Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dane

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dane#General comments

• @Coffee: Tagging someone when you speak about them in a conservation is not canvassing. At this point, you've taken my sure support and turned it into me waiting to see how the candidate deals with one of his nominators throwing out ad hominems.--v/r - TP 19:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @TParis: Yes it is, and every time the question of "does pinging count as canvassing" has come up it has always been a yes. Surely you wouldn't let editors at AFD begin using such excuses to selectively identify particular editors which will support their side? I've always known you to be incredibly rational, so I'm willing to talk this out with you as a misunderstanding. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    • There is a difference between "Are these editors paying attention: {Ping|editor1|editor2|editor3}" and "I was in a dispute with {ping|editor1}". If you are pinging a list of editors because you want their opinion, you're canvassing. When you notify an editor that you're talking about them, that's a courtesy. If editors at AFD are gaming that system, it should be easily identifiable by a sysop.--v/r - TP 19:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
      • @TParis: I don't see where Ritchie used the ping template to refer to a dispute he had been in... what I see is an admin with a personal vendetta against me pinging two editors that he knows might not appreciate Dane becoming an admin. If you think that's acceptable here, then I'm speechless. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
        • The only conclusion I can make from your comment is that you must be too close to this RfA to be seeing this objectively. Because there is no other way to read "The drama-fest that was Talk:Noël Coward/Archive 2, where you went hammer and tongs with Cassianto and SchroCat is just still too recent, and I need to see more distance put between you and that." Ritchie is very clearly discussing an interaction between Dane, Cassianto, and SchroCat for which the later two were pinged because they are discussed within the context of the dispute which brought about Ritchie's oppose. There is no more to read there.--v/r - TP 19:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
          • We are going to have to agree to disagree then, as WP:CANVASS states nothing of the sort. I can't make you support a candidate that clearly deserves the tool if you don't want to, and I won't take back my well founded observations to try. I just hope that you change your mind. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
            • We'll see how the candidate either ignores this or how they weigh in on CAVASS - that'll influence my decision.--v/r - TP 19:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
              • Pinging is not canvassing, QED. If it is, then the policies need to be rewritten. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Both positions are defensible, for the simple reason that whether or not it is canvassing is context-specific. Pings certainly can be used to canvass like-minded persons to comment in a discussion, so the discussion is rather whether or not that is what happened here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

May I politely suggest moving this entire discussion to the talk page? You've mentioned the candidate a couple times here, but I don't think this is doing much for assessing their suitability for the mop at this point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I concur. Moved. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You two are more concerned with and believe it is more disruptive to discuss an ad hominem attack than that actual attack itself? Wikipedians...--v/r - TP 21:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

TParis, personally, I was more concerned with the fact that this discussion has nothing to do with Dane's RFA. Some of the threads in the Oppose section could probably be hatted as well, but I'm waiting to see if any of them turn truly sour. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well there is no more to discuss on this subject, but I'm likely going to oppose Dane if they ignore the thread. So it was better for them if it was on the main page.--v/r - TP 22:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems... rather extreme. Primefac (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It literally has nothing to do with Dane, so why is he obligated to respond? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It has everything to do with Dane. Their nominator has run amok. If they ignore that, how can I expect them to police other admins as an admin? I can't. He'll be another one of the good ol' boys.--v/r - TP 22:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It's true that there are plenty of academic reasons why a candidate might be expected to distance themselves from RfA participants causing trouble, but let's not get carried away... Dane has no control over the actions of other people. While an inflammatory response from Dane would be concerning, I think "ignoring" drama is a perfectly valid course of action, and it's certainly one that we use as admins every day. What would you expect from Dane beyond a hollow and insincere plea of "Hey, cut that out"? Demanding, under threat of an oppose, that the candidate disavow the actions of someone with whom you've had a dispute seems unfair to everyone. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point about ignoring drama. Fair enough.--v/r - TP 22:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What seems to be lost in all this is that Cassianto apparently wasn't logged-in when he came to the RfA. How could he have received a ping under those conditions? Lepricavark (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: I thought the same thing at first... then I remembered most users have it set up to email them. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspected it might be that. Thanks for clearing that point up. Lepricavark (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Lepricavark...What's with your use of "apparently"? I don't see the ambiguity. Cassianto^Talk 13:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(←) This seems an unreasonable position to take. It's a matter of common sense as to whether pinging constitutes canvassing—it depends on the intent, obviously, and can only be judged on a case by case basis. If one opposes an RfA, and unnecessarily pings another editor who was in a dispute with the nominee and will likely oppose as well, I don't understand how you can say it's objectively not canvassing. Per AGF, the default assumption should be that canvassing was not the intent, but surely you could see why one might view such a move as suspect—especially if the pinged user comes in and opposes "per pinger" and states that they will not be elaborating further. Again, not saying Ritchie willfully violated policy, but surely you can see how that looks like canvassing. Further, getting into a spat at RfA over something unrelated to the candidate is lame, but actually expecting the candidate to jump into your dispute is ridiculous. Getting involved in any sort of dispute in your own RfA is about the stupidest thing a candidate could possibly do. Any candidate with a temperament fit for adminship is not going to do such an insanely outrageous thing—talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Finally, suggesting that a candidate is somehow responsible for their nominator at RfA is not only an unprecedented fringe position for RfA, but it's a cruel, unfair burden to place on a good faith community member. Dane's already going through enough stress without his supporters attacking him over something he literally has no control over. That's actually a level of harshness I never thought I'd see out you, TP. We're just friggin' volunteers who do this as a hobby, we're not responsible for the actions of other users on this website any more than we're responsible for the actions of strangers in real life. Swarm ♠ 05:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought Cassianto was indef-blocked! I see it was only a month now, and it expired. In any case, I have left a note on Dane's talk, saying I have confidence he will probably pass the RfA anyway, and he has taken it in good grace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm:: If you believe pinging two editors in the context of discussing their participation in a dispute with an RfA candidate is canvassing, then my next question is "to what end?" Are two people who share that view going to sway an RfA when all recent RfAs generally have over 150 !voters? That seems like an extreme point of view, objectively. Coffee's view is that pinging is canvassing every time despite that many folks, including you, have said it depends on the context. I really don't see the point of "canvassing" two editors in a discussion with over 150. I see a lot of point of notifying two editors when you're talking about them. Regarding your further point, I believe I've already conceded much of that to Julian. This dispute started with me trying to deescalate what I still view as an unsupported ad hominem attack by Coffee during an RfA. While I admit my role in actually escalating it, I also believe that the community's inability to challenge a 'friend' who makes an ad hominem is also at fault. I've got a Signpost I'll be writing that will be touching on that subject.--v/r - TP 12:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Swarm...maybe you'd care to remind Lepricavark what assuming good faith is about as apparantly, I was logged out at the time of my !vote. Any halfwit can see I commented whilst accidentally logged out. Cassianto^Talk 13:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a Featured Article review. No need to analyze every single word. Lepricavark (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realise snark is only limited to FAC, Lepricavark. Cassianto^Talk 13:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

My point was that you don't need to analyze my comments in the way you would scrutinize the text of a Featured Article candidate. At any rate, perhaps you might explain what perturbs you about my use of the word apparently. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"Apparantly" introduces doubt. What are you doubting? Cassianto^Talk 13:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

For one thing, I couldn't send the suppressed diffs. For another, you might have received the ping and then logged out to make it seem like you hadn't. That's obviously a dubious and far–fetched theory, and it's not what I believe happened. Does that answer your question? Lepricavark (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not summonsed by a fucking ping. For god's sake, this shitfest is becoming an avalanche. I watch another editors page and they have the RfA counter. That is how I was alerted. Now will you all move on. Cassianto^Talk 14:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto, this is why. Somebody made a comment or vote just prior to your own, they had been logged out and their IP address was suppressed. (Or rather I think) Lepricavark assumed it was yours. Mea culpa, I misread. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Cassianto was the individual who was logged out, and he logged back in to sign his !vote. Lepricavark (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I was. I really don't know why you're trying to make this into a big thing. Cassianto^Talk 13:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

How am I making this into a big thing? I made an observation, got a response, and moved on hours ago. Then you challenged me, and essentially accused me of failing to assume good faith, and now I'm responding to your challenge. I really don't know why you're trying to make this into a big thing. Lepricavark (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Right! Stop that! It's far too silly! Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

Will y'all stop bickering, click here, find an article, and add a source to it. You'll feel much better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)