Talk:Stewards/Elections 2021/Votes/AmandaNP

Can all membrs of the community vote here?[edit]

Yes I know one needs to have x numbers of edits to participate in this vote, but... What is the point of getting voters to spend time figuring out how to fill in the complicated Template:Se-vote?

I won't even try to explain my objection to the use of Template:Sr-heading at the top of each section. 14:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ottawahitech (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech, no one needs to fill out that template. There's a big "Vote" button at the top, as I pointed out to you here – it's hard to overlook. The voting requirements are here – they are prominently linked at Stewards/Elections 2021. Blablubbs (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as mentioned below the vote button is not working so you have to vote manually but as said before the Se-vote template dosen't needs to be filled, you can just put # ~~~~ and the formatting will be done by someone else. However you can fill the template by yourself which is what I've did, the template is filled as follows:

{{Se-vote|2021|(your username here)|checked=|cb=}} , replacing (your username here) with your username, but leave everything else just as it is. Anyway thanks User3749 (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why can others modify what I write, but I cannot do the same?[edit]

Why are some users not allowed to change comments made by others.Example. while other are permitted to do so. Example. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech The simple answer is that you aren't supposed to change candidate statements without their explict approval. Like when you request for permissions, someone alter your request, will you be happy with it? Please ask candidates before editing. As of adding the template, the instructions are very clear it is needed for a vote, hence, someone adding the template is proper. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't modify your comment, I fixed your vote. The alternative would have been to just revert it entirely. Blablubbs (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with Vote Button Script?![edit]

Wondering if there is an issue with the Vote Button, voted now 3 times from different browsers (yesterday and today) and Vote ("Yes") is not being inserted?!? --CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CommanderWaterford: If the script isn't working you can always just manually edit the section and put # ~~~~ and someone will format it for you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am having the same issue, I just tried to vote yes but I tried it and it doesn't do anything, even when I tried multiple times. I will try to manually vote, thanks User3749 (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, and I was trying to vote with the button again and that time it did work. I found that that only happens when you are not autoconfirmed, because the se-vote template will add external links which requires a verification which can't be done with the tool. You should have no problem with the tool if you are autoconfirmed. Thanks User3749 (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for Beaneater00's comment[edit]

Moved from voting page. For the Election Committee, —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 01:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, you the person who was blocked for blatant anti-Semitism on enwiki, are opposing someone for using a gender neutral, inclusive term? Praxidicae (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Beaneater00 (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive NPA commentary with no explanation after multiple pings. For the Election Committee, —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 20:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae and Beaneater00: Aren't you both guilty of "outing"? Just curious. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: Well the name of the applicant is Amanda; it can reasonably be assumed that this person is female. Regardless I did not know this was in contravention of policy and I apologize. Beaneater00 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beaneater00: I don't know that outing is a contravention of any Meta Policy. If it is, I have not found it documented anywhere. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech How do you think they are OUTING someone? And as OUTING is a serious allegation, I will think you should explain why. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Camouflaged Mirage:
Outing is the act of publicly disclosing information about a person's behavior or relationships without their consent.

Why do you say that outing is a "serious allegation" (by the way i did not allege, I asked a question)? Can you provide a ref? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't told which information do you think has been outed. As far as I can see everything mentioned is already public. Majavah (talk!) 05:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech If "Aren't you both guilty of "outing"? " isn't an allegation, I really don't know what is this statement, a proclamation, or maybe a statement. Okay, let me ask you, what is the meaning of this statement? Anyway, the word OUTING by itself is serious, and admins and oversighters take this very seriously in any projects. I will like to ask you why you claim this. To response to the earlier question, although there isn't an outing policies here, we do follow the foundation privacy policy as in the Terms of Use and Oversight policy. Former can be considered by T&S for possible office action, latter can be dealt with via oversight blocks. But I still want to hear from you, on what basis you make "Aren't you both guilty of "outing"? " this statement. Thanks Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: care to elaborate on 1) how i outed anyone and 2) how it’s remotely relevant? Praxidicae (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: it's been 2 days since you made an egregious accusation, care to back it up and explain what exactly you're referring to by me "outing" someone (with diffs) or would you like to redact it? Praxidicae (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Ottawahitech: this is a serious allegation, that you've provided no explanation to. You've been editing recently which means you are aware of this discussion. If you do not reply satisfactorily or retract your statement, you will be blocked. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 17:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]