Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ansh666

Count not updating
Unless I am going crazy, the count here isn't updating. Currently at 43 support !votes but showing 34. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to be working fine for me. Try doing a WP:purge? ansh 666 00:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't working for me either, but now it seems to be fixed.  J 947(c) (m) 00:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Reply re: Softlavender's !vote
I was asked to provide examples of AfD NACs ansh666 had performed that bothered me. These are all from perusing his talkpage archives, and since I was compiling these for the querants just now I went through all of the archives while I was at it. Anyway, even though any given editor might not find any given one of these terribly egregious, there seems to be a degree of over-reach which worries me, combined with the other factors I mentioned in my !vote, and makes me feel that giving the candidate the delete button at this time would be premature: I did not look for further AfD closures beyond those mentioned on ansh666's talkpage; there may be other arguably questionable NACs but I did not have the time to look (or know any efficient way to do so). -- Softlavender (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 22 December 2013: Closed this AfD after only 31 hours. It was re-opened by nominator, and closed 6 days later by an admin:.
 * 18 February 2015: Closed an AfD on a highly contentious subject, which therefore really should have been closed by an admin instead, as keep after one week: . Two people complained on his talk page but he did not re-open. The article was re-AfDed 7 months later and deleted:.
 * 13 March 2015: Closed this AfD after only 6.5 hours:.
 * 6 July 2015: Closed this AfD (about this article) after 3 days and no !votes, because he misread something. He re-opened the AfD 5 days later after talkpage discussion, and it was closed 3 weeks later by an admin:.
 * 15 March 2016: Closed this AfD as "SNOW" after only 24 hours, even though there were dissenting !votes:.
 * 24 June 2016: Closed this AfD after 8 days even though there were only 2 !votes and no consensus, stating there was a consensus to merge: . The AfD was re-opened 6 hours later (after talkpage discussion) by a third party stating no consensus had been built: . The AfD was closed by an admin 2 weeks later as no consensus with option to boldly merge:.
 * 8 September 2016: Closed this AfD as "no consensus" after one month, even though there was a consensus to keep (7K, 2D, 1R; all from experienced editors with rationales). The AfD had extensive discussion, including mention of an ongoing(?) RfC on SNGs for pageant winners, and also 3 of the keeps were "keep for now". Someone came to ansh666's talkpage and said an admin should have closed the AfD given the amount of discussion etc., and that's probably true.
 * 8 September 2016: Closed this AfD as keep after 2 weeks (3K, 2D); it was re-opened, after discussion, by a participant who felt consensus was not apparent ; closed one week later (4K, 3D) by an admin with an incisive analysis.
 * 25 July 2017: At AN, an admin made a specific request for "an uninvolved admin" to look at and possibly close this AfD, but ansh666 (not an admin) closed it, after it was open only 25 hours.
 * A little extra background or explanation that Softlavender isn't aware of (or conveniently leaves out, in a few cases):
 * 22-12-2013: was a procedural close after the article creator redirected the page; the AfD nominator then undid the redirect. I do many many more of these without any controversy.
 * 18-2-2015: you omitted that the close was upheld near-unanimously at DRV. That the second AfD had a different result has absolutely no bearing on the first.
 * 13-3-2015: obvious snow keep (IAR).
 * 6-7-2015: another attempted procedural close, with a pagemove involved that screwed things up. I've seen active admins do worse.
 * 15-3-2016: obvious snow keep that nobody complained about.
 * 24-6-2016: no idea what I was doing there (linked from Q3).
 * 8-9-2016: I don't regard "Keep for now pending outcome of SNG for pageant RfC discussion" as a real argument to keep, only to delay the AfD until later. Several of the keep comments also used the proposed SNG as a reason for notability. So leaving those it's 2K 2D 1R with 5 conditional keeps, hence my close saying to revisit the AfD after SNG is dealt with. I said this in the rationale and you don't mention it here.
 * 8-9-2016: Same result, eh?
 * 25-7-2017: Longer story behind this one, better answered in an actual question, but nobody disagrees that the result of the close is incorrect (also linked from Q3).
 * Hopefully that gives some more information on those. ansh 666 17:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)