Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Daffy123

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.

Daffy123

Generated using XTools on 2019-06-22 17:59

General statistics

User ID	11806964
Registration date	2010-02-28 15:32
User groups	extended confirmed user, rollbacker, autoconfirmed user
Is administrator?	0
First edit	2010-03-17 15:45
Latest edit	2019-06-22 10:44
Live edits	2,297 (98.8%)
Deleted edits	27 (1.2%)
Total edits	2,324
Edits in the past 24 hours	3
Edits in the past 7 days	27
Edits in the past 30 days	42
Edits in the past 365 days	490
Average edits per day	0.7 (3,383 days)
Average edit size*	27.2 bytes
Minor edits	53 (2.3%)
Small edits (<20 bytes)*	1,566 (68.2%)
Large edits (>1000 bytes)*	15 (0.7%)

Pages

Pages edited (total)	1,002
Average edits per page	2.319
Pages created	21 (7 since deleted)
Pages moved	0
Pages deleted	0

Files

Files uploaded	17
Files uploaded (Commons)	413

Actions

Thank	0
Approve	0
Patrol	0
Accounts created	0

(Re)blocks

Longest block	–
Current block	–

Global edit counts (approximate)

* Data limited to the past 5,000 edits --qedk (t 桜 c) as of 21:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated their stats. Masum Reza^📞 18:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Moral support"

I'm not sure what the point of placing an oppose in the "support" section with a misleading label is. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on perception, I'd argue. A moral support can be construed by crats as holding a non-voting value, like I'm here to cheer them on just! I don't think it's a bad practice but I don't know how helpful it is either. Again, Wikipedia is becoming a stressful place as-is and moral supports might certainly be more worthwhile than regretful opposes, even if they don't hold any straw. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the point behind all this. What's with this "moral support"? Masum Reza^📞 16:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed one or two "moral support"s in the past (though not this time); in doing so i have intended to indicate that i don't expect my !vote to make any difference, but i want to emphasise to the candidate that i am not in the neutral column but supporting despite whatever opposes have turned up. In one case a moral support became an actual support, which pleased me greatly. Hope this slight explanation helps. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never forget that candidates are human beings with feelings and that the "meatgrinder" reputation of RfA is a significant deterrent to people stepping forward. Too many candidates stop editing when dozens of people tell them that they are unworthy using harsh language. Far better to encourage candidates than scare them off. I knew that this candidate was not going to succeed when I offered my support. Please be kind and encouraging. We need more kindness on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unkind words like "ridiculous"? Jeesh. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is an example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, IMO 'moral support' are fake votes. There's no harm in opposing or going neutral provided it's done politely and intelligently. The only thing we can do is try to restrict voting on RfA to polite and intelligent users. He may be right - in a way - and I'm one of the few admins who has never blocked Corbett, but under the terms of his current restriction for participating on RfA I'm getting an itchy finger to wanting to broaden that T-ban. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, as you know, I have opposed many RfAs, though I try to offer some kind words. As for the moral support votes being fake, there is no intent to deceive, and the bureaucrats are good at assessing true consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 since I am new and want to learn more, I have a question; Do "moral support" votes count, or are they just informal ways of saying that you think the person is a good editor? Bill Williams (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they're in the support section, then they count as a support. Although, per WP:NOTAVOTE, it would be up to the bureaucrats who assess the outcome of the RFA whether to count moral supports as fully as other kinds of vote. I would also imagine that most editors who put up a moral support would come in and amend their position to either fill support, or perhaps Oppose or neutral , if the balance of votes were to subsequently change such that the RFA had a chance of passing. Generally they're used in cases where there is no chance. — Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

The last discussion at the general comments section is ultra confusing. What does topic ban mean? Why did one admin raise the issue if there was nothing they were going to do about it? Why did the user in question answer so dismissively? And why did another admin (one of the most reputable ones from what I've seen) appear to congratulate the user like nothing had ever happened (or like they endorsed what had happened)? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 22:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the RfA.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to ask all of them in person. Masum Reza^📞 23:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, please read WP:TOPIC BAN. Because of past disruption, this editor is banned from discussing the RfA process, but is allowed to comment on individual RfA candidates. The perceived violation of his topic ban is being discussed elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Who is this editor? Masum Reza^📞 00:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masumrezarock100, the editor with the topic ban is Eric Corbett. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, the comment by Drmies was intended to defuse tensions. Eric Corbett has edited rarely in the last year or two, and those two editors used to collaborate on articles several years ago. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328:, Thank you for taking the time. Although, I probably should have just searched for "WP:TOPIC BAN", getting responses like yours is tremendously encouraging (for lack of a better word). I did find the "elsewhere" and do share the nominator(?)'s befuddlement. But, it's simultaneously understandable, too. And, I did read about cabal(?) and/or related concepts in one of the wikipedia humorous pages yesterday. So, it's not like my concerns were a groundbreaking discovery in that regard. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to Bbb23 for not being able to stop discussing that which has nothing to do with the RfA. I'll stop now. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

►en.wikipedia.org	2,314
commons.wikimedia.org	734
ja.wikipedia.org	563
ko.wikipedia.org	139
fr.wikipedia.org	47
de.wikipedia.org	42
it.wikipedia.org	16
meta.wikimedia.org	16
es.wikipedia.org	14
zh.wikipedia.org	12