Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RegistryKey 2

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.

RegistryKey (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

First edit: Sep 23, 2014, 6:28 PM
Latest edit: Aug 7, 2016, 12:04 PM
Live edits: 3,646
Deleted edits: 528
Total edits: 4,174

Unique pages edited: 2,442
Pages created: 1,145
Pages moved: 25
Ø edits per page: 1.5
Files uploaded: 13
Files uploaded (Commons): 9
(Semi-)automated edits: 2,733
Reverted edits: 14
Edits with summary: 3,544
Number of minor edits (tagged): 594

-- œ^™ 01:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Convince me

The number of editors who are both supporting and generally have solid opinions is giving me some pause. Anyone mind doing some convincing? I'm open to changing my mind, but I'm struggling to reconcile the CLUEfulness not to rush into new areas cited by FourViolas (among others) with the stated desire to participate at ANI and the generally-low activity levels in the months proceeding this RfA. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, and my biggest concern too. I'm taking the clean block log, nom statement, and answers to Qs 6,7,9,11 as enough evidence that the candidate at least won't trample anyone if he does start rushing in, and the CSD log as evidence that he can demonstrate competence and clue when he does choose to work in a particular area. But I recognize that the first conclusion is a big leap of (ag)faith. FourViolas (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorry, bud"

@DatGuy: @KGirlTrucker81: please could either of you give me any ideas as to why you both posted one-line Oppose votes, both containing the phrase "sorry bud", within less than three hours of each other? I am sure it may have been a coincidence (perhaps the phrase "sorry bud" is seen very often in RfAs?), but could you offer any other explanations for it? thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MPS1992 - DatGuy has probably read KGs comment and just used the phrase, If it helps I've started using phrase "sorry bud" and I'm sure I've used it in an RFA before so it's probably nothing sinister, just a big and harmless coincidence. –Davey2010^Talk 22:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Davey2010:, that is slightly reassuring -- though I see you also !voted the same way as the two editors being discussed -- but I would like to hear from the editors themselves, or at least one of them. Re-typing (part of) the !vote of the editor almost immediately preceding you on an RfA does not seem to me like the best way of expressing a reasoned opinion. MPS1992 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: could you also please point me to the RfA where you used the phrase "sorry bud" before, please? I am not so good at searching syntax. MPS1992 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "I see you also !voted the same way as the two editors being discussed" - If you're trying to accuse me of being a sock or whatever then please go to SPI and file a case - I even welcome you to do a CU check!, People use similar or the same phrases on here all the time it doesn't mean they're a sock or whatever, Nope because I have no idea what RFA it was on. –Davey2010^Talk 22:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant only what I said. I am not sure why asking questions at an RfA should provoke such hostile responses. If you do find which RfA you used the phrase on -- you said you were "sure" about it -- please let me know. MPS1992 (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Refactored here from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RegistryKey 2#General comments. Note WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF. FourViolas (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: @MPS1992: The only reason why I said "Sorry bud" because he's too inexperinced (ex: Lack of countervandalism work, lack of content creation.) I know I'm planning to be an admin, but I'll focus improving the project during the first four years being around here. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 01:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding on your rationale. I am surprised to learn that "sorry, bud" is a very common way of addressing an unfamiliar colleague when arguing that they lack the qualifications for an administrative position, but perhaps I have a lot to learn about how different people use English in formal contexts. I am happy to assume good faith, though I am rather disappointed by the instant hostility from some here other than yourself. MPS1992 (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"though I am rather disappointed by the instant hostility from some here other than yourself" - If you don't want me to be hostile then maybe it's a good idea not to accuse me of being a sock!, AGF works both ways, Treat others how you want to be treated etc etc. –Davey2010^Talk 13:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not accused anyone of being a sock, I said, and I quote, "I see you also !voted the same way as the two editors being discussed", which is true and I can prove it. Drop the stick, please. MPS1992 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said 'sorry bud' because I believed that RegistryKey is an amazing editor, just that they should have less time of inactivity. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you above. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 13:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]