Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley: Difference between revisions

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.

I had totally forgotten Hunley's existence. He has accused me of not only opposing him because of his past acts, but even tries to connect me with McCarthyism! (on an unmentionable site) Those who follow RfAs know that I generally examine AfD stats. In fact I am noted for basing votes on RfA figures. But now Hunley has given me an outside reason - a person who holds grudges and attacks those who had grudges years ago as being McCarthyists is unfit to be an Admin by a mile.

You may dislike my stress on AfDs - but you can damn well note my RfA votes generally are on that topic. Collect (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you were the bad actor in that whole affair. Remember, you lied about other editors on Jimbo's talk page and were eventually topic banned and restricted to 1RR? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others, in case anyone wants to make note of it.- MrX 🖋 23:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna see how much opportunity I had to rebut some of the "charges"? Sorry MrX - your position here simply adds weight to the fact that anyone who carries grudges as well as Hunley and you should not be given a mop. I did not "lie about other editors on Jimbo's Talk page" for example. and your "grudginess" is ill-suited to civil discourse. Stick to the issue about AfDs. Trying to paint me as Satan is not impressing me one iota. Is there a real reason you suddenly appeared here? I had not mentioned you at all - but you show up. Note this is in response to personal attacks made on me, and is not in any way anything more than that. Collect (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did lie, at 13:21, 16 March 2015 UTC. I don't want the mop. And let's not pretend that you oppose Jbhunley for any other reason than grudge against him for this and the drama surrounding your feud with Ubikwit.- MrX 🖋 23:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of these, many were from the Jewish[1] intellectual milieu of New York City.[2][3] and [27] on Dual loyalty: In the run up to the invasion of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, charges of dual loyalty were levelled against the neoconservatives from various sectors. The debate was heated, with charges of Antisemitism and counter charges being leveled. The controversy continues into the present due to concerns over neoconservatives disposition toward Iran. sure looks iffy, by the way. You missed the "dual loyalty" issue? Collect (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

??????- MrX 🖋 23:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(oh god) X, leave it go man... Lourdes 15:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate very much that people want to point out flaws in some Oppose votes but I have seen here and at some other recent RfAs that Oppose voters often feel put-upon or even harassed for their votes. I know that is no one's intent but it does seem to sometimes be the result. I have no desire to silence or curtail anyone from either side but, if when anyone thinks they should reply to an Oppose and my preference would make the difference between challenging the Oppose or not please choose not.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. Jbh ^Talk 00:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Lack of content creation coupled with odd deletionist status at AfD are sufficient. Out of last 500 AfDs, he sought deletion of 376 out of 413 (rest not identified or miscellaneous) or over 90%. All in all, a justified Oppose. Collect (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Just curious, but how many of those 376 pages went on to be deleted? I ask because if the majority of them were, then those "delete" votes were likely justified, meaning your vote here really isn't, unless you have other reasons... (substantial "content creation" isn't a prerequisite for adminship)-

   wolf 20:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Number of AfD's where vote matched result: 363 (85.8%), Collect. Based on that, you may wish to revise your opinion or find another reason to oppose - if you must. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   The two stats are different - I suggest you note the wording for each. Of 413 !votes, 376 were for Delete or Speedy Delete. My reasons stands. "Accuracy of !votes" is an entirely different statistic, I was concerned with how likely he is to !vote "Delete" as a rule. Do you see the difference? By the way, berating "oppose" votes is something I have seen all too often in the past, and you might wish to read those discussions before berating others here. Collect (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Somebody's got to take out the trash. It's a good thing we have people who are willing to help with this unpleasant task, and who do it pretty accurately by all accounts.- MrX 🖋

   ??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Berating? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

   Lepricavark (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Sorry if you feel "berated",

   wolf 01:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   "Berate" means to "scold or criticize angrily." (from Bing) And the fact is that a person who says "Delete" over 90% of the time is "well above average" in that regard. What I fear is that this person now makes a point of attacking me when my vote was done without my remembering him at all. Is an admin who holds grudges against folks who bear him no ill-will what we need? Collect (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   If you actually know what the word means, then why are you misusing it? Nobody was berating Accesscrawl above. Neither of the first two responders to your !vote were berating you. It appears that you are being overly-defensive of the opposers here because you personally have an axe to grind with the candidate. This makes it difficult to believe your assertion (presented without evidence) that the candidate is attacking you.

   Lepricavark (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Huh? I used the word "berate" precisely and accurately - and now you seek to berate me for using the word "berate" correctly? Are we on Candid Camera here? And I did not even recall the person - therefore saying I checked his AfD votes when I have done the same thing on every RfA is absurd. Collect (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   No, you are not using the word accurately. I am not berating you; I am trying to reason with you. You seem to believe that anyone who questions your !vote is automatically berating you. Then again, you might be operating under the mistaken belief that everyone else here is as angry as you are.

   Lepricavark (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I apologize (again), but

   wolf 13:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

   ]

Please read my oppose. I did not even recall the person I do not know who he is, so there is no damn way I could "out" him in any way whatsoever. The person holding the grudge is he, not I. And if you look at the RfAs in which I indicate support or opposition you will notice that I specifically refer to AfD positions pretty much every time. The way to see why I hold the opinions I hold is to look at them in the past not to berate me now. I find 91% "delete" !Votes to be a quite high percentage. Clear? Collect (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed also, but I don't see the questions above your use of the word "berate" as meeting the definition you gave, "scold or criticize angrily." I think your attribution of anger to something that looks like a normal discussion is what set this thread off the rails. Please assume good faith and take the questions at face value. Jonathunder (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm not really sure Collect is even reading my comments/questions, as his responses don't seem to even remotely address anything I've posted. But thanks to everyone else for awesome derail and having the whole thread dumped on the talk page. Yay team. -

wolf 23:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Can someone summarise what happened on the Wikipediocracy thread about this RfA - I'm not a member there so I can't see the comments? Deryck C. 11:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can read here. Rzvas (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come one, there's got to be a better summary than that for those of us still waiting for their WO accounts to be approved. Was there any actual canvassing by Jbhunley, or just the "There is an RfA happening" post by Dysklyver? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That link is disgusting and whoever wrote it should be ashamed of themselves. I’ve always found those off-wiki sites that discuss Wikipedia and its editors to be incredibly boorish and this did not disappoint in that regard.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 13:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think much of the article either. You can see my name in the comments section criticizing one of its flaws. ♫

(talk)❀ 14:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

(

(talk)❀ 14:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

No, that is a mischaracterization. Jbh responded only after Collect commented in the thread and made a reference to anti-Semitism relating to past disputes. Jbh clarified this in answer to Q17. Alex Shih (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Collect is making bogus accusations of antisemitism, shouldn't he be facing sanctions of some kind (especially since he seems to have repeated the allegations on Wikipedia)?

Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

My posts and edits are being grossly misstated. I stated, and believe, that edits making a point that people are Jewish and have "dual loyalty" to Israel and the US may well be viewed as anti-Semitic.

At no point and in no way did I ever call JBHunley an "anti-Semite" ever.

Is that clear enough, now? And I had totally forgotten his/her existence until he/she brought it up. My "oppose" was based on the position that strong deletionists are possibly a problem at times. Please look up my oppose votes at RfAs in the past. Thank you. [1], inter alia Collect (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why you feel the need to keep reiterating that you had forgotten the candidate's existence until he brought it up? You've already said that several times, and it has nothing to do with my comment at all. Also, I see nothing antisemitic about the point in question.

Lepricavark (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I raised the point only because those who call me "Trash" seem to think I came here because of an animus which I did not and do not have. The iterated claim that I called any editor "an anti-Semite" is quite objectionable to me. My Oppose vote was based on a criterion I have used in a number of cases, and this discussion should be about the candidate and not about me at all. And I find it worrisome that saying Jews have "dual loyalties" is acceptable, but that you may well think that it is acceptable. Collect (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]