Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish

message: I added the following comments after BInguen's vote, but they messed up the numbering, so I'm moving them here instead:
::I think I've been partially confused with another user here.  The Isabella V debate does not appear to have involved me (the related links above don't mention me, and I have no recollection of being involved.)  One of my (polite) user talk messages to Dakota was right below someone else's questioning of Dakota's closing of one round or another of the Isabella V debate, so that might be the source of the confusion.  This has no effect on the other concerns Blnguyen raises. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind!  It was at , where I complained that the AfD in question was being treated as a vote, and used the "bogus" language that Dakota objected to above [1st "oppose" vote].  I had not recalled that it was on that "Isabella V" article in particular.  My bad!— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion on my part

message: Just a consensus RfA question: If I disagree with the factuality, as opposed to emotion, strength, intent, etc., of an oppose comment, what should I do about that, if anything?  It seems to me that responding with direct arguments against negative votes is generally perceived as a Bad Thing, and I tend toward that feeling myself.  Yet I think I've been misrepresented and that this should be corrected, so I'm in a bit of a quandary.  Should I address it here in a new topic, or simply ignore it? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just politely point out that you feel that way. Be very polite. Not fair to be misrepresented then be shot down for pointing it out. ViridaeTalk 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable.  I'll think on it further, and await further commentary.  I lean toward bringing it up here on the talk page rather than in direct response to the oppose in question, since it brought up other more valid points than the one I've got a qualm about. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pointing out factual errors and misrepresentations is generally accepted, and gives others something to consider besides the oppose vote itself. However since you are being marked down for a tendency to "wikilawyer", I'd suggest that brevity is the soul of wit here; you may want to ask for diffs to show what the person is talking about, if you cannot see where they are coming from. Waiting too long, however, will allow a "snowball effect" to take place from people who only read others' opinions and do not do their own homework. -- nae'blis 18:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of a lost cause at this point, as my oppose rate's shot way up.  Oh well.  For the curious, the disputed point mentioned above is argumentum ad Jimbonem.  I not only supported Radiant's creation of that page, I defended it against attack on its talk page and in AfD.  WP:N discussion did touch on whether Jimbo's previously expressed views on the topic were relevant, but that does not mean that I habitually make "because Jimbo said so" arguments.  That's the direct opposite of the reality!  I won't bother noting this disagreement on the AfD page itself; the damage has already been done, and arguing about it there will simply look plaintive and argumentative, I believe.  Same with the accusation of wikilawyering, which I do not actually engage in.  There is a big difference between believing strongly in Wikipedia processes and policies, and citing to them when appropriate, on the one hand, versus the behaviors detailed at WP:LAWYER, on the other, such as willful misinterpretation of policy to make a WP:POINT and supporting the exact wording of policy in violation of its spirit and intent. These are behaviors I oppose strongly, as can be seen by my recent activities in CfD and especially SfD and stub proposal.  Oh well.   Thanks, nae'blis, for the nomination, support and guidance, but it seems clear that I'm going to have to wait and try this again another day, after more distance has been put between my current behavior and my past mistakes.   I believe it was a Good Thing for me to own up to them immediately, even if that generated oppose votes.  At least Wikipedians will know I am honest and well capable of self-critcism and self-examination. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General question for the community