Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dumelow
Edit statistics for Dumelow
|
|---|
Namespace totals[edit]
Month counts[edit]
Logs[edit]
Top edited articles[edit]Article[edit]
Talk[edit]
User[edit]
User talk[edit]
Wikipedia[edit]
Wikipedia talk[edit]
File[edit]
File talk[edit]
Template[edit]
Template talk[edit]
Category[edit]
Portal[edit]
|
Discussion regarding Hipocrite's oppose
[edit]- Yet another toothless recall pledge. Hipocrite (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Eh? I dont understand, I thought it was a very good answer, and Dumelow voiced his opinions very well in an exemplary answer IMO. If you are opposing because of the recall process, you would be better to take it up at the RfC on this issue on at the moment. AtheWeatherman 13:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- The user pledged to be open to recall. This led some people to vote for him. A promise made to be open to recall is a campaign promise made ad captandum vulgaris, and as such is a strike against. Hipocrite (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- NOTE to those who don't speak Latin. “ad captandum vulgaris” = “to capture [the will of] the crowd”. If you ask me, Hipocrite παρεπικρίνει. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- भवदुक्तं सर्वमपि अङ्गीकर्तुं शक्यम् -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm impressed, considering you can't read or write any language. ;) ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 09:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- भवदुक्तं सर्वमपि अङ्गीकर्तुं शक्यम् -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- NOTE to those who don't speak Latin. “ad captandum vulgaris” = “to capture [the will of] the crowd”. If you ask me, Hipocrite παρεπικρίνει. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I and many others here, have support voted because of dumelow's excellent contributions and benefit to wikipedia. Indeed, I have seen many rfa's where a similar question has been asked, with completly different opinions, and they passed well too. I believe that in this case, the candidate is giving an honest (yet positive) opinion on the process and, so I certainly think it is definately not a campaign promise. Regards AtheWeatherman 14:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. Mine differs. If it's not a campaign promise, the candidate should retract his promise to be open to recall. Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- The question asked for my position with regards to recall, I gave it. It was not an attempt to curry favour with anybody and as such I certainly won't be retracting it. It is, of course, your choice whether to support or oppose and I hope that this doesn't come across as an attempt to change your opinion (which is not my intention) I just wanted to make it known that I haven't made any "campaign promises" that I don't intend to keep - Dumelow (talk)
- The guy can only answer the questions put to him. If he'd said "I refuse to answer" or "I make no promises" surely that would have attracted just as much criticism? A clear answer is better than an evaisive one, and the community will certainly hold him to it if ever the need arises. Leaky Caldron 09:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are certainly answers to the recall question that do not promise to be open to recall that do not raise the ire of people who insist that candidates make campaign promises. Hipocrite (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- After the Law fiasco involving Admin. abuse it's a fair answer to a fair question. He didn't promise to turn himself in after one bad call and in sticking to the standard recall model he's played with a straight bat. Calling it a "toothless pledge" hints at bad faith. Leaky Caldron 12:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:AAGF. There's no way, currently, to make a toothful recall pledge. As long as User:Elonka has tools, all "pledges" made during RFA's are worth the paper they are printed on. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- After the Law fiasco involving Admin. abuse it's a fair answer to a fair question. He didn't promise to turn himself in after one bad call and in sticking to the standard recall model he's played with a straight bat. Calling it a "toothless pledge" hints at bad faith. Leaky Caldron 12:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are certainly answers to the recall question that do not promise to be open to recall that do not raise the ire of people who insist that candidates make campaign promises. Hipocrite (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- The guy can only answer the questions put to him. If he'd said "I refuse to answer" or "I make no promises" surely that would have attracted just as much criticism? A clear answer is better than an evaisive one, and the community will certainly hold him to it if ever the need arises. Leaky Caldron 09:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- The question asked for my position with regards to recall, I gave it. It was not an attempt to curry favour with anybody and as such I certainly won't be retracting it. It is, of course, your choice whether to support or oppose and I hope that this doesn't come across as an attempt to change your opinion (which is not my intention) I just wanted to make it known that I haven't made any "campaign promises" that I don't intend to keep - Dumelow (talk)
- That's your opinion. Mine differs. If it's not a campaign promise, the candidate should retract his promise to be open to recall. Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- The user pledged to be open to recall. This led some people to vote for him. A promise made to be open to recall is a campaign promise made ad captandum vulgaris, and as such is a strike against. Hipocrite (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's just one oppose, folks. If you don't want Hipocrite to use this oppose, don't ask the candidate if they're open to recall. –xenotalk 13:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hipocrite, how can you distinguish between someone how genuinely means something and someone how doesn't? Just presuming someone doesn't mean a fact that they have stated is quite off the wall, IMHO. Cargoking talk 14:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- He can't, thus the blanket oppose. –xenotalk 14:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hipocrite, how can you distinguish between someone how genuinely means something and someone how doesn't? Just presuming someone doesn't mean a fact that they have stated is quite off the wall, IMHO. Cargoking talk 14:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- What I don't understand, if the recall pledge has no meaning then how does it have any meaning? It shouldn't be something to support or oppose over if it's meaningless. Maybe i'm missing something though. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone who make a pledge like that, either didn't do their research on recall pledges (thus, opposable), or knowing the history of pledges to be open to recall in RFA (beyond poor), chose to make such a pledge (thus, opposable). Thus, I oppose. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- That is a matter of personal opinion and personal opinion only. I think this discussion should be terminated. Cargoking talk 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly agree, which is why I've responded only to actual requests for information about what I am thinking as opposed to other less productive comments. Your friend is going to pass RFA with flying colors, regardless of my oppose, but perhaps my fruitless gesture here will cause other hopefulls to realize that promising to be open to recall actually makes them less likley to pass RFA - much in the way that all of the hopefulls know know you have to spend at least 4 weeks commenting in worthless AFD's, have at least 2 GAs and 5 DYKs and be working on at least one Featured Article. Unlike that, however, I'm not assiging check-the-box work, I'm assigning "AVOID COMMENTING ON THIS WORTHLESS BOX" work. Hipocrite (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't understand, but I respect your right to your opinion. Doc Quintana (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I never fully understood how people could respect what they do not understand?Smallman12q (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't understand, but I respect your right to your opinion. Doc Quintana (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone who make a pledge like that, either didn't do their research on recall pledges (thus, opposable), or knowing the history of pledges to be open to recall in RFA (beyond poor), chose to make such a pledge (thus, opposable). Thus, I oppose. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Eh? I dont understand, I thought it was a very good answer, and Dumelow voiced his opinions very well in an exemplary answer IMO. If you are opposing because of the recall process, you would be better to take it up at the RfC on this issue on at the moment. AtheWeatherman 13:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)