Neutral leaning support. No reason not to support, but the fact that the nominee is a member of Esperanza and that ⅔ of the support votes are from Esperanza members is enough to keep me on the fence for now. I'm not assuming any bad faith or collusion here, it's just enough to make me uncertain. —
Doug Belltalk19:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply
What's Esperanza got to do with anything? If people want to support David, and be a member of Esperanza at the same time, they can. This is about the candidate, not who is supporting him. --
Majorly19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying Esperanza does have anything to do with this, it's just that the rapid accumulation of supports combined with the ratio that are Esperanza, especially relative to the other RfAs listed, was enough to cause me to pause for consideration before supporting. That's all, nothing more. I tried to make it clear before that I'm not assuming anything is amiss here, it was just odd enough that I need to watch and think about this more. —
Doug Belltalk19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Wow, that's a new one, the Esperanza cabal. I think you need to take into account the shear amount of people that are in Esperanza, I mean a 2/3 of Wikipedians are in it. Also, I don't think that takes anything away from the candidate.
Yanksox23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Agreed, this is a new one. We have no control over voters. Who do you think we are, the George Bush administration? As per Yanksox, a big percentage of editors are in Esperanza, including most of the good ones which take part in a lot of voting & know which editors would make great admins. Thanks anyway Doug for voting.
Spawn Man23:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply
You have to also take in the fact that we are talking about active Wikipedians in good standing. That big number shrinks down quite a bit.
Yanksox23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I just have to point out that my candidate is quite a bad Esperanzian. He rarely sends out hugs, or bars of chocolate, or fluffy rainbow gifs to his rabid EA mailing list. Nor have I seen him barking at the coffee lounge or handing out barnstars like there's no tomorrow. Punish him for being a terrible Esperanzian, if you must, but he's a very good candidate for adminship. C'mon Doug :) riana_dzasta03:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)reply
(2x edit conflict with the two preceding posts) Methinks some protest too much. I said it was odd and I needed to think about it. Obviously, nowhere near ⅔ of active Wikipedians are members of Esperanza—that is dramatically overstated, probably by more than one order of magnitude. I think I'm allowed to state my observation and hold off on supporting the nomination. None of the other 9 nominations at the time I decided to be neutral has the same concentration of Esperanza support, and only one of the other nominations was a member of Esperanza. The reaction to my neutral leaning support seems out of proportion, except from the nominee himself, which also seems odd. —
Doug Belltalk03:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I guess it's because it's an extremely unusual reason to remain neutral in an RfA, and people are understandably uncomfortable with it. Again, I'm absolutely fine with this, but I'd be grateful if people leave this !vote alone; Doug's entitled to his opinion, and he's hardly been unfair to me. Thanks.
Daveydweeb (chat/review!)
03:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)reply
(2x edit conflict) Apologies, Doug, you're allowed to call it as you see it, of course. I am not attempting to change your !vote, merely pointing out that the candidate is hardly an active member of Esperanza, and I'm not honestly sure why that is affecting his RfA. riana_dzasta03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Generally speaking, votes (as in politics) are counted and whichever side gets the most wins (although this situation has various refinements in various political systems that makes it more complicated). An !vote is a Wikipedia-specific concept (AFAIK) where the quality of the opinion (in some sense) is taken to account; this is the system used in processes like
AfD, where a good argument will trump a head-count. As RfA is mostly percentage-based, and votes need no reasons at all (see the support section for any RfA), I'd argue that RfA does use votes rather than !votes, but this is an issue that's been argued at length on
WT:RFA and hasn't really got anywhere. --
ais523 09:07, 28 November 2006 (
UTC)
Can everyone please let this one go? Doug's stated his reasoning, and that ought to be enough. It's not as though it's going to make the slightest portion of difference anyway. People should be free to express their feeling at RFA without getting jumped on. Yes, I agree, there are rather a lot of green Es. However, this one isn't an Esperanza cabal/social RFA, but I have seen quite a few that are!
Moreschi09:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral leaning support. No reason not to support, but the fact that the nominee is a member of Esperanza and that ⅔ of the support votes are from Esperanza members is enough to keep me on the fence for now. I'm not assuming any bad faith or collusion here, it's just enough to make me uncertain. —
Doug Belltalk19:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply
What's Esperanza got to do with anything? If people want to support David, and be a member of Esperanza at the same time, they can. This is about the candidate, not who is supporting him. --
Majorly19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying Esperanza does have anything to do with this, it's just that the rapid accumulation of supports combined with the ratio that are Esperanza, especially relative to the other RfAs listed, was enough to cause me to pause for consideration before supporting. That's all, nothing more. I tried to make it clear before that I'm not assuming anything is amiss here, it was just odd enough that I need to watch and think about this more. —
Doug Belltalk19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Wow, that's a new one, the Esperanza cabal. I think you need to take into account the shear amount of people that are in Esperanza, I mean a 2/3 of Wikipedians are in it. Also, I don't think that takes anything away from the candidate.
Yanksox23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Agreed, this is a new one. We have no control over voters. Who do you think we are, the George Bush administration? As per Yanksox, a big percentage of editors are in Esperanza, including most of the good ones which take part in a lot of voting & know which editors would make great admins. Thanks anyway Doug for voting.
Spawn Man23:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply
You have to also take in the fact that we are talking about active Wikipedians in good standing. That big number shrinks down quite a bit.
Yanksox23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I just have to point out that my candidate is quite a bad Esperanzian. He rarely sends out hugs, or bars of chocolate, or fluffy rainbow gifs to his rabid EA mailing list. Nor have I seen him barking at the coffee lounge or handing out barnstars like there's no tomorrow. Punish him for being a terrible Esperanzian, if you must, but he's a very good candidate for adminship. C'mon Doug :) riana_dzasta03:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)reply
(2x edit conflict with the two preceding posts) Methinks some protest too much. I said it was odd and I needed to think about it. Obviously, nowhere near ⅔ of active Wikipedians are members of Esperanza—that is dramatically overstated, probably by more than one order of magnitude. I think I'm allowed to state my observation and hold off on supporting the nomination. None of the other 9 nominations at the time I decided to be neutral has the same concentration of Esperanza support, and only one of the other nominations was a member of Esperanza. The reaction to my neutral leaning support seems out of proportion, except from the nominee himself, which also seems odd. —
Doug Belltalk03:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I guess it's because it's an extremely unusual reason to remain neutral in an RfA, and people are understandably uncomfortable with it. Again, I'm absolutely fine with this, but I'd be grateful if people leave this !vote alone; Doug's entitled to his opinion, and he's hardly been unfair to me. Thanks.
Daveydweeb (chat/review!)
03:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)reply
(2x edit conflict) Apologies, Doug, you're allowed to call it as you see it, of course. I am not attempting to change your !vote, merely pointing out that the candidate is hardly an active member of Esperanza, and I'm not honestly sure why that is affecting his RfA. riana_dzasta03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Generally speaking, votes (as in politics) are counted and whichever side gets the most wins (although this situation has various refinements in various political systems that makes it more complicated). An !vote is a Wikipedia-specific concept (AFAIK) where the quality of the opinion (in some sense) is taken to account; this is the system used in processes like
AfD, where a good argument will trump a head-count. As RfA is mostly percentage-based, and votes need no reasons at all (see the support section for any RfA), I'd argue that RfA does use votes rather than !votes, but this is an issue that's been argued at length on
WT:RFA and hasn't really got anywhere. --
ais523 09:07, 28 November 2006 (
UTC)
Can everyone please let this one go? Doug's stated his reasoning, and that ought to be enough. It's not as though it's going to make the slightest portion of difference anyway. People should be free to express their feeling at RFA without getting jumped on. Yes, I agree, there are rather a lot of green Es. However, this one isn't an Esperanza cabal/social RFA, but I have seen quite a few that are!
Moreschi09:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)reply