Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ashleyyoursmile

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.

(1) Neutral, but section is empty

It appears that as soon as someone posted (correctly) on the General comments section, it triggered a (1) Neutral vote/score. Does anyone know how to fix this, so its back to (0)? Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 21:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the empty #. Primefac (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response Primefac, but that may be a partial fix. The empty # never was a problem before. I think that the invisible # (&#8239) in this user's signature: – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> posted in the GC section may have triggered it.

Update: The (1) Neutral "glitch" has also popped up in the other RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Less Unless, which Mz7 has now temporarily fixed here. So it seems that the issue is not user signature-related as I first postulated. Until a permanent fix is found, we'll have to continue removing the empty # in the Neutral section. Cheers, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 06:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark's oppose

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ashleyyoursmile

– valereee (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: are you opposing over just one edit (rather than, say, asking the candidate about it and giving them a chance to address your concern and act differently in future)? Or are you saying that there's some pattern of bad behaviour here? — Bilorv (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have said what I have said. Thank. Ask the question of the candidate yourself if you feel it is useful. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So as it turned out I relisted that AfD. When I did so I was unaware that there had been a close and it had been reverted so a relist turned out to be (in my opinion) the right decision. However, perhaps there as a consensus but it was simply not clear cut enough to be a non-administrative close. In that case the person reverting their close shouldn't relist because that would just needlessly extend discussion. I think I've been as vocal as anyone about NAC at AfD and while I wasn't aware of what happened when I relisted, I was aware of this before my co-nomination and, with respect, don't see this to be a disqualifying action. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: The relist doesn't endlessly continue the discussion as can be terminated any time after the relist and doesn't have to be the full 148 hours. A comment in the re-list would also have done, and really all participants have to be pinged. I also note an admin closure was now required though even you missed it! Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A week contains 168 hours. — Bilorv (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on the pet hate here! As far as I know there is no explicit procedure for undoing an AfD close and people (including current admins) do it without relisting all the time. Maybe you're right that it's confusing and there should be a process written down somewhere, but until that happens, expecting an RfA candidate to follow a practice that you personally find important but haven't told anyone about is a bit... arbitrary. – Joe (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Please retract that untruth. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And then we wonder why no one runs for adminship... Anarchyte (talk • work) 18:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't true? – Joe (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is untrue that I haven't spoken about this before. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a figure of speech. I meant that what you describe as a "no-go" isn't actually a policy or guideline, so Ashley can't be faulted for not following it, even by the pernickety standards of RfA. Obviously neither I nor anybody else is keeping track of your personal views on AfD procedure. – Joe (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the place for "extended" discussion was over the page? Leaky caldron (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair Captain Eek moved it there on 1023306706, I did a thank (possibly a wrong move) as the discussion had become over the top, and Captain Eek reverted it back at 1023307672; (though may have been influenced by 1023306927) It can stay here or move it there, there's likely arguments both ways. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For as long as YOU are demanding another editor to "retract that untruth" it has no place here. That's a personal dispute and plainly disruptive to the candidate's RFA. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how a single edit, especially one clearly done in good faith could ever be considered enough to oppose over. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It actually wasn't a single edit. And the relist was in good faith. The candidate brought up the AfD discussion at the answer to question 3, perhaps without looking at it from various angles. And in the end while I have given the candidate an oppose !vote I have also made comments that would be helpful to them should they be in the grey zone at the end of the RFA. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note I have moved to support. The arguments here have not moved me ... indeed the badgering was more likely to have made me stand firm on my decision. I will however reflect that if I am changing !vote's on an RFA I may need to need more time elapse before !voting; however I always reserve the right to change my !vote; and will even do so again in this RFA if I feel it is appropriate. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Djm-leighpark - and thank you for your contributions. Of course, I supported AYS, and believe she will be an excellent admin, but I also appreciate those of us out here in the trenches who work hard to build & maintain the encyclopedia. Sometimes we tend to be a little harder on others because we're so hard on ourselves - it's second nature. I'm of the mind that your intentions are of the highest standard, and just wanted to share that little tidbit of appreciation for your hard work - and of course, the same applies to all of our admins who took the time to respond here. Atsme 💬 📧 14:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]