Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bluegoblin7 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutral[change source]

I have to ask since I fail to see which part of this neutral comment is not an oppose and is neutral? -Djsasso (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More to add information rather then to be counted as an oppose in the consensus process. I'm a bit conflicted out of this discussion. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I figured this was the case but I personally don't see a problem with a well thought out oppose even if you were COI'd as opposed to a "You're dumb" type statement cause you are in a battle. But I do respect your neutral. Just wanted to ask. I am sure the closing 'Crat will decide what to do with it. -Djsasso (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if you wish to oppose, then oppose. fr33kman talk 02:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can oppose, this candidate issued a request for deadminship for me. And for me to Oppose right back on his RFA is not right. I only want to show neutrality in this discussion, yet still add information for the other participants. This is not a Comment but a Neutral. I hope this does not become an issue of process, and instead we can ignore the standard in this one case so that my thought and !vote can be presented most accurately, as a matter of mutual respect of me and my fellow editors. Very best, and thoughtfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please move this comment to the comment section or to what ever. We don't work with a "neutral" section. Barras (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
0.0 Please consider allowing this per my mutual respect, accuracy, and IAR comment above. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please no section called "neutral". Please move it to comments, and all is fine. Barras (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barass I think we can all IAR on this as a special circumstance. He was told by a few admin last night that it was ok. It's up to the crat to decide if its truly neutral or an oppose or what. Lets let them do their job. -Djsasso (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Sorry? Do you mind quoting some examples? This is getting more and more confusing by the minute. Chenzw  Talk  15:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of what? Admins saying it was ok? Me and Fr33kman said it was ok on IRC...I think someone else did as well but I forget its been a few days, but I only meant it was ok in terms of NVS. Not the others, since they weren't involved in the very recent situation. -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Denied. The "comments" section does its job well of providing information to other editors participating in the discussion. Comments are neutral by default. Please do not make things different or we would have trouble with future RfAs. Thanks for your understanding. Chenzw  Talk  15:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
/shrug/ I was trying to stop drama by allowing this. But I suppose you'd rather spark more drama. Because now i object to those comments being in the comment section as they are clearly a !vote. As a crat you are free to consider them just comments of course, but during the course of the RFA they should be left as listed neutral. WP:IAR exists specifically for situations like this. -Djsasso (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, as they are votes, they shouldn't be listed there, actually. They should go to one of the sections at the top. Choice of words makes me believe that they are meant to be opposes. Chenzw  Talk  15:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually what I would say as well, but I am biased since I opposed. -Djsasso (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we will leave it to the respective editors to sort their votes out. Chenzw  Talk  15:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I had wanted to maintain neutrality... and it makes a slightly different statement to vote or comment neutral rather than comment in my culture. Abstention speaks volumes. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the English Wikipedia, we have "Support", "Oppose", "Neutral" and "Discussion" sections. Discussion sections are for general comments, but a neutral section is slightly different. Therefore, to avoid this confusion, why not have a neutral section added to the RfA template? PeterSymonds (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one, the use of "neutral" makes too many people sit on the fence. This has happened many times on EN. In addition, if we are to introduce the neutral section now, we may have to reset (or at least extend) the RfA due to the change in opinion(s) this may bring. Chenzw  Talk  15:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Vote - Blocked User[change source]

  1. I came to know of this editor from a copyright violation he was involved with on Commons (unlicenced cover version of a copyright song - some promising guitar playing but still illegal). WP:NOTNOW but perhaps later. Analysis Retentivus (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Crat Note: The user has only a few edits Special:Contributions/Analysis_Retentivus and no of these is in the main space. Barras (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned, I am mainly involved with Commons, although I recently came back from a long break for a fresh start and fresh account. Bluegoblin was involved with an infringing recording uploaded to commons (now deleted) intended for the Simple Wikpedia. Analysis Retentivus (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't change, that you have no main space edits. Therefore, your vote will probably not be counted. Less then 10 total edits. --Barras (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Analysis Retentivus (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to note that I feel it is pretty piss poor to bring a stale issue that occurred on commons onto a simple Rfa. I trust if that's all you cam here to do that you will show yourself out the way you came in. Promethean (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your contributions to commons (5 in total, 2 deleted) mainly consist of harassing 2 simple users about copy vios. I'm starting to think that you are a troll of some sort. which is why you have a brand spanking new account straight from the sock factory. [1] Promethean (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stale issue? The copyright violation was deleted about one day ago and is an ongoing issue. There are apparently already plans to reupload the file[2]. Analysis Retentivus (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not planning on mass commenting yet, but this one has caught my eye as, to be honest, a complete lie. Let me make it clear that I did not make the upload, nor plan to put it on Commons etc etc. The only thing that I have to do with said file on Commons was to correct the licensing to acknowldege that I am the one doing the drums and vocals. Please, check your facts before making false accusations. Goblin 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]
    I didn't say that you uploaded the file - that was done by Yotcmdr. You were involved and played on the infringing recording - and were clearly aware that it had been uploaded. Analysis Retentivus (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was not made clear above. And if you are that fussed about it, go sue me, please. If it's suddenly illegal in the UK to play & upload covers to the Internet then by all means, i'm sorry. But I happen to know it isn't. So meh. Not my problem, i didn't make nor request the upload, I was simply fixing the attribution after finding out about it via WP:SN. Clearly, not my fault. Goblin 20:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
    You did not upload the file. I apologise if it wasn't clear. However, it is indeed illegal to upload cover verions of copyrighted songs without a Digital Licence to use the musical composition. Analysis Retentivus (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    *Points to talk* This is probably going OT now, but I can assure you in the UK recording and uploading covers provided they have attribution is perfectly legal. And how do I know? I've gone through the whole rigmarole with school after they published covers that students did. Result: nothing illegal. Especially considering as the lyrics nor the music was identical - you can't copyright phrases (musical or otherwise). Goblin 20:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]
    Sorry - that's wrong - Music Publishing copyrights certainly exist in the UK. Analysis Retentivus (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it's not wrong, you may cover and distribute covers of a work as long as you don't charge money for it under what is known as a derivative. I actually do work within the music industry so I know this to be the case. The minute he charges money then he has to have permission. -Djsasso (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your trying to blame BG7 for a file he didn't even upload? Seems that every time you speak logic flies out the window. Promethean (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take this discussion to someone's talkpage. This is an RFA and not a general fk:Analysis Retentivus|talk]]) 20:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Actually it's not wrong, you may cover and distribute covers of a work as long as you don't charge money for it under what is known as a derivative. I actually do work within the music industry so I know this to be the case. The minute he charges money then he has to have permission. -Djsasso (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your trying to blame BG7 for a file he didn't even upload? Seems that every time you speak logic flies out the window. Promethean (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take this discussion to someone's talkpage. This is an RFA and not a general forum for what editors may or may not have done on another project. fr33kman talk 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrator note: Analysis Retentivus has been blocked for trolling. Exert 22:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed vote - ineligable user[change source]

  1. Support Slooteht Kcab Nil Bogeul Bevig (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Account created after the start of this RfA. Pmlineditor I ♥ Gobby!

Neutral section[change source]

Hello there, I have not been on IRC for some time, therefore I do not know what was talked there (and, no, I won't accept IRC logs). What I did in the case of this RfA was to move the neutral section to the comments section (I know it looks funny). We can of course talk about the benefits and drawbacks of neutral votes; but we should do so on Simple talk. In any case, such sections won't apply here, as you do not change the rules while the race is on. As to the neutral votes themselves; I leave it up to the people who wrote them, to decide whether they want them to be seen as supports or opposes. As it is now, they will not count towards any tally, no matter what they look. --Eptalon (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue much on this... I've moved my abstention to the opposition. No more issues here as far as I am concerned. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said: If you think there should be changes to the CfA, discuss on Simple talk. --Eptalon (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NVS should know this, as we decided not to have a neutral section. Voting is evil, comments sounds less like a vote. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, voting is evil. Majorly talk 17:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change the name to Commenting templates if you prefer, they're only there to help the closing admin/bureaucrat. Nothing to do with making things evil. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was not voting. If that was the case I'm sure I could have just Oppose with nothing else. However, I think I fully qualified my comment. I just wanted it disregarded by the crat when determining consensus. Do not be so forward as to assume what I do or do not know. (or should know). NonvocalScream (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion related to support comments[change source]

(Moved from the support section where this was a question to a support... #:Why? NonvocalScream (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Supporting does not require to give a reason, as it generally means "agree with promotion", so no real need to provide any further repetition. Majorly talk 19:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that an amusing comment from someone who trumpets the need to have a good reason to oppose...likewise you should have a good reason to support. -Djsasso (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a different matter. As majorly said, supporting is to agree with promotion, meaning you can't find a good reason not to support. However when you oppose you should give the reason as there is one. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree, there should always be a good reason to support. If you come to the conclusion that you see no reason not to promote, then you should not be !voting. -Djsasso (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fight it out on your talk pages. Not on my RfA please. :). Goblin 20:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
    No. This has to do with this Rfa. -Djsasso (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It clearly has not. It's to do with you and Yotcmdr's disagreement over RfA Supporting/Opposing in general. Goblin 20:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
    Actually it had nothing to do with Yot's opinion. It had to do with Majorly objecting to NVS wanting a reason for this support. I too would like to see a reason, thus it is about this Rfa. -Djsasso (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, it is fine. But above, it is clearly you and Yotcmdr having another fall out. Take /that/ to your TP please. Goblin 20:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
    Nothing to do with a fall out at all, its called discussion, which is what you are supposed to do at an Rfa. Even if people rarely do it. -Djsasso (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if one is going to make a vote at all, it is either support or oppose. Support has never, and should never, require a reason. Why should anyone have to give a reason for being positive? It's like giving somebody a promotion - we don't question it, we accept it. In this case, we have space for people to say no. Saying no is not a very nice thing to say, so it's polite and courteous to provide a reason for saying so. Supporting is pretty much always "agree with nom" so why bother to spell it out with pointless fluff "trustworthy, lots of good edits" stuff that's already going to mentioned inevitably in the nomination anyway? Majorly talk 21:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree with Majorly. If you have a look at other Rfx's, you will see supports without any comments. Why should this one be an exemption and need a reason? --Barras (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Bluegoblin7_3&oldid=8892223"