Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cullen328

This is an RfA talk page.

While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Glitch in the automated tally?

The bot tally lists him as having one "neutral" !vote. But there is no such !vote. Is it counting things in the "Comments" section? --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this has been noticed in a few RfAs now. If there is a hash (#) with no text beside it in the "Neutral" section, and if there is text in the "General comments" section, which is right below the "Neutral" section, the bot will tally up 1 neutral !vote that doesn't exist. Removing the hash symbol in the neutral section fixes the error. Mz7 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: But where did that hash come from in the first place? — fortunavelut luna 18:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Up until May 2017, the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections all contained a hash symbol at the very start of an RfA (before anyone votes), presumably for the convenience of the first voter in that section. On 24 May 2017, those preloaded hash symbols were removed from Template:RfA, precisely to avoid the bot getting confused as it did here. In this particular RfA, I can see that it did start with no hash symbols in any section, but Ritchie333, the first voter, went ahead and added them in anyway. It's not a big deal; the fix is to just remove the hash. Mz7 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put them in for the reasons Mz7 said, and obviously remembering it from older RfAs I set up - I didn't realise it would cause the bot to hiccup. :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really considering scraping all of the bot's code and rebuilding it without Peachy. The code is so old and antiquated. Believe it or not the Tally bot code is mostly the original from X!.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked anything is using my original code anymore..... Please tell me at least the edit counter's been rewritten? (X! · talk) · @240 · 04:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Windows API still uses UINT __stdcall WndProc( HWND hWnd, UINT msg, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam ) and you still have to pass the (now completely useless) HINSTANCE hPrevInstance in your main function - after 32 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:300

You heard it here first :) — fortunavelut luna 17:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well we hit WP:RFX100 in 16 hours, so it's possible. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now at 205. Still almost 4 1/2 days left. We can do it! —MRD 20 14 01:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's RfAs like these where screaming "Second!" and being the second !voter has meaning. :p—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If others accuse you of being too childish, you can just say, "Er, I was just seconding the nomination statement. Yes, that's what I was doing."

Mz7 (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I'll be calling the crats for a crat chat so, we get more pile-on support votes during the chat lol. :D KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to remind Cullen328 that his RfA is far from over. If he gets at least 126 oppose votes in the next 3.5 days, his RfA will fail. Just sayin'. —CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] :p — fortunavelut luna 08:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to comment further when this process is over. For now, I am grateful for and humbled by the support to date. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may do, but I doubt it; can someone who can be arsed to go back through the latest successful RfAs find out the last time we even had a total of 300 participants (however they voted) for one? None of the four successful most recent ones on the leader board had more than 207 participants in total- most ~180. It's certainly interesting statistically. — fortunavelut luna 08:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2 had exactly 300 !votes. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz had 281. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing had 280. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oshwah 2 had 272. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Nevermind though, they're still good tallies. — fortunavelut luna</sp an> 11:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking like this will break WP:300. With my outrageous jealousy on the matter, does anyone object to me socking 300 oppose votes into the RfA? Alternatively I could just delete the 300 support votes and convert them all into outrageous oppose votes. :p What say you Cullen328? Wanna spice things up a bit?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are joking, because if you pull that stunt you'll get desysopped. While it's nice to see that Cullen328's support is so widespread, it's not worth gaming the system just for some number. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Im a way, I think a more significant milestone is reaching 299 !votes- and actually winning. Unlike getting the biggest ******* number in the history of the project and still losing :D man, that took some panache. — fortunavelut luna 14:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I'm disappointed. You should know me well enough to know that I am joking. ;) :p—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

300th Support !vote logged at 19:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC) -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite MusikAnimal's attempt to grab the glory :) Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is more glorious than being the first, second, and third supporters in such a momentous RfA. ;)—CYBERPOWER (Around) 21:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And every multiple of 11... —Paleo Neonate - 21:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I shamelessly tried to hijack the 300th vote =P I had the tab open occasionally hitting refresh throughout the day, and I missed my opportunity :( — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My question

First time I've ever asked a question at an RfA. Wasn't sure if it belonged in the top section or bottom. Feel free to fix if I got it wrong. Thank you, Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things look OK to me, Figureofnine. I hope that I answered to your satisfaction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You bet. Thank you, and (premature) congratulations. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfX report glitch

@Enterprisey: it would your report tool is think Jo-Jo's !vote is an oppose !vote. Can you look into this?—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same bug from above, except with the extra hash in the "Oppose" section instead of the "Neutral" section. I guess it's really good at tripping up bots :) Anyway, fixed, thanks for pointing it out! Enterprisey (talk!) 05:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

284!

This is getting to be like cheering on a sports team. "Cullen, Cullen, he's our man - if he can't do it, no one can!" --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much support that even with the one oppose vote the support percentage still rounds up to 100. Mz7 (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently on 99.66% support, which (assuming the MediaWiki template parser uses the stock PHP rounding algorithm) will round up. With just 8 more !votes required in 32 hours, I'd say hitting the mythical 300 is possible. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

296!!! --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Proposed That this RfA be immediately closed per IAR and WP:SNOW when it reaches 299 supporting votes. (ducking!) -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You ducked too late! --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna rustle up 89 oppose votes real quick...--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

328 for 328

A truly grand achievement would be reaching 328 supports, per Cullen's alias. Go for it! — JFG ^talk 17:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And where was my 678 support votes during my RfA? :p—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen for president!

Do I have a second? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected." - William Tecumseh Sherman. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*then, she gets a campaign poster that read "CULLEN FOR ADMINISTRATOR, MAKE WIKIPEDIA GREAT AGAIN!!"* Well yes it's only one day left before this RFA closes. :P KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 19:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ihardlythinkso's oppose

Oppose. Sorry, the candidate posts to Drmies's talk page that Drmies is a "good administrator" immediately following Drmies calling an editor an "idiot" and telling the editor to "Fuck off". (I must have a higher expectation for admins. It seems to me that it isn't a trivial self-control issue, it's intentional. That's not acceptable from anyone who wants or wants to hold onto the bit, and neither is commending an admin after such a display.) Also about the cherished issue of maintaining a "pristine RfA" (one w/ all supports, zero opposes), please stop helping me lose my dinner. (Have seen more than one pristine RfA where the admin ends up desysopped, and *none* of the orig RfA supporters were around at Arbcom to post either in support or regret. So tell me again the value? As far as I'm concerned, it's a bad sign, having to do with something like groupthink, which is usually flawed, producing things something like systemic bias. Unanimity isn't possible here if truth be told. There are too many editors for that. So my guess is it's simple fear to be the sore thumb that accounts.) --IHTS (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
←moved from RfA page for being too long.

So you do have any diffs for what you are saying? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 06:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I think the "good administrator" comment in question is this one: [2]. The "idiot" and "fuck off" comments were ~~both afterwards~~: [3] [4]. I'll agree that that's not really a good way for admins to interact with others, but the user in question was blocked for sockpuppetry shortly afterwards, so obviously not deseerving of much sympathy. And to find Cullen "guilty by association" is quite far-fetched to me. Whatever rocks your boat though, we're all entitled to an opinion. — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Entitled to opinion? Acc. to the nom, I can't have one: "Any oppose votes that come now will be blatant blind bad faith. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)". --IHTS (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here? — fortunavelut luna 10:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're evaluating the candidate, not Drmies and not the noms. Find a reason to oppose the candidate if you're so desperate to oppose. Kudpung seems to have been pre-emptively correct though, you're guilt by association oppose is in bad taste, if not bad faith. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Drmies transgressions were after Cullen's comment, and your oppose is based partly on Kudpung putting his foot in his mouth, it just seems unsavory to me. Now that you know Cullen's judgement/comment was before Drmies went off on the editor, is your opinion truly that Cullen won't make a good admin? Can you say in good faith that your oppose is purely about something that Cullen did? What was it then, since it can't be the Drmies incident, now that we have more info? If you really feel that way, ok, it is your right to oppose. But if you are punishing him because of Drmies or Kudpung, that just isn't right, and not something I'm used to seeing from you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Amakuru might want to check those date stamps, I'd say the Drmies comments were before rather than after Cullen. But for me, an event over four years ago is not indicative of future behaviour, unless there are diffs to show an ongoing and recently occurring pattern. What I'm seeing is an isolated incident four years and four months ago. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, apologies. Thanks for pointing that out, WSC. They were indeed before, and I've struck the bit saying they were after. — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...I... ...Exactly... ...How... long... did you have to look to find a diff of one time they said it was okay to say "fuck" ...four years ago? TimothyJosephWood 10:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This diff–less oppose is clearly not about the candidate, but simply another chance for IHTS to have a go at Drmies. It is petty, spiteful, vindictive, and altogether unsurprising. I agree with Cullen that Drmies is a good administrator, but that's really not up for debate here despite the underhanded efforts to the contrary. Regardless of whether Kudpung should have said what he did, this is in fact blatant bad faith, though it is not blind since IHTS knows exactly what he is doing. If this is all that this person can muster as grounds for opposing the candidate, it merely confirms Cullen's worthiness to be an admin. In the spirit of telling the truth, something that IHTS claims to value, I think that IHTS's oppose would be much more honest if he had written: "I'm opposing because someone I don't like said something mean to a sock four years ago and one of this person's friends acted like a friend." Silly. Lepricavark (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing those diffs, that oppose just doesn't make any sense. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 12:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your morning coffee

Quote from IHTS's user page: "Warning! This user functions at a sub-optimal level before their morning coffee". —Paleo Neonate - 20:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, and admittedly surprisingly, it turns out that the first discussion above was productive. But I digress. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little late to this discussion. Frankly I think the opposer does raise a valid point in a vague and off-putting way, and it goes to my question re civility by longtime users and admins. It would be nice if Cullen could address that issue further, based upon the exchange cited, though my support is firm. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check - What fantasy world are you living in? Why would an admin candidate who's got a 289-1 margin in favor need to explain the self-evidently true observation that Drmies is a good admin? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Cullen addressed my question, and quite thoughtfully, explains why he is about to break 300 to just one oppose. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was focusing on the language utilized by that admin and whether it is acceptable for admins and WP:VESTED users, going back to my question on whether slack should be cut for admins and longtime users, "good" or otherwise, to engage in abuse. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you deserve an answer, Figureofnine. It is no secret that Drmies is friend of mine and I am convinced that he is a good administrator. I made that comment as a friendly gesture because I noticed that he was getting exasperated at the disruptive and combative behavior by the now blocked sockmaster. I do not think that Drmies is perfect and I doubt he would disagree. Yes, Drmies should have characterized the other editor's behavior instead of using the word "idiot". I did not look at the edit summaries back then so was unaware of the "fuck off" until the other day. I do not and will not use that type of language, though I understand the frustration that Drmies felt. The purpose of my remark was to reduce his frustration at that moment, not to endorse his choice of words. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's an appreciated clarification. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and BTW, I think IHTS should put his money where his mouth is and specify those multiple "pristine" RfA's where the admin ended up being de-sysopped, because I think he's blowing smoke up our collective asses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find this one, which I guess is the one referred to. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this count?: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Toddst1 --IHTS (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 3 --IHTS (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1 had his problems.But he wasn't desysopped.Winged Blades^Godric 11:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only technically. — fortunavelut luna 12:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! The wiki-break was timed to perfection! No stain on the logs!Winged Blades^Godric 13:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, quite :) — fortunavelut luna 13:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, um, any examples of RfAs from less than nine years ago? This isn't an ancient history class. Lepricavark (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, if the question had specified a time limit, that would be a fair point; but it didn't, so IHTS's responses were accurate as far as their parameters went. — fortunavelut luna 15:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If IHTS can't provide a better rationale for his oppose, he's the one who doesn't have a point. But I think we know that already. Lepricavark (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well; taking someone else's comment in someone else's RfA slightly less personally would be a start :D — fortunavelut luna 15:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Lepricavark (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I almost never challenge an oppose !vote at RfAs, even if I think they are wrong. That's because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But that cuts both ways. So, while I respect IHTS' right to their vote, in this instance I think it is so off-base that it needs to be called out. After reading the above thread as well as the hatted one, I believe this vote is not merely wrong, but the supporting rational is so weak that it might fairly be called frivolous. I would encourage IHTS to take a deep breath, rethink this, and consider striking their vote. In my experience if I am standing alone and a large numbers of highly experienced editors are all telling me that I'm wrong, it most likely means that I am. Showing contempt for that kind of solid consensus absent an incredible rational, might lead reasonable people to question an editor's basic capacity to form good judgements and even their motive. Anyways, your vote is your own. but that's my 2 cents. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ad Orientem. Thank you Cullen--I know you are a kinder and more diplomatic person than I am, and I hope you will forgive me for having said "fuck off" to an editor who threw antisemitic comments around. It's worth reading this comment for some background (and the accusation that Bushranger and MQS are Jews and therefore treated this editor unkindly), and this very friendly note by another editor, where you'll find that I had actually unblocked that editor (after socking and disrupting). So yeah, that editor had worn out their welcome a long time ago--thanks, IHTS, for the memories. Cullen, I have no doubt you will make a much better admin than I ever was or will be. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Love your "Admins-can-ignore-WP:CIV-and-WP:NPA-if-the-person-on-receiving-end-deserves-it" argument. Those policies don't apply to admins because they can get away with it: breaking ranks to call out another admin is verboten (the burden falls to reg editors if done at all), and Arbcom requires a ton of flesh before deciding anything is actionable. My !vote is against the inertia to add more admins like Cullen who won't say anything, the culture grows stronger, but in the wrong direction. (Or, dispense w/ the policies and/or the expectation admin behavior is at higher standard.) p.s. Cullen, you say you "didn't see" the editsum containing "Fuck off", but what's the point, you're suggesting your msg to Drmies w/ have been substantively different had you seen!? And about one-offs/isolated vs repeated, you're a friend of Drmies & watch his Talk page, so surely you've seen the half dozen or so times Drmies has told this editor to "Fuck off" in editsum. And when admin friends collectively brewed ill about me, you were happy to pile on w/ a totally unfair & insulting dig. (You later apologized for it, but *much* later, and only after developments different from my bringing it to your immediate attention.) So my !vote goes beyond a one-off, as explained, the issue is darker than that. --IHTS (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The strawman distortion fools nobody and your failure to provide diffs leads me to believe you aren't interested in substantiating your claims, choosing instead to merely lob accusations and make vague, semi-coherent, rambling statements. If you really have a point, you should be able to communicate it in a reasoned manner. You can't because you don't. You're simply trying to get even and grasping at straws in an attempt to make your position seem sensible. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let it go, folks. His vote is his vote, his opinion is his opinion. Arguing with him just clutters up this beautiful RfA - and is TOTALLY out of character with the person being honored here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment I'm going to suggest we drop this particular WP:STICK. Once it becomes clear that you are talking to a brick wall further discussion no longer strikes me as a productive use of time. Clearly the community has passed its judgement both on Cullen and the sole opposing vote. It's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering glitch

Samsara withdrew their support which is their right, and I responded to their concern. Somehow, the !vote count got messed up, and subsequent votes started with #1. Can someone help clean this up? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever fixed it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been Xeno. Basically, numbering requires all lines to start with #, even those with comments. Regards So Why 13:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]