Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2

Username: SMcCandlish User groups: autoreviewer, rollbacker First edit: Aug 11, 2005 07:42:31 Total edits (including deleted): 53,859 Deleted edits: 3,407 Live edits: 50,452 Namespace totals Article	20119	39.88% Talk	5849	11.59% User	1302	2.58% User talk	3927	7.78% Wikipedia	7647	15.16% Wikipedia talk	4534	8.99% File	38	0.08% File talk	20	0.04% MediaWiki talk	16	0.03% Template	2957	5.86% Template talk	1460	2.89% Help	3	0.01% Help talk	1	0.00% Category	1478	2.93% Category talk	796	1.58% Portal	187	0.37% Portal talk	94	0.19% Graph Month counts 2005/08	13	2005/09	0	2005/10	32	2005/11	10	2005/12	8	2006/01	196	2006/02	77	2006/03	172	2006/04	49	2006/05	11	2006/06	20	2006/07	732	2006/08	51	2006/09	85	2006/10	10	2006/11	1424	2006/12	1292	2007/01	1257	2007/02	3950	2007/03	3733	2007/04	4027	2007/05	2300	2007/06	1036	2007/07	2120	2007/08	885	2007/09	1840	2007/10	1311	2007/11	1311	2007/12	2072	2008/01	586	2008/02	1298	2008/03	302	2008/04	578	2008/05	118	2008/06	100	2008/07	181	2008/08	2219	2008/09	2767	2008/10	521	2008/11	182	2008/12	284	2009/01	743	2009/02	130	2009/03	138	2009/04	1442	2009/05	98	2009/06	441	2009/07	78	2009/08	226	2009/09	129	2009/10	49	2009/11	1818	2009/12	3739	2010/01	2237	Logs Accounts created: 6 Pages moved: 1057 Pages patrolled: 138 Files uploaded: 13

Pcap
In response to your vote, I said initially that WSJ had never even been mentioned in the RfA. Why would I say that if I had in fact noticed that WSJ had been mentioned after all, and knowing that if this were the case everyone could see that? That would be, well, kind of insane, wouldn't it?

In the RfA itself, I referred to the "first" of the posted sources as not being usable to establish notability (again, not as unreliable). The post you thought I was replying to only mentions one source, so my sentence could not make any sense in response to it.

I did not do what you say I did, nor can I understand why you feel it takes an enormous stretch of good faith assumption to see this, when it would frankly be really surreal if had done it. You are welcome to oppose me for filing the AfD on grounds you disagree with, or for not agreeing with others at the AfD, or for not taking everything you've said here and just accepting it quietly even though some of it is wrong. At least those are things that I actually did do. I think you'll note that I have not responded in any way to criticisms that I have been too longwinded, not friendly enough, and other constructive criticisms of my behavior, only accusations I feel are just plain false. Please ask yourself if I would react this strongly to such a minor point if it were actually true. There are far harsher criticisms I have not reacted to at all.

As for that AfD, I didn't even keep saying the article was non-notable. I just asked the guy who said he was going to source it to keep my source criticisms in mind, and thanked him for his response. I.e. I stopped arguing. I.e., it was very clear to me that the article would be kept and I'd been wrong about it. Many articles are kept at AfD. This is perfectly fine. I guess maybe I could have made a big show of "admitting I were wrong" at AfD, but to what end? The article was kept on the merits of the arguments raised about it. I'm unaware of any admins on the system who have never lost an XfD debate filed an XfD debate that resulted in the item being kept instead of deleted [someone didn't like "lost"; it was just an expression 01:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)] , and apologizing for being on the wrong side of one is pretty rare unless the nominator has misread policy. —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 15:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I lost one such AfD debate, where I nominated an article for deletion, and it was kept, but I can't find the diff. I nominate for deletion so rarely....  We win some and lose some. Bearian (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hyatt Regency Birmingham is an example of one I supported deletion, which it was, and was later re-created. Bearian (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dirty pool?
So what is the story here with people opposing for incidents from three-four years ago, and for stuff that didn't even happen? WP:CANVASS is quite clear that the sort of activity the candidate took part in is perfectly legal here. Is there something happening here that I don't know about? Because it stretches good faith to breaking point to see some of the opposes we are seeing from experienced editors. --John (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please remove that header, John. It's really out of order. Read the examples people have given carefully, and some of them are from this month. You're free to disagree, of course (just as we're free to disagree without being accused of something untoward), but no reasonable person would argue there's no justification for concern. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have read them carefully, and I decline to change the header as I have serious concerns about the fairness of opposing someone based on diffs from several years ago, as you did. Rather than asking me to redact my criticism, you might want to consider whether the criticism was justified. I believe it was. --John (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, what the heck. I'm opposing for his deportment three weeks ago, and it's not remotely out of line to suggest that all this alleged coaching aside, SMC's methods of communication haven't particularly changed over the years and there's no reason to expect change now.  Remove every Oppose based on nothing but canvassing - which I agree is no big deal - and Support still is in the minority.  I agree that the header is very out of line; no one on the Oppose side has seen fit to remark on the character and judgment of supporters.  Actually, I'll be the first to do so: the tinge of "What's wrong with you jamokes?" I'm seeing from some of the supporters' responses to opposers can surely be doing the candidate no good.   RGTraynor  19:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to opine in any way, shape or form on the actual topic of this thread, but I have to point out a logic item here, RG: If it were not for the pile-on of bogus "canvassing" opposes and further opposes based on demonstrable and obvious falsehoods, which I will ascribe to error not malice, it is extremely unlikely that I would have so few support votes. We all know how RfA works. Few voters are willing to add a support, unless they feel quite strongly about the matter, if there are already a lot of opposes, and readers unwilling to dig around in edit histories will, in the vast majority of cases, believe the negative over the positive votes, and vote with them, to be on the safe side, because admin tools in the hands of a nutter or POV warrior are dangerous. Yes, there are legitimate concerns (not nice enough, too wordy, too argumentative, too focused on policy and process, are what all of them appear to boil down to - I do listen and absorb this stuff), but the suggestion that removing the bogus oppose votes would not have any effect on the balance of votes otherwise is not credible at all. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you truly are incredulous at the notion that the count would be less than 75%+ favorable absent any mention of canvassing, I shan't debate the point. Carry on.    RGTraynor  01:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am fine with that. My concern is seeing a bunch of people who should know better oppose over a non-issue and one from several years ago. Looks, and smells, very weird to me. --John (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is indeed an issue here, and a very important one. Privately or publicly advertising RfAs to individual editors disrupts how they are held. Noone needs to get the word out for an RfA discussion, because it receives about the most participation as any page here. Regarding whether a series of edits is canvassing or not; generally I think if multiple editors see it as canvassing than it is at least against the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:CANVASS. Even more important, SmcCandlish is denying that the edits were problematic, when they are obviously a problem due to the amount of opposition generated by them.  Them From  Space  21:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't argue with circular logic like that! So the fact that there was opposition justifies the fact that there was opposition? Wow. Just wow. --John (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)