Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ansh666

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.

Count not updating

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

Seems to be working fine for me. Try doing a WP:purge? ansh 666 00:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

Reply re: Softlavender's !vote

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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:

22 December 2013: Closed this AfD after only 31 hours. It was re-opened by nominator, and closed 6 days later by an admin: [1].
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: [2]. Two people complained on his talk page but he did not re-open. The article was re-AfDed 7 months later and deleted: [3].
13 March 2015: Closed this AfD after only 6.5 hours: [4].
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: [5].
15 March 2016: Closed this AfD as "SNOW" after only 24 hours, even though there were dissenting !votes: [6].
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: [7]. The AfD was re-opened 6 hours later (after talkpage discussion) by a third party stating no consensus had been built: [8]. The AfD was closed by an admin 2 weeks later as no consensus with option to boldly merge: [9].
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 [10]; closed one week later (4K, 3D) by an admin with an incisive analysis [11].
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.

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)Reply

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)Reply

Add topic