Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Giraffer

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.

Responses to User:Guylaen's neutral

If you haven't been around long enough, then don't comment! Simple as. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who is auto-confirmed is welcome to participate. Guylaen has been here for going on four years and has over 1500 edits. Their comment is neither rude nor in any other way disruptive. On the other hand... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, someone who's been here for going on four years and has over 1500 edits but proclaims that 'now I have to read about things called sockpuppets' doth protest too much... Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting is that 93% of Guylaen's edits have been to article space, and they have never once posted to a noticeboard. They have posted five times to the Teahouse and five times to a page about a wikimeetup in Seattle. I find it entirely plausible that they had never heard of sockpuppetry. It's somewhat refreshing. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1. This is clearly an editor who's been happily editing along in mainspace, has recently discovered RfA, wanted to participate, and (as Cullen says, refreshingly) decided to post a neutral instead of asking a silly question. Valereee (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, what a pointlessly rude comment. People are allowed to vote however they want on an RfA, which includes leaving a neutral vote -- I think everyone needs to figure out some way to deal with this that does not involve being very mean to random noobs or lowbies. jp×g 🗯️ 03:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A polite "you should read and form an opinion about something before voting in a discussion, as they are not mandatory to participate in" would have sufficed. We don't need to be pointlessly aggressive (nor we do need to say that doing the equivalent of "I don't know what's going on, just happy to be here" is "participating" just bcs they got replied to rudely). DWF91 (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a little note on Guylaen's talk page; i hope that the next time someone comes along with a desire to participate but perhaps not knowing how, we can be a little more accommodating or welcoming ~ all of us were newbies at one point, in every area of the project, and it behoves us to remember that ~ Lindsay^Hello 14:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-EC vote

Pinging Ganesha811 and ScottishFinnishRadish as monitors: there's presently a vote in the Supports from Abolishedtemple (#159 as of now), and as Novem Linguae's helpful username highlighting script pointed out to me, that user is unfortunately not presently extended confirmed. It seems like it will make little difference in the end (and I regret dampening a newer user's enthusiasm for our processes), but that might should be moved to the General Comments section. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

@Ganesha811 and @ScottishFinnishRadish corrected my silly mistake. Apologies. Goldsztajn (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced !votes

Two editors have misplaced their !votes at the bottom of the page in the general comments section. Should move them to their proper location? The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are there because the editors have less than 500 edits, which is a requirement for voting on an RfA. — E_F⁵ 18:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just getting ready to undo my comment, but you beat me to it. Lol. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Correct, they were moved there from the numbered !vote section. I do think it would not be unreasonable for monitors to actually note that when they move it; I will do so for these two votes. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal of votes

@Robert McClenon Why did you remove the votes of @Cielquiparle and @EggRoll97 with no explanation? Neither of those users are ineligible for voting in RFAs. Opm581 (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone this. It looks accidental to me, perhaps the result of having multiple Wikipedia tabs open. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll assume WP:GOODFAITH and assume it was just an accident. Opm581 (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]