Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Novem Linguae

RSchen7754's oppose
3. Make it three. "Perfect is the enemy of the good" - Voltaire. There is not a single experienced editor on this platform who has not made an imperfect contribution. We all regularly screw up. There are only two ways screwing up is relevant: the first is how they react after having it pointed out, and the second is if they do it the same way over and over. I'm not seeing anything relevant to NL here. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I share the concerns Joe Roe expressed, except a bit more strongly. I am also disappointed in their reactions here, where they appeared to overlook the policy violations and lack of accountability of the most prominent NPP reviewer. It leads me to question whether they will enforce policy fairly, if this behavior is being tolerated in the process where they are NPP coordinator. --Rschen7754 18:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If anybody ever asks why I don't go for RfA (not that they'd have any reason to), this here is pretty much it. "Oh, but one day you took part in a discussion where someone said something, and you said another thing I didn't fully agree with, and you didn't even say 'please' and 'sorry'..." And then we wonder why there's a shortage of admins. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ^^ - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It went a bit beyond disagreement, those comments gave off the impression of "Onel5969 can do no wrong" which was quite disturbing. When we say that about any editor, including myself... well, it leads to enabling behavior. --Rschen7754 02:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that at all. What I took away from that thread is that Novem Linguae thought Onel5969 brought a lot of positive contributions to NPP and is one of the project's most prolific participants, and while his conduct could be improved, it wasn't directly at the point of sanctionable behaviour, in their opinion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm not seeing him giving Onel5969 a blind pass here. What I do see further up on that page is Novem Linguae acting and behaving like an admin for the issue "25.235.238.149‎‎: possible CIR and meatbot issues".  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 21:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing. You're spot on. Same here. — kashmīrī  TALK  10:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Another who agrees with DoubleGrazing.  Atsme 💬 📧 17:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Excellent points. Fully agreed with MaxnaCarta, [but also in agreement with Atme, Kashmiri, and DoubleGrazing so make it five now!] Huggums537 (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Updated on 02:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Lightburst's oppose
''note: the original responses to Lightburst's oppose have been restored to their original location. Primefac (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)''

Sidebar on the discussion move

 * FTR I disagree with this sanitizing effort . Moving single ivotes or discussions to this talk page removes the ability for others to easily see the debate. We do not do this anywhere else on this project where consensus is being built. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, can we move this back? It's a bit too early to relegate this to the talk page. We should only do that for those borderline ignominious votes which spark off lengthy chains of censure and argument and "could we all stop badgering this oppose !voter?" Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Though I support this candidate, there is no apparent need for this sequestering of discussions. This should not become SOP. Ever. I'm reaching out to to ask why he thought this was necessary.   GenQuest  "scribble" 17:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the SOP (for several years now, afaik) when a !vote attracts more than 2-3 responses. And a very good one IMO, since it allows an issue to be discussed at sufficient length without a single !vote (or, the pushback to it) dominating the main page, and allows everyone to chime in without fear of of thus cluttering the page. I can't imagine anyone participating in an RFA, who are generally expected to be able to examine the candidate's contribution history, being unable to follow the link from the Support or Oppose section to the talk-page discussion. Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing standard about it . I am surprised that you defend it. Look at the MB RFA or the Spicy RFA or your own RFA. Additionally, two of the last few RFAs I participated in saw opposers actually badgered and blocked for daring to oppose. We have to allow all opinions to be heard especially when there is a minority opinion being expressed. I have respect for Ritchie so I was very surprised to see him move discussion. I would like this discussion moved back but I am not willing to risk a block for going against two administrators. Lightburst (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Abecedare and @Ritchie333 above that the move was a good idea. It prevents cluttering of the main page and easily directs users to the talk page by saying “discussion moved to talk page”. Also, I doubt you would be blocked for moving discussion back, probably just scolded. The opposers weren’t blocked for daring to oppose, it was for other issues. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I've only just seen the pings, but given there's now some support for moving the discussion here, I'm not sure there's a consensus to revert anymore. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I found the discussion with no issue, and I get lost in a roundabout/traffic circle. Matters not to me considering the arguments against this candidate are weak. He is a ++asset to this project, and I see zero reason to be concerned Novem would abuse the tools. If anything, he will make the tools better.  Atsme 💬 📧 17:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do better You moved it, and now you assessed consensus and determined that you were right. There was no long discussion under these opposes and there still is not. We need to reform RFA and not for the purposes of making it easier to get a lifetime appointment. We might need election monitors to prevent this kind of singling out and meddling by someone who is clearly an involved administrator. It is 187 supports and four opposes, so any discussion here about not diminishing dissenting voices quickly becomes "two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch". Thanks to  for recognizing the unfairness even though we were not ivoting the same. I hope the candidate does a great job; the fact that they see oppose ivoters singled out and they stay quiet about it is not encouraging. Lightburst (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're getting aggressive over this. All I want to do is minimise the amount of drama so that people can get back to what's important - improving and maintaining the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is rich. You maximized drama with your unilateral move and then you accuse me of being aggressive when I call it out. #gaslighting101. I will continue to participate in our consensus building processes and I will hope that you take a minute to examine your role in the drama here. e.g. there was no drama until you took action where action was not needed. Lightburst (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure how moving discussion to a talk page creates drama. Cool down @Lightburst. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that administrators are regularly opposed for responding to !votes, so if the candidate were to intervene, they risk loosing their support. Also, I agree with @Ritchie333, no need to be aggressive. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am surprised by the assertion that removing the long responses opposes get is "sanitizing" them. Removing the long diversions surely strengthens the opposes, similar to the common practice of hatting off-topic side-conversations. CMD (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * +1, leaving the discussion on the main RfA page only highlights responses, typically to the detriment of the oppose. signed,Rosguill talk 15:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * -1, this is all speculation, and based purely on subjective views. Based on my personal subjective experience, my own tendency is to skip over hatted discussions labelled as off topic, and leaving discussions on the main page does indeed highlight all the responses, but is only typically to the detriment of the oppose when consensus happens to favor the support side, but we would have to gather statistics to find out if this is "typical" or not... Huggums537 (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Why
do all the opposers get badgered and none of the supporters?

I hate this about RfA.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Me too . It is very difficult unless we are rubber stamping. I am very upset by having my own ivote singled out as "Lightburst's oppose". That is nonsense and the fact that it is an administrator who has ivoted opposite makes it worse. Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As Paul Graham put it, "Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This tends to mean that the candidate is fit and highly qualified for the role. Or that the opposer opposes for a stupid reason. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If nine out of ten dentists recommend using toothpaste, which one would you want to question? – bradv  13:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You could move that outlier to the backroom and then say "Nine out of nine dentists recommend using toothpaste". Another example, in the US Senate the vote for the Patriot Act was 98-1. Who was right? Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If RfA is a discussion, then any bad or wrong argument should be challenged. (Of course RfA should be a vote). Opposes carry more weight, so it makes sense to challenge them more. You are free to challenge poorly argued support arguments. (But note that just voting "support" or 'oppose" isn't an argument and so doesn't need challenging). —Kusma (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I can't help noticing that it tends to be the same people badgering every oppose.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Illusion Flame is the main one that comes to mind commenting on practically every neutral or oppose. I get that they are a fairly new editor, but their response above is pretty tone deaf. It's one thing when it's a real discussion between multiple editors, but when it's the same person, that is a kind of WP:BADGERING we are expected to avoid at RfA. The interaction with them at my neutral vote was definitely not helpful at least and came across as more of that. Either way, something better for them to deal with now so it doesn't continue. KoA (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually simply voting Oppose is almost guaranteed to generate some badgering. There's an unspoken expectation that an oppose must be explained, while support gets a pass. Intothatdarkness 15:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in watching 12 Angry Men. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Great movie! I was on a jury once and I saw it firsthand. Like the Japanese proverb, "The nail which sticks out must be pounded down". Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was the nail on a jury, and didn't get pounded down (I talked the rest of the jury into changing on a couple of counts, and we hung on another). I now am not so sure I was right. Donald Albury 18:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Statistically, if 99/100 people support, there is a larger pool of supporters and thus greater odds that one of the supporters will badger the opposers. Similarly, there is a smaller pool and thus lower odds that someone from the 1/100 opposers will badger the supporters. If there were an equal number of supporters vs opposers, I would expect equal odds of badgering. You can see here that there was more badgering of the supporters when the numbers were different. I agree that the amount of badgering doesn't necessarily map 1-1 to whether the oppose has a valid argument. The void century (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , if someone truly believes that the candidate would be a bad choice for the tools don't they owe it to the community to talk us out of making a mistake? Probing the reasons for an oppose is, imo, one of the last nods to seeking consensus that saves RfA from being a pure vote. Cabayi (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)