Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Werdna648 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Werdn648 treats RFA like a vote

Kim, over the last few days Werdna648 repeatedly refers to oppose comments in a way that is the opposite of what you stated.

1. From answer to last RFA question on this diff. [1]

2. From Werdna's comment from KillerChihuahua talk page:

The only comment that was in response to the original opposition was "I'd like to see you come back and explain this opposition, as I consider it rude to oppose without an explanation. Additionally, I'd like to point out that the reason why we expect explanation from oppose voters is because one oppose voter cancels out five support voters effectively, as these days you need 80% consensus to pass. Werdna (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC) [2]

3. This comment is from Werdna's subpage. [3]

Opposing with no reason, or a nonsensical reason, such as "No.". This type of opposition is frankly rude, arrogant and uncivil. and essentially strikes down 5 support voters without giving the candidate any information about why the opposition has been made.

I cannot see any evidence to validate your reason for supporting Werdna648 nom. Regards, FloNight ^talk 22:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested to know how you found that subpage of mine. Additionally, I'd like to point out that what I've said is absolutely true. Given the fact that the bureaucratic discretion zone runs from 75 to 80 percent, it is necessary to have at the very least three times as many support voters as oppose voters, with only having four times as many supporters as opposers giving a pretty much guaranteed promotion. It is a sad fact of life that RfA is currently measured "by the numbers" and without regard to the validity of arguments given. This is something I'd like to see change, and my current (admittedly process-creepy and long-winded) proposal for a replacement of this proposal can be found on this subpage. Werdna (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't you know how to access this? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that page, but unaware of why FloNight would casually access this. Werdna (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I look at RFA noms closely before I support or oppose. I make my comment based on the users whole record not an single incident.

FYI, Lupin/popups tool makes it easy to examine the full record of an user. Subspaces, called space with the tool, is at the top of the tools's list under user. FloNight ^talk 14:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"I make my comment based on the users whole record not an single incident.". I hate to be cynical, but you could have fooled me. I haven't seen any justification for your position (which, I concede, you have not apparently expressed on the actual RfA). I have possibly two black marks on my record. The HRE thing, and the no thing. The no thing has been exaggerated, taken out of context, and blown way out of proportion. I seriously doubt that these two incidents - call them errors in judgement if you like - over a full year and 2700 edits is really worth the amount of trouble that you and many others have gone to in order to have this nomination fail. And I think it's ridiculous that I can request explanation for a vote, be called a stupid troll, give a slightly badly worded advice that the offender may be blocked, have hostile edit summaries directed at me, and be accused of "abuse", "harrassment" and many other patently ridiculous things. And after all that, Duncharris hasn't even had a slap on the wrist, and I have to deal with this crap. That's not right, and it shows fundamental flaws in the way RfA works. That is the reason for the subpage you describe, and much of the reason for my cynicism of the RfA process. Werdna (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)