulling explanations out of opposers that are clear or lack proof in their entries, regardless of how it affects the results. - (oh, and sorry about the length) - wolf 08:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

”Passive analogy” or not, the tone and composition of your contributions are coming very close to badgering other participants and I think if your goal is to see a fresh bureaucrat appointed you would do well to simply let the discussion run its course at this point. If your goal is a thorough examination of the candidate, you could also bolster your support with actual evidence and arguments in support of the candidacy rather than simply “per all above” which does not advance the discussion much. You may not personally feel the participant’s reasoning is sound (that a single IAR desysop is "egregiously disruptive") but they are free to draw the conclusions that they’ve drawn. And in my opinion, the original oppose with the diff stood on its own but one can seek elucidation without the invective. –xeno 10:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC) (add 12:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC))

The point is, Crazynas didn't "draw any conclusions"... they just posted a diff. If people are going to oppose a candiadate, the least they can do is provide some kind of explanation or rationale. (I would suggest a reasonable explanation, like Samsara has with oppose #6, but if they can't, then at least post a ridiculous explanation, such as "opposing out of revenge", like Foxnpichu has, so at least people have an idea of what the oppose is about.) But to just post a link to a diff, with no context, forcing everyone to read though an entire Arb case and decipher their intent, is patently absurd.

But you're ok with that, and at the same time you're attacking my !vote...? I "examined the candidate", as I do at all requests before giving my support or opposing them. Why would you assume otherwise? My entry is #97... what is there to say? "I support per above", as in, "I agree with the 96 people that supported ahead of me". Some supporters haven't even posted that, just simply "support". But even then, it has been widely accepted that 'support' !votes don't need explaining. They are supporting the candidate, based on their nom and/or their answers to the questions and/or their history. When you have an acceptable candidate with plenty of support, then it's the 'opposes' that need to be explained and supported with facts.

But seriously, if you're going to police that page, then police that page. You have an admin posting repeated personal attacks, even reinstating them after redaction. You have people posting comments following 'oppose' !votes that have nothing to do with with that !vote and at last look, some guy threatening to abuse user talk page warning templates, with an obvious intent to create a chilling effect on any replies they disagree with. You've removed my post. It seems you have some more work to do, if want to appear to be impartial and only looking out for the integrity of RfB process. - wolf 23:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for changing my user name to my nickname.

Thank you for changing my user name to my nickname.

I want English articles to be sent to me regularly for editing.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Ozojie (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome Joseph Ozojie, if you are looking for articles to edit you should consider joining a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject, perhaps Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Music. –xeno 13:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)