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.

• @ Coffee: Tagging someone when you speak about them in a conservation is not canvassing. At this point, you've taken my sure support and turned it into me waiting to see how the candidate deals with one of his nominators throwing out ad hominems.--v/r - T P 19:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ TParis: Yes it is, and every time the question of "does pinging count as canvassing" has come up it has always been a yes. Surely you wouldn't let editors at AFD begin using such excuses to selectively identify particular editors which will support their side? I've always known you to be incredibly rational, so I'm willing to talk this out with you as a misunderstanding. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    • There is a difference between "Are these editors paying attention: {Ping|editor1|editor2|editor3}" and "I was in a dispute with {ping|editor1}". If you are pinging a list of editors because you want their opinion, you're canvassing. When you notify an editor that you're talking about them, that's a courtesy. If editors at AFD are gaming that system, it should be easily identifiable by a sysop.--v/r - T P 19:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
      • @ TParis: I don't see where Ritchie used the ping template to refer to a dispute he had been in... what I see is an admin with a personal vendetta against me pinging two editors that he knows might not appreciate Dane becoming an admin. If you think that's acceptable here, then I'm speechless. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
        • The only conclusion I can make from your comment is that you must be too close to this RfA to be seeing this objectively. Because there is no other way to read "The drama-fest that was Talk:Noël Coward/Archive 2, where you went hammer and tongs with Cassianto and SchroCat is just still too recent, and I need to see more distance put between you and that." Ritchie is very clearly discussing an interaction between Dane, Cassianto, and SchroCat for which the later two were pinged because they are discussed within the context of the dispute which brought about Ritchie's oppose. There is no more to read there.--v/r - T P 19:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
          • We are going to have to agree to disagree then, as WP:CANVASS states nothing of the sort. I can't make you support a candidate that clearly deserves the tool if you don't want to, and I won't take back my well founded observations to try. I just hope that you change your mind. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
            • We'll see how the candidate either ignores this or how they weigh in on CAVASS - that'll influence my decision.--v/r - T P 19:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
              • Pinging is not canvassing, QED. If it is, then the policies need to be rewritten. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Both positions are defensible, for the simple reason that whether or not it is canvassing is context-specific. Pings certainly can be used to canvass like-minded persons to comment in a discussion, so the discussion is rather whether or not that is what happened here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

May I politely suggest moving this entire discussion to the talk page? You've mentioned the candidate a couple times here, but I don't think this is doing much for assessing their suitability for the mop at this point. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 20:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I concur. Moved. Primefac ( talk) 21:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

You two are more concerned with and believe it is more disruptive to discuss an ad hominem attack than that actual attack itself? Wikipedians...--v/r - T P 21:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

TParis, personally, I was more concerned with the fact that this discussion has nothing to do with Dane's RFA. Some of the threads in the Oppose section could probably be hatted as well, but I'm waiting to see if any of them turn truly sour. Primefac ( talk) 21:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Well there is no more to discuss on this subject, but I'm likely going to oppose Dane if they ignore the thread. So it was better for them if it was on the main page.--v/r - T P 22:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

That seems... rather extreme. Primefac ( talk) 22:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

It literally has nothing to do with Dane, so why is he obligated to respond? RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

It has everything to do with Dane. Their nominator has run amok. If they ignore that, how can I expect them to police other admins as an admin? I can't. He'll be another one of the good ol' boys.--v/r - T P 22:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

It's true that there are plenty of academic reasons why a candidate might be expected to distance themselves from RfA participants causing trouble, but let's not get carried away... Dane has no control over the actions of other people. While an inflammatory response from Dane would be concerning, I think "ignoring" drama is a perfectly valid course of action, and it's certainly one that we use as admins every day. What would you expect from Dane beyond a hollow and insincere plea of "Hey, cut that out"? Demanding, under threat of an oppose, that the candidate disavow the actions of someone with whom you've had a dispute seems unfair to everyone. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 22:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

You make a good point about ignoring drama. Fair enough.--v/r - T P 22:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

What seems to be lost in all this is that Cassianto apparently wasn't logged-in when he came to the RfA. How could he have received a ping under those conditions? Lepricavark ( talk) 02:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Lepricavark: I thought the same thing at first... then I remembered most users have it set up to email them. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I suspected it might be that. Thanks for clearing that point up. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Lepricavark...What's with your use of "apparently"? I don't see the ambiguity. Cassianto ^Talk 13:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

( ←) This seems an unreasonable position to take. It's a matter of common sense as to whether pinging constitutes canvassing—it depends on the intent, obviously, and can only be judged on a case by case basis. If one opposes an RfA, and unnecessarily pings another editor who was in a dispute with the nominee and will likely oppose as well, I don't understand how you can say it's objectively not canvassing. Per AGF, the default assumption should be that canvassing was not the intent, but surely you could see why one might view such a move as suspect—especially if the pinged user comes in and opposes "per pinger" and states that they will not be elaborating further. Again, not saying Ritchie willfully violated policy, but surely you can see how that looks like canvassing. Further, getting into a spat at RfA over something unrelated to the candidate is lame, but actually expecting the candidate to jump into your dispute is ridiculous. Getting involved in any sort of dispute in your own RfA is about the stupidest thing a candidate could possibly do. Any candidate with a temperament fit for adminship is not going to do such an insanely outrageous thing—talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Finally, suggesting that a candidate is somehow responsible for their nominator at RfA is not only an unprecedented fringe position for RfA, but it's a cruel, unfair burden to place on a good faith community member. Dane's already going through enough stress without his supporters attacking him over something he literally has no control over. That's actually a level of harshness I never thought I'd see out you, TP. We're just friggin' volunteers who do this as a hobby, we're not responsible for the actions of other users on this website any more than we're responsible for the actions of strangers in real life. Swarm ♠ 05:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I thought Cassianto was indef-blocked! I see it was only a month now, and it expired. In any case, I have left a note on Dane's talk, saying I have confidence he will probably pass the RfA anyway, and he has taken it in good grace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Swarm:: If you believe pinging two editors in the context of discussing their participation in a dispute with an RfA candidate is canvassing, then my next question is "to what end?" Are two people who share that view going to sway an RfA when all recent RfAs generally have over 150 !voters? That seems like an extreme point of view, objectively. Coffee's view is that pinging is canvassing every time despite that many folks, including you, have said it depends on the context. I really don't see the point of "canvassing" two editors in a discussion with over 150. I see a lot of point of notifying two editors when you're talking about them. Regarding your further point, I believe I've already conceded much of that to Julian. This dispute started with me trying to deescalate what I still view as an unsupported ad hominem attack by Coffee during an RfA. While I admit my role in actually escalating it, I also believe that the community's inability to challenge a 'friend' who makes an ad hominem is also at fault. I've got a Signpost I'll be writing that will be touching on that subject.--v/r - T P 12:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Swarm...maybe you'd care to remind Lepricavark what assuming good faith is about as apparantly, I was logged out at the time of my !vote. Any halfwit can see I commented whilst accidentally logged out. Cassianto ^Talk 13:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

This isn't a Featured Article review. No need to analyze every single word. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I didn't realise snark is only limited to FAC, Lepricavark. Cassianto ^Talk 13:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

My point was that you don't need to analyze my comments in the way you would scrutinize the text of a Featured Article candidate. At any rate, perhaps you might explain what perturbs you about my use of the word apparently. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

"Apparantly" introduces doubt. What are you doubting? Cassianto ^Talk 13:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

For one thing, I couldn't send the suppressed diffs. For another, you might have received the ping and then logged out to make it seem like you hadn't. That's obviously a dubious and far–fetched theory, and it's not what I believe happened. Does that answer your question? Lepricavark ( talk) 14:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I was not summonsed by a fucking ping. For god's sake, this shitfest is becoming an avalanche. I watch another editors page and they have the RfA counter. That is how I was alerted. Now will you all move on. Cassianto ^Talk 14:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Cassianto, this is why. Somebody made a comment or vote just prior to your own, they had been logged out and their IP address was suppressed. (Or rather I think) Lepricavark assumed it was yours. Mea culpa, I misread. Mr rnddude ( talk) 13:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Actually, I believe Cassianto was the individual who was logged out, and he logged back in to sign his !vote. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I was. I really don't know why you're trying to make this into a big thing. Cassianto ^Talk 13:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

How am I making this into a big thing? I made an observation, got a response, and moved on hours ago. Then you challenged me, and essentially accused me of failing to assume good faith, and now I'm responding to your challenge. I really don't know why you're trying to make this into a big thing. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Right! Stop that! It's far too silly! Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

Will y'all stop bickering, click here, find an article, and add a source to it. You'll feel much better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: I moved this discussion here because it seems not to be related to the candidate but to (perceived) circumstances of someone's comment. Regards So Why 08:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

1. Neutral While I stand by what I said in my original !vote supporting Dane, I feel I cannot ignore the CSD problem brought up in the "Oppose" votes. Even if Dane doesn't plan to work in CSD, there are times when an admin (for example, an admin pinged using the "!admin" command on IRC) is asked to do something they may not normally deal with, and CSD is likely a large part of that. In the future, once Dane has become more familiar with CSD and put a little more time between him and his past problems, I would be happy to once again give my Support !vote after having worked with him on quite a few occasions. — Gestrid ( talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   I've been asked off-wiki to look further into the CSD stuff and I will when I have time to. — Gestrid ( talk) 17:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   Gestrid, Could I ask you who asked you off wiki to do this? I am distrustful of any off wiki correspondence about something that is supposed to be an open process. I hope the 'crats take note that this editor has been contacted offline, and consider that perhaps there have been others who are feeling under pressure to take some form of action following offline "persuasion". We can all see the online bludgeoning going on, but when it is taken offline, I feel that motives and methods are somewhat more suspect. All the best, – The Bounder ( talk) 18:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   I don't remember the username, unfortunately. It was on IRC in the #wikipedia-en channel. I'm going to look through my private logs of the channel to see if it's still there. — Gestrid ( talk) 19:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ The Bounder: Found it. The IRC user was "tiddlywink", which, according to their cloak, is Nick. — Gestrid ( talk) 19:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   Thank you. I wonder why such pressure needs to be applied under-the-counter to get a candidate through the process. I don't like how this is being handled in any way, shape or form, and consider that this drags the system into some murky depths. I don't think you have done anything wrong, Gestrid, but others seems to be going to considerable lengths (or perhaps that should be depths) to force this through. – The Bounder ( talk) 19:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   ( edit conflict) @ The Bounder: What happened is I mentioned my change in position on IRC and the user urged me to look at the stuff presented by SoWhy again. I asked him to comment here about it. He apparently didn't. Though I didn't say this on IRC, part of my reasoning for asking him to comment here was for the sake of transparency. For the record, I didn't realize it was Nick at the time and only saw that just now when I opened my logs. I didn't recognize the user beforehand. I also do usually take a second look at everything when asked to do so, no matter who it is that asks me or what it's about. — Gestrid ( talk) 19:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   This whole RfA stinks. I wonder how may other people have been asked off wiki to vote in a certain way? Cassianto ^Talk 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   Also, to be clear, they did not ask me to change my vote, only to take a closer look at what SoWhy presented. — Gestrid ( talk) 20:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   It amounts to the same thing, Gestrid. Cassianto ^Talk 20:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   Sorry, I should've been clearer. That's what it sounded to me like they were implying. I could be wrong, however. — Gestrid ( talk) 20:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   You have nothing to apologise for, Gestrid. I admire your honesty. And you're not wrong; nothing would surprise me when it comes to our illustrious RfA process. It's as corrupt and dishonest as a tart's promise. Cassianto ^Talk 20:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   You're all blowing this out of proportion. I just looked back over my chat logs. There was general discussion of this RfA; at no point did anyone ask or imply that anyone else should change their vote. Sam Walton ( talk) 20:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   Then publish the full text of the conversation, identifying who was who. Why is such a supposedly open process being discussed behind closed doors, with pressure being put on someone because they changed their !vote. I had a bad feeling about the candidate before this came out, but this really caps it all. – The Bounder ( talk) 20:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   The doors to wikipedia-en aren't closed, but logs generally aren't published on Wiki ( WP:IRC). You're being conspiratorial at this point. Gestrid started discussing this RfA, there was discussion regarding the opposes based on CSDs, and Gestrid decided they needed to read more about it before making an informed decision. No one said 'You should change your vote', no one implied they should change their vote, and I'd like to point out that Gestrid hasn't even really changed their vote, they just moved to neutral so that they could spend more time coming to a decision. Sam Walton ( talk) 21:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   Mind you don't fall off that wall, Sam Walton. Saying: "You should change your vote" is not implied, it is direct. That is not what is being argued here. Whichever way you cut it, it stinks. Cassianto ^Talk 21:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   ( edit conflict) I think you either need a dictionary, or to withdraw the ad hominem comment and clarify your post. At no point have I been conspiratorial (i.e., I am not part of any conspiracy that is trying to swing votes, and I have not corresponded either on or off wiki with anyone else regarding this or any other RfA). As to the RfC log, your decision not to show what was said and by whom does neither you, nor the RfA process any good. A lack of openness is always harmful, particularly when there is a situation that should be examined further and which you are refusing to show to clarify. – The Bounder ( talk) 21:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   It is absolutely ridiculous to assume that all off-wiki communication is automatically tainted, and such demands (and yes, conspiratorial assumptions, The Bounder) as those above will simply lead people to not reveal off-wiki communications in the future. People talk off-wiki all the time. We even have an essay about it. I don't see the problem here.

   Separate but related, Bounder, to say that someone else's conversation reflects poorly on the candidate here is even more ridiculous. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 01:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   It's not nice to see admins repeating unmerited ad hominem comments. When two admins stoop to such behaviour in defence of poor behaviour of what is supposed to be a transparent process, I see there are deeper structural flaws which explain why WP has so many detractors. The head-in-the-sand approach may be all well and good for you, but this episode leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, and despite your claims that I am being "absolutely ridiculous", it does taint the process. – The Bounder ( talk) 04:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ The Bounder: It's not an attack, I'm only talking about the idea that we should demand that all communication happens on-wiki. It's simply not feasible. Wikipedia Weekly alone is nearing 1,000 members. IRC has been around for more than a decade, if memory serves. Email has been around since before Wikipedia was a small idea in Jimmy's mind. Etc, etc, etc. :-) That said, I do stand by my qualification on off-wiki discussions by others reflecting poorly on the candidate. If the candidate isn't involved in it, there's no reason they should be tarred. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 17:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ The ed17: IRC has been around for 29 years. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ Nihonjoe: So technically I was right. ;-) Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 20:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ The ed17: Technically. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC) reply

...that no one will care about.

This entire RfA has been a piss-poor show of how our experienced editors and administrators react to the most public of forums, including the spectacular debacle at ANI, and has not only not given us a new admin, but has cost us one. Props to the candidate for failing, but in doing so acting leagues above the kind of behavior we've seen from others. Get your shit together folks. Honestly. TimothyJosephWood 21:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Timothyjosephwood, I have no idea what you are talking about in the ANI/admin loss part, and that is after searching for "Dane" at WP:ANI and its last archives. Could you wikilink the "spectacular debacle at ANI" part? Tigraan ^{Click here to contact me} 18:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC) reply

No. It's just as well left where it lays. TimothyJosephWood 20:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC) reply