Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Avruch

I untranscluded this and marked as final an withdrawn by candidate. I think the candidate closed it. Listed under the unsuccessful RFA's. Don't remember the other place to list. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody wanna add the poor guy to WP:100?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological) is the other place. — _Maggot^Syn 00:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks done. Dlohcierekim 00:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. — _Maggot^Syn 00:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Enigmaman/SNOW :) Enigma ^message 20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

I am here to ask a question: in RFA standards, people have been focusing on article writing, and not the normal admin respinsibilities (blocking, protecting, deleting). Since when will article writing make you better at doing those things? Some people may be brilliant writers, but just don't get the sysop tools. And some people (me included) are not very good at writing articles, but have a good understanding of blocking, deleting and protecting. Just raising the question. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Because at the end of the day, the only important thing on Wikipedia is the articles. With no admins, we'd still work (albeit become quite messy); with no articles, we'd be a poor-quality chatroom. Adminship isn't about blocking, deleting & protecting; it's about deciding who and what needs blocking, deleting and protecting, and explaining why to those users - generally perfectly good-faith users, not mindless vandals - who are blocked, have their work deleted, or can't edit a protected article. I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. While I don't insist on article writing experience, I do insist that someone who's given the power to delete content has some experience in just how difficult content creation is. Also, admins are (for better or worse) generally the "public face" of the Wikipedia bureaucracy, at least to other users, and I think they need to have shown they understand the process of collaboration in order to explain it to others. – iridescent 00:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Dean B (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

With regards to adminship, the reason why people like to see article contributions is a couple of reasons; firstly, they want to know you're here for the right reasons - users want admins to be here to improve the encyclopedia and without article contributions, you have to question their real reason for being here (power?). Secondally, article edits show an understands of our content policies/guidelines. Often admins have to mediate disputes/make calls with regards to content - without article edits, it's hard to show experience that you understand the content requirements. It's also important to have experience in admin related areas such as participation in xfD debates, speedy tagging and reports to AIV so you show you understand exactly where and when to use the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was asking because I am not a good article writer (all I have is a couple of stubs). I know that creating content is difficult.

I don't get why people who haven't contributed large amounts of work to articles can't deal with non-admins.

So, to be an admin, you have to have lots of article writing now? In that case, I can throw away my dreams of being an administrator. As referenced here and other places, it's now impossible.

And I also don't get why people can't accept reverting vandalism as the reason you are here. I am here to help write an encyclopedia by cleaning up. Is that unnaceptable? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, you don't have to show an amazing strength at content, just a willingness to actually contribute. If you prefer to do more administrative tasks, that's cool, but you need to show at least a basic understanding of content by contributing to some articles. With regards to it being your dream - that's not always a good thing. We're here to create an encylopedia and that should be your ultimate goal, however you contribute. I personally think that everyone who puts a request in, should want to be an admin, but it shouldn't be the be all and end all. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Ryan; too Shapiros10) No. To be an admin you have clue. Telling people you dream of adminship doesn't inspire confidence. To be here to help with maintenance is great, but I (for one) don't feel comfortable giving the blockhammer to people who, after having spent over 9000 hours vandalwhacking, is going to exert rage by blocking everyone. I'd rather give it to an FA writer who appreciates the effort of building content. But that's just me. Ironically, the community's current mood is kinda in agreement with that. giggy _(:O) 01:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC) If this didn't help, re-read what the folks above - both admins (for what that's worth) said.

My dear sirs, with all due respect, I want to serve Wikipedia as best as I can, and adminship is a way to serve the community. Should I continue doing anti-vandal work, or should I start focusing on article work full-time now? because it seems nobody will care if I revert vandalism, or report users, or participate in AFDs. The reason I posted this question is because I think that Administrator is not an administrative position: it's just a service award for being an Article Writer with some extra tools thrown in. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"it's just a service award for being an Article Writer with some extra tools thrown in" - Yep, that's what it's supposed to be. Because we're here to build an encyclopedia. giggy _(:O) 01:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And Giggy, that is an offensive stereotype. Not all anti-vandal hunters crack under the strain and block everyone in sight.

I also don't get the point of giving the tools to an article writer when all they'll do is article work, and nothing involving deletion, blocking and protecting. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's about writing articles necessarily; it's about contributing to articles. I've only written one or two articles from scratch but I have been heavily involved with the wikification effort. Articles can be improved through more than just writing. Metros (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then, if I run for an RFA (which i won't, because it will be snowballed fail since I don't write articles), people will not care. Thanks for listening to me whine. You've made me feel a lot better about myself. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And that's why purely article writers don't often get the tools. It's all about a mix, but content contributions are important for the reasons above. People don't want anything amazing, just something. Both admin and content related experience is important to show a thorough understanding of the Wikipedia way. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA is about whether we can trust the candidate to use the tools appropriately. Very very rarely are candidates opposed for lack of article-building alone; it only becomes a factor when the candidate has exhibited questionable judgment elsewhere. Many candidates can be trusted even though they are ignorant of a lot of policy, because they are adjudged to be eminently trustworthy. Some recent successful RfA's in which the candidates were not very focused on article building but were supported near unanimously include Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firefoxman 3, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xavexgoem, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegship and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Huntster. It is far more common for candidates to be opposed for lack of familiarity with Wikispace activities such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA and WP:AFD. If you doubt that an absence of focus on article writing can negatively effect your judgement, I suggest you try regular new page patrolling, and see how rapidly the trigger-happy urge to delete imperfect additions overcomes you. Then try writing a few; you'll be surprised how much your perspective shifts. Sincerely, Skomorokh 01:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Or, if you want an example of an RFA for someone who hasn't written a lot of articles, your adopter's RFA is quite a good example to show that it can be done. Lara's written very few articles, but by her cleaning up here and there, she's shown that she understands collaboration and working with other people. – iridescent 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, while I don't think "adminship is no big deal" is true any more, adminship isn't any kind of award; it's about whether people think you can be trusted. There are at least two people on this talkpage who are among the best article writers on Wikipedia, but will probably not be admins for a long time if ever because some people don't trust them with the tools for one reason or another. As Ryan says, you need to show an understanding of policy and an understanding of what we're here for; as Ryan doesn't say, you also need to show a reason why Wikipedia would be better off with you as an admin. RFA may be a bad process (it's not so long ago that RFA looked like this), but for better or worse, it's the process we've got.

What I will say, is don't be too keen on adminship. It's not the "superpower" it is on some other websites and gives you no special status; all it means is that you have a couple of extra buttons, and your talkpage will mysteriously double in size every night while you're asleep. – iridescent 01:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sam (Shapiros10), here's some things to think about. I find it rude that a person would not contribute anything and just spend all their time tagging other folks' work. To me its like saying, "I don't do this dirty work, I'll just tell you to go do it". Article writing gives folks some appreciation of sometimes how hard and time consuming it can be to come up with material for an article. I believe that having 'admins' and 'editors' in two camps leads to splits in thinking and behaving that cause problems. All you have to do is look at some of the debates at Arbcom or RfC to see how hugely draining these things are and how much time they consume. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sam, I know I'm normally known for speaking in clipped, formal tones, but I'll try to level with you - I kinda feel for you on this one. You spend a lot of time doing work on the wiki, doing what you feel is both useful to the project and what you enjoy. Hell, I've fired up Huggle myself and clicked through contributions, making a revert here, a warning there and adding the occasional AIV report. The problem is, the tools make it efficient to make quick judgement decisions and if you get it wrong, it's easy to fix. One of the things I find incredibly hard to do is article writing. You know, the start from scratch article writing where you have no idea how it's going to turn out and you're basically following the sources. I think I've created a grand total of three new mainspace articles and they felt like pulling teeth. But I do it to understand what it's like for the other editors, they guys whose edits you watch for a few moments before clicking on to the next one. Every once in a while you have to bite the bullet and do it, just to remind yourself what it's like. One thing you can do to break the back of an article is to do cleanup - taking an article that's been tagged for cleanup for months and fixing it. Sometimes it'll mean pulling out unsourced information, but in many cases it'll mean digging through sources in order to fill in the blanks.

One other thing I'd add is that if you're looking for feedback, ask your mentor. If you want something more, file a request at WP:ER, point me to it and I'll give you my honest opinion. I can understand that you want to help the project, that you feel you could do so much more with just a few extra tools. But you already know that you can do a huge amount with what's already available - you can build articles and encourage others to do the same. Anti-vandal work, deletion debates and so on are just cogs around the edge of the machine.

I'm sorry this has gone on a bit, and that it might be a bit over the top, or covering stuff Lara's already talked to you about. Seriously though, don't sweat it about RfA. As someone once said, it's no big deal. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 02:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

From my experience, I am giving myself the challenge of either creating a new article from scratch each day or substantially expanding existing stubs each day. Yes, I am a masochist. But I am also aware that the foundation of this project is the content. As I see it, we are here to build an encyclopedia. For a minute, let’s stop thinking about our internal shenanigans and think about how the outside world looks at what we are presenting. People in the “real world” don’t know about blocking or 3RR or XfD – quite frankly, they don’t know any of us exist. They’re coming to this site to look up an article about a person or topic or whatever. If we are missing information in the articles or if we are offering badly written muck, then our work here is a waste. The vast majority of vandalism to the articles is erased within a very quick moment, and I am glad for those who spend the time protecting the articles. But the core content is our public face, and I think this project would benefit if we had people who are serious about writing. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of admins who couldn't or wouldn't write articles before they were admins. There are plenty of admins who shine in other areas. To have article writing be a benchmark is not useful, IMHO. Kingturtle (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sam, this is what your assignments were supposed to help teach you. I asked you before I adopted you to tell me what you thought adminship was. After reading your response, I told you that I'd adopt you and we'd focus on building an encyclopedia. There are plenty of ways to improve content other than writing articles. Copy-editing, reference formatting, MOS fixes, reviewing. These are all valuable and desperately needed. So just because you don't write articles doesn't mean you'll never pass an RFA. It just all depends on where you focus your attention.

To comment on what Iridescent said about my RFA, it actually wasn't unique for lack of article writing. A large percentage of my edits were to content improvement. I had written a handful of articles, including a couple GAs and another in que, and I had heavy participation in the GA project, which is devoted to article improvement. Mine was unique in that I had literally no XFD experience during a time when the trend at RFA required it.

The desire to have content improvement, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the fact that this is an encyclopedia and that is our purpose, as far as RFA goes. I think everyone here is volunteering their time because they want to, and if content writing isn't your thing, that's fine. But, to be granted adminship, I believe there is a need to have experience in article space beyond vandalism reversion. You have to collaborate with others, gain experience with content disputes, and learn the policies that apply to the article space. For me, that's why content improvement is important for adminship. You need to show you understand the goals of the project and that you can be trusted to use these extra tools to protect the project and assist us in reaching our goals. You can't do that when all your participation is reverting edits, warning users and reporting to AIV. That gains you experience relating to the block button. We want to know you can be trusted with the protection and delete buttons as well.

Lastly, let me say that adminship isn't necessarily a healthy goal... particularly when you don't have a strong grasp on what adminship really is. Above all, the key thing to remember is that this is an encyclopedia. Focus on improving it and don't worry about adminship until there comes a point that you feel you need it, or once you feel you've really got a good understanding of policy and could be a greater asset as an admin. If your sole interest is in vandal whacking, don't worry about adminship because mostly likely you'll come to find it involves a lot of stuff you don't care to do. LaraLove|Talk 05:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had meant writing could include wikifying, finding references etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For my money, editors who aren't massive contributors to articles can still generate trust. They do find it harder, but we have had many such successful RfAs. The kind of things !voters will respond to well is seeing good grasp of the kinds of key policies we normally expect people to get from involvement in writing, such as WP:N, WP:BLP etc. The other thing is that people are a little suspicious of those who contribute literally nothing to the mainspace. From memory, the successful RfAs of those not particularly involved in writing have usually nodded to their gnomish contributions to mainspace. Those utterly uninterested in the mainspace get the "why are you here" question thrown at them, which is difficult to deal with. Note: the preceeding is not necessarily my opinion, but my observation of how !voters respond --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the answers. I was just being scared for the distant future, because I am an awful writer who barly managed to get 6 stubs out there in 9 months. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with creating stubs. All articles here are works in progress and stubs have the potential to blossom into bigger pieces. Besides, a concise and cogent stub is always superior to a flabby and mediocre article. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

By no means, as others have stated above, writing aren't the only part of contributing to the encyclopedia. A LOT of work is to be done improving stubs and other bad-looking articles. But if you want an idea of how to create and improve on stubs, just click Special:Random in other language Wikipedias. Most of these don't have articles here, so you just try Google Translate and do your best in formatting. With all due respect, I do not think you are ready for adminship until you have several decent monts of mainspace work, not random tagging or Huggle reversions. As an "editor of the wiki", I do not revert 1000 vandals using automated tools (they're usually gone within seconds), have about 3 edits to the AIV, and only participate in AFDs of subjects that interest me or really need it. However, I view my rare occurances of participating in AFDs much better than copypasting "Delete Per nom. ~~~~" all the time. There is plenty of work a lousy article writer can do as long as they show the effort. And finally, while I think that pretty much everyone probably has a dream of becoming an admin here, IT IS THE CONTENT, not these lengthy discussiong or 4,000 edits to the AIV, THAT COUNT. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 13:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than try to meet a set of RfA worthy criteria, be bold (make some charts, some categories, some stubs, upload some images), use your brain, and avoid common mistakes. Get to know the place in your own way. Kingturtle (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that would make too much sense. ;} Dlohcierekim 15:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

RfB, RfA prerequisite

The page doesn't actually specify this, but the idea I am sort of getting is that since Wikipedia:Bureaucrats have superior inferred abilities and superior inferred responsibilities to Wikipedia:Administrators/SysOps, should it be noted to avoid the hassle of users nominating themselves/others directly to that position that only current Administrators can be nominated for election as a beareaucrat? Considering how powerful the position is, I don't think there's much trouble with requiring going through the process twice. One would expect someone to serve as an Administrator for a while to gain experience before advancing anyway. I think by mentioning it as a prerequisite on this page that it would get rid of a lot of hassle and would make sure that people don't confuse the election process because they'll know to apply for Administrator first. Tyciol (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Would this solve a problem? My involvement has been pretty low lately, has there been a rash of drive-by RfBs by non-admins that this will address? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, solution in search of a problem. I don't think there's been an RFB by a non-admin in recent memory. –xenocidic (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It does say at WP:RFA that "Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here." This lays out that bureaucrats have to be administrators first. Rudget (logs) 15:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that necessarily says that. You might take it as implying that, but a Bureaucrat being a type of administrator (high tier admin) doesn't say at all that you need to be an admin first to become one. It's important to clearly explain the process. Tyciol (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Can't think of an RfB by a non-admin. (though, really, I don't see a specific reason that we'd restrict bureaucrat candidates to just admins: the tasks they perform are very different) Not an actual problem that needs addressing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it did happen and quite recently in fact. Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/I'm On Base. It's deleted now, so only admins can see it, but it happened in early May. I guess I just pay too much attention to what's going on here on the RFA page. Of course it was snow-closed, but my point was that there was an RFB by a non-admin. Useight (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the closed RfB mentioned above. It doesn't seem to have caused any disruption or grief. I'd tend to lean towards avoiding instruction creep here. Just my opinion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Especially considering that was a disruptive user anyway. –xenocidic (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that RFB came and went pretty quickly. I, too, think we'll be fine without the instruction creep, I was just pointing out that there was, indeed, a RFB by a non-admin, since others above were wondering whether or not there had been one recently. Useight (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, an RfB by a sockpuppet[1] isn't the most compelling piece of evidence. :) I was talking about an actual request, preferably one that ran for at least a day. To the best of my knowledge, there haven't been any requests. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to provide evidence, as that implies that I'm trying to prove someone's point. I was merely giving an example of a recent RFB by a non-admin. Useight (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think my statement stands, however, as a sock-RfX doesn't really "count" as an example (since socks usually don't follow logical behavior anyway). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

From the way I read it, EVula was saying it was not a problem because people should be able to apply directly to be Beareaucrats as they perform different tasks. Not because no one had tried to do it. In this case, a disruptive user sure but if they are indeed so different and there are advocates for making the jump directly then I think having the issue brought up would be good. I wouldn't call it intruction creep to add one sentence saying either "only admins can apply to be bereaucrats" or "both admins and established users can apply to be bureaucrats". Very short and concise. Tyciol (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's ever specified a rule about that, but any RfB by a non-admin would likley get shot down. Quickly. A SNOW NOTNOW close would be almost inevitable.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding something like that Tyciol imo would only likely increase the amount of snowy RfBs put forth. I think it's fine the way it is now. While you don't *need* to be an admin to apply for bureaucratship, it's doubtful one could make the jump from user to bureaucrat. –xenocidic (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A parallel can be drawn between this and any prerequisites for RfA. All of us here will readily admit that there are certain criteria that a candidate should make sure they reach before running (chiefly: if someone has 500 edits, they don't have a snowball's chance in hell). But is it an actual prerequisite? No. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

True. It's a prerequisite, but if we told people that, it'd be too bitey. They have to learn the hard way, so everybody opposing can share the blame for the inevitable bitey-ness of the experience.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 19:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dagoth Ur, Mad God just had a non-admin RFB. Snowed, and I filed a WP:RFCU on the basis that User:Edward Smiley's only edit was support. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Current RfB

When I undid this edit, I meant its the wrong request, not the wrong spot. Clearly this user shouldn't have an active RfB (they aren't an admin to begin with). Any takers? — _Maggot^Syn 12:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just Snowball closed it. BG7even 12:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

it looks like he socked a support vote. Check it out at WP:RFCU. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If it turns out to be a sock, the whole damn thing can just be deleted under G6. We should save actual requests, not bogus "hey, let's screw with everyone!" requests. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted it. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (that was actually my reason for posting it here). — _Maggot^Syn 15:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting situation

Resolved

 – The Rambling Man took care of it. Enigma ^message 05:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mark_t_young, a user cast a rather harsh oppose without evidence, and was indefinitely blocked for harassment soon afterwards. User has received increasing blocks from five different admins. Is making a note below the vote enough? I'm not sure if the closing 'crat will see the note, although it is at ~70% right now. The RfA closes in a few hours. Check oppose #21. Enigma ^message 16:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, it's acceptable to de-number indefblocked users voters, and even strike them out if they're disruptive. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Wizardman 17:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The note was sufficient. Dunno if I'll be back in time to close it, but I certainly wouldn't pay it much mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about indenting or outdenting or what not. I think just a comment is probably sufficient as well. The question one would need to ask, since it's obvious that the !vote (which gave some detail/rationale) was cast before the block, was whether it was in made in good faith. The user may have temperament issues, but a valid rationale. Look at the reason, not the user in other words. Sockpuppets notwithstanding. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've struck the comment since the user has been indef blocked. Despite this I found no true consensus to promote although it was tight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought what I wrote at the RfA was pretty mild, but apparently I also have become a target of his ire. Heehee. Enigma ^message 04:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to provoke a blocked user when he/she cannot respond? Did you come here to gloat? --Blechnic (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I came here to respond to the accusations because the talk page is protected. Enigma ^message 04:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no accusations against you on this page that require your response or giggle here. --Blechnic (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not on this page, but on the protected talk page that I cannot edit. Out of my options, this is the most appropriate place to put my response. Enigma ^message 04:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Other than {{editprotected}}. Kevin (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No one can edit it right now. That would be a good time for all parties to take a break, rather than parties who can still get in jabs continuing to do so in other forums. I wonder if your comment on the talk page of the blocked user would have gotten you blocked--laughing at someone who can't respond? If there's a possibility, there's no place for it anywhere else. A blocked user is probably pissed off. Provoking them increases the overall negativity on Wikipedia. Why not just leave the user alone? --Blechnic (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

PS This is the talk page for RfA, not for the user. --Blechnic (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Because if someone accuses me of "defamation" or anything else, I'm going to respond. I don't appreciate baseless accusations and I feel the need to defend myself against them. I usually will reply in the same location where the accusations were made, unless for some reason that isn't possible. Enigma ^message 05:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't defended yourself, that takes a discussion. This is not the user's talk page. --Blechnic (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Quit flogging a dead horse. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In flogging response to Wisdom89's last flog: Usually more effectively done without the request. --Blechnic (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bjweeks#Questions_for_the_candidate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Just wanted to point that out. Enigma ^message 19:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda creepy. No questions? And yet people can make decisions? Darkspots (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a real RfA yet. Quick, someone add five questions! Enigma ^message 20:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I never read the questions/answers. Everyone can "behave" at RFA and answer what they're "supposed to" anyway. We should be looking at contribs anyway. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, interesting but nothing more. This discussion need not continue further should it unduly prejudice the outcome. It's fascinating that this candidate is popular to the degree than no more than the standard questions are asked but we unless anyone here has something to contribute to the RFA, move along, nothing to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely don't want it to influence the outcome. Just thought it was an interesting thing, given that we've had many complaints about too many questions at RfAs and said RfAs turning into a question drill. Enigma ^message 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opposers being Attacked

I was just reading BJweek's RfA and I was kind of surprised at the level of badgering some of the opposes were getting. I was thinking of going straight to the review of the RfA process with my concerns but I figured I'd see what you guys think first, to see if maybe I'm wrong. Beam 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is generally expected that candidates or their nominators will react to opposes. Of course, some opposes are more arguable than others, and I agree that the civilty of the replies is creeping downwards, but they are entitled to their opinion. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Before this thread gives the impression of a Zimbabwean election, can you please elaborate or give some examples of "badgering"? There might be a bit more questioning of opposes than usual (some stern replies to otherwise acceptable opposes, but otherwise I'm not seeing much out of the norm. —Kurykh 20:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA has sadly become an adversarial process, a little like hazing. I've seen much worse badgering than that, quite recently. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh, opinionated diatribe happens. Read the section above for an alternative view. This RFA is, well, interesting, but drawing undue attention should not be encouraged, see Schrödinger's cat. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with Schroedinger's cat, but could you possibly explain what its relevance is to the RfA? Did you perhaps mean Pandora's Box? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just afraid of changing the outcome through observation alone. Mind you, if despair is all that's left after RFA then, yes, I'd opt for the lady's box... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Or that there's a 50% chance that the RfA will be poisoned in some way? :) (I love physics) Fritzpoll (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It would perhaps be interesting to know how many candidates retired after an unsuccessful RfA. The experience is unlikely ever to be a positive one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Over the last month or so when I've been lurking around RfA I've seen much worse "attacks" on opposers, but it was pretty constant as I read through BJweek's RfA which prompted me to make this post. I'm going to see what a few more people think and I probably will bring it up at the RfA review. Oh and to be clear, I haven't seen BJ himself harass the opposing, but a supporter or two have. Of course we shouldn't let that look down on the nominee although if it got drastic I hope a nominee would say or do something to try to calm it. Beam 20:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A number of RFA's I've witnessed, the nominee stays well out of any wikidrama going on besides refuting inaccuracy or injustice. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah usually a wannabe admin who is that close to achieving their goal won't fudge it up at the last moment. Beam 20:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Or it's a wannabe admin (and anyone who goes for RFA is, by their nature, a wannabe admin) who doesn't want to get embroiled in wikidrama and induce oppose !votes (as I did) by trying to respond to other comments. If anyone has opinions/questions etc for the candidate, they should be discussed in the discussion section, not in the Support/Oppose etc section. Or better still, on the RFA talk page or on the talk page of the candidate. This vitriolic bloodlust we see from time-to-time should be avoided by everyone at all costs. And that includes opposition to the candidate taking the 'higher ground' to avoid such conflict. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

All cooperating nominees are wannabe admins, just to be clear. :) Beam 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, hence why I said " (and anyone who goes for RFA is, by their nature, a wannabe admin)"... ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you thought that I thought that wasn't the case. Beam 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look through Bjweeks' RfA. You mention "I haven't seem BJ himself harass the opposing, but a supporter or two have." I'll have to take another look at the RfA, but I see nothing there that qualifies as harassment. Maybe a little bit of heated discussion, but no harassment. Acalamari 20:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the term badger better than harass. Beam 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the term badger as well. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

QUOTED. Hilarious! My god, that was beutiful...--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Great edit summary. :D Acalamari 21:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia... Badger Badger Badger. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how it's badgering either. Besides the support/oppose/neutral part, the other point of an RfA is to discuss if someone should be an administrator or not. As long as people remain civil towards one another, there's nothing wrong with responding to opposition (or even supports or neutrals, for that matter). Acalamari 20:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For the majority of opposes to be questioned by one or two ardent supporters is badgering in my book, especially if it's petty. Someone should feel free to oppose without worrying about a supporter immediately saying that they are wrong, blatantly/directly or not. Beam 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No matter what position you take in RfA, you should always be prepared for a response: when I participate, I know there's a chance that someone may want to respond to me, and I do not view it as badgering. Most of the time, when someone responds to you, they're not telling you that you're wrong; rather, they are trying to get a better understanding of your opinion. That's not badgering. Acalamari 00:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing wrong with responding to opinion but, in my limited experience of such, I've witnessed all manner of hyperbolic screeching over "badgering" the opposers. No wonder candidates seldom respond to the !opposers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Was contemplating starting a thread about this on my own, but apparently somebody beat me to the punch. RfA should more or less be a civil community discussion, but far too often the supporters become indignant at what they perceive as horrible reasons given by the opposition. You can have that opinion I guess, but, seriously people, keep it to yourself. The next time I see Support - Per user in the oppose section, I'm going to slam my head into my keyboard. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my French but it's fucking retarded to support because the opposes don't seem any good. Beam 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it undermines the candidate. That kind of a support certainly doesn't help. It's to make a non-blue linked point. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll do that simply to see your "oi;4efhikhbr" reply :-) Tan | 39 21:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I nom someone for RfA, I go into it telling them that it would take something greater than NPA to make me respond to an Oppose. They are free to do it, but I've seen so much Oppose hounding in my time that I prefer not to. Ideally there shouldn't be *any* responses, since there shouldn't be threaded discussion. If it was all moved to the discussion section or the talk page, things would be a lot better I think. MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes... "oppose hounding". It's so classless and almost arrogant. Beam 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe... but some of the opposition comments are downright stupid. Hell, I once opposed Useight for screwing up the tally box formatting. Anyone calling me out for that would have been in the right. Then you have Kurt, and everyone who comes up with an arbitrary count of some type, or lack of equally arbitrary requisite experience in one area or another. Those votes are simply dumb, just like my opposition comment to Useight last year. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I recall that event quite clearly. I had no idea what went there and I couldn't decide if I should put the time or the date there. Useight (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa. :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some opposes can be rotten or seem unfair - nitpicky, cherry picking, whatever you want to call it. But, that's no excuse for being argumentative, and it's certainly against etiquette and the spirit of Wikipedia for the Support section to become angry to the point of spiteful !voting. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is either a discussion, or it is not. If an RfA were held in person, I guarantee you we wouldn't see half of the opposes that we do simply because there is no way they could be said with a straight face into the eyes of the nominee. Calling them out in writing is entirely legitimate. Certainly, I believe it is equally legitimate to question absurd supports as well. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if there was a little bit of honesty about whether RfA is, or isn't a vote, then we might one day see this much vaunted but little practised idea of consensus in action. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this thread highlights a bad feature of RfAs, and similar polls. Certain editors seem to feel entitled to browbeat and attack and harass and intimidate those they disagree with at these polls. Some even threaten others, or take revenge for voting the "wrong way", sometimes a year or so after the RfA or other poll is closed. I have complained about this repeatedly, and nothing is ever done. Frankly, this behavior is inappropriate.

I would favor a rule that ANYONE who engaged in any such badgering or threatening be banned permanently on the first offense. And I would also ban anyone who complained that this kind of banning is unfair, or went off to whine offwiki about how unfair it is not to be allowed to attack fellow editors who vote the "wrong way". I do not think it would take very long before this very unpleasant part of wikiculture changed if such a plan was implemented. I personally am sick of the attacks and threats and bullying.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a like like steamrolling to me.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

... and certain editors who also happen to be administrators seem to feel that they are immune to those conventions. Because they are administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well they basically are immune... Beam 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

They are, or at least they appear to be, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And what's worse is, after they browbeat and harass and intimidate users at an RfA and the RfA passes, they become more immune because they would now have another admin buddy. A buddy who will be thankful for the badgering performed for their benefit and will surely stand up for them in the future. Beam 22:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes the WP:CABAL is growing, sign up today! Seriously, if you feel browbeaten take it to the admin, or to arbcom if it's that bad, but this all just sounds like accusations of elitism and conspiracy theories. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you're offering the arbcom or admin route to me, but I wasn't browbeaten, I did not oppose or even comment in this RfA at all. I was just pointing out what is happening. And why should someone have to put up with badgering in the first place? A constructive attitude wouldn't be "well if you feel that way goto arbcom", it would be "they shouldn't have to feel that way at all." Think about it. Beam 00:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Opposes that show the candidate won't make a good admin are fair and shouldn't be questioned. Ones that don't should be questioned. Any opposer that claims they are being "harrassed" or "badgered" should not have made a comment if they don't like to be responsible for what they say. Excuse my French as well, but it is fucking retarded to enter a discussion and not expect someone to reply to you, especially if your oppose is really rubbish too. People who enjoy opposing others (there are lots of people, sad I know) should expect a response, not get upset because someone dared to question it. The way to stop the apparently feeling of harrassment is to... stop making such crappy opposes! Simple as that :) Al Tally ^talk 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well "laddy", I have stopped voting entirely because of people with your attitude. And the next time I have a chance to talk to you in private, I will tell you what you can do with your attitude. How would you like a few personal threats? Think that would make this a nice editing environment for you? For anyone? Good grief. What a load. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

fyi I didn't oppose. I was reading other people get badgered. But if someone opposes because they feel the candidate doesnt' have a enough experience, why isn't that good enough? Why does an ardent supporter have to immediately say something along the lines of "What does that mean? Define experience."? Beam 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it doesn't help the candidate or the discussion. Experience is different for different people. Some like 3000 good edits, some like 10,000 just in the Wikipedia: space. It helps to show why they think the candidate is inexperienced. I could, for example support "Has good experience" when an opposer says "Is inexperienced". It doesn't help anything. Al Tally ^talk 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to oppose without defending your opposition. If it's a shitty oppose than the crat will realize that. People should not fear reprisal for opposing. I think you understand but don't want to admit it. Or maybe you don't understand and I'm an idiot. Beam 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And you should be able to reply to opposition to defend your candidacy or herald without having a river of cries from the opposition. Any and all who are unwilling to address the concerns of their opposition should be failed (in any sphere of society, whether on Wiki, or in federal politics) right then and there, as well as any and all opposition that's unwilling to have their opposition questionned. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem if you're replying to facts, but not an opinion. That's badgering. Beam 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) FWIW, in my limited experience with RfA, I think there is definitely a double standard where opposers are badgered but supporters are not. Sometimes supporters feel the need to counter to what they apparently see as spurious !opposes, but I rarely if ever do you see opposers challenge "per nom" or "don't see any problem" !supports that have been piled on long after numerous detailed opposes have been filed. I do think it's fine (and perhaps even to be encouraged) for the candidate and maybe even the nominator to respond to specific incidents mentioned in opposes and to tell their side of the story, but in most cases there's no need for others to badger opposers, and doing so doesn't help build the community or the encyclopedia, IMO. Yilloslime (t) 23:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight:

• editors do not always want to give their reasons for opposing, to avoid hurting the feelings of others, or revealing privileged information, or to avoid swaying the other participants
• editors should not have to defend their right to oppose
• editors should not feel harassed or bullied or badgered or intimidated for opposing.
• editors sometimes oppose because someone they trust has also opposed. This should not be a federal crime.
• getting revenge on someone for opposing 6 months ago, or a year or two ago is obscene and should result in an immediate ban.
• threatening to do something negative to someone who has voted to oppose in good faith is disgusting and should result in an immediate ban.

People who just are so full of themselves that they feel entitled to be bullies and demand the right to attack others should take a good hard look at themselves and the reasons they are on Wikipedia. You are an embarassment to this project, frankly, and you disgust me.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who exactly you're replying to, but please refrain from making personal attacks such as "You are an embarassment to this project, frankly, and you disgust me". Not only are your comments made from bad faith, but these are completely unproductive. No one has ever said anything about people not having the right to oppose. We're speaking about the right to question the opposition (or support). I don't like it is a downright poor argument that is disreguarded everywhere else on wikipedia, and I really don't see why it should be given special treament. You're fully entitled to not like something, but if you can't back it up by concrete reasons, and concrete facts, then it's non-admissible.

And threats should not be met by an immediate ban, but rather a warning that such behaviour is unnacceptable and that the next instance will result in administrative actions. To immediatly ban removes the opportunity for people to retract their statements and will only lead to more bitterness when they are unbanned, and opens the door to widespread admin power abuse. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Immediate bans is a bad idea, but I also agree that badgering the opposers doesn't help. If you take a look at my RFA criteria (which I'm in the process of revamping), I think that badgering the opposers, unless the oppose !vote is really, uh, out there, kind of shows a lack of class. Useight (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is it badgering? If a candidate is being opposed because the opposers have misunderstood something (for example, an RfA where a certain diff has been raised and regarded as a personal attack and opposition is rising, when in reality, the incident was friendly humor between two users), why would it be wrong for a candidate to respond to the opposition to clear things up? As along as the candidate is civil, I believe responding (to anyone in the RfA, not just opposition) shows that the candidate can communicate, and I try to look at it as a plus. Acalamari 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I think Filll's response (whomever it was in response to) was perfectly civil. I don't see any personal attacks. It's true. People with that mind set really are an embarassment to this project. We're building an Encyclopedia, not questioning Steve's evaluation of Jim at his RfA. An immediate ban would be fine. Warnings give everyone the mind set of "I can do it X ammount of times before I get punished", so without them it'd be "If I do this, I'll get punished". It would dramatically decrease how often the act is commited.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 23:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ban from what exactly? Questioning people with editcountitis and other strange ideas who clearly haven't the slightest clue what adminship is about is now a bannable offence? Good grief. Al Tally ^talk 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And if you think someone politely asking to clarify your reasons is bullying, I suggest you take a look at some WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW RfAs where people enjoy piling on. That's what bullying is. Al Tally ^talk 23:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok "Al": Obviously I am not talking about "politely asking someone to clarify their reasons". Let me try to show you what I mean. Let's suppose I hounded you for the next 10 kilobytes about your reasoning in this thread, and called you names, and insulted you, and threatened you personally and got a bunch of people to attack on you on-wiki and off-wiki for disagreeing with me in this thread. And then in a month, when you were involved in an AfD, we all showed up to say how stupid you are since you disagreed with me in this argument. And so we were getting "even" and getting our revenge. And then we did it again and again and again and again for the next 14 months. And then filed RfArs against you as "revenge" for you disagreeing with me today. And posted blog posts about how stupid and horrible you are for disagreeing with me today. And said all kinds of other uncivil things about you. And filed RfCs against you for the next year for the same reason.

Would that seem rational to you? Would that seem like a friendly thing to do? Would that seem like a good way to build a productive collaborative community that worked well together? What if I obtained your personal information and made assorted threats against you and your family for your position in this argument? Would that seem like a reasonable response? Would that seem like a good way to work together in a collegial supportive environment?

Or do you think that maybe, those sorts of extreme behaviors might be counterproductive?

You see what I mean? This entire "attitude" of "let's attack that disgusting bastard he dared to oppose and therefore I hate his guts and want to see him dead" or "I don't like the fact that P.O.S. did not give a reason I like for his oppose so I am going to have a vendetta against him for the next year" just is fostering the worst possible environment. Do we want to volunteer to contribute work in an environment like that? Is it is constructive to allow people to vent and rant and spew hatred at other editors for something like a disagreement over an oppose?

Obviously, a simple polite single question is no big deal. The problem comes is that the discussion is often not a single simple polite question, but an inquisition. And there can be threats. And people seeking revenge for months after. The entire atmosphere around these RfAs is poisonous because we do not stop the conversation at a single simple polite question. People feel justified in mounting a MAJOR attack on someone who does not vote the "right way". And frankly, that is bull. And needs to stop.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Al here (shocking, I know!). Banning/blocking is overkill. Trouting perhaps. But when I see someone opposing for the most ridiculous reasoning (you know who you are), I wanna throw something through my monitor. We should be finding reasons to support, not finding reasons to oppose. I can't think of a worse environment on or off wiki than RFA. What a shithole of a process. Even the word oppose is too harsh when talking about another human being. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(3 e/c, my god magnum) Yeah, it should be bannable. If all someone's gonna do is bitch about somebody's vote because they don't like their rationale, I think a proper "Get lost" is in order. And nobody enjoys piling onto SNOW RfA's; assuming that is assuming bad faith.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Golden rule of wikipedia is WP:GOODFAITH. Immediate bans are the most blatant violations of WP:GOODFAITH I can think of. As for Filll's comment, it most certainly is a personal attack. See Ad hominem. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. You apparently don't know the meaning of Ad Hominem and I recommend you take your own pointed advice and read it yourself, carefully. Beam 00:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Care to explain to me how "You are an embarassment to this project, frankly, and you disgust me" is not a textbook case of ad hominem? How does that statements address the quality of the arguments being made by whoever is the target of his ire? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ad Hominem does not mean insult. It does not mean insult someone when you are arguing with them. Ad Hominem means that you insult someone as part of the argument, as if that insult means you win the argument. Simply insulting someone or attacking them during an argument is not Ad Hominem. Like i said, you don't understand what Ad Hominem means apparently. Beam 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. Who did I address that too? I addressed it to "People who just are so full of themselves that they feel entitled to be bullies and demand the right to attack others should take a good hard look at themselves and the reasons they are on Wikipedia. " It was not directed at any person in particular. It was not necessarily addressed to anyone in this thread even. It was addressed to anyone who feels they are entitled to be bullies. I guess if you put yourself in that category, you should be insulted. Do you think that you personally are entitled to be a bully? I would hope that most people reading this, if not all people, would read this and think "no I do not feel I should be acting like a bully, and I do not think anyone here should be acting like a bully". It is a statement that is more of a rhetorical nature. If it offends you, I apologize. If you want me to remove it, I will.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept apologies, but please understand that when you barge in a thread all guns blazing, placing a indented comment to the effect that anyone who questions an oppose vote is an embarrassment to wikipedia and a disgusting person that should be banned on sight, right after someone who said there's nothing wrong with questioning an oppose vote makes it look like you're replying to that user in a less-than-graceful way. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Headbomb, you shouldn't accept that apology, he shouldn't have apologized. You misrepresented what he said, you don't know what Ad Hominem means. And now you seem to just skip over all of the points Fill made. Beam 01:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some like to say "HELL NO would make a crappy admin!!1!" I don't suppose people give a toss about how the candidate feels when they make opposes like that. The reason we don't question supports is the same reason we don't question other nice gestures - "Why did you give me that barnstar?" "Why did you buy me those flowers?" "Why did you get me that birthday present?" "Why are you such a nice friend?" We just do not ask. If someone does something unpleasant or nasty in real life, we question it. The same applies here. Al Tally ^talk 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Opposing isn't "unpleasent or nasty", it's part of process. If nobody were allowed to oppose anything, Wikipedia would suck.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly is. Saying "no" to someone is something that should be avoided. It's hard to turn someone down for a job, right? The same should be here, but people don't find it as hard or awkward because they can't see the candidate. They don't care for their feelings. They simply enjoy their power to say "no" to someone, often for a really petty reason. I consider it a form of bullying. I didn't say we couldn't oppose anything. When we are dealing with a real life person, we should be sensitive in what we say, and not talk about them like they were no better than the mud on your shoe. We do for BLP AfDs, and we should have the same respect for our editors. Al Tally ^talk 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So then, if Filll were to run for RfA, would you support him on that basis? Or if I were to run? Or what if WoW were to run? And if you should never say no to somemone, what if I started a poll to replace the Wikipedia logo with a gigantic ass, with the words "FUCK" on the left cheeck, and "YOU" on the right cheeck? Would opposing be "unpleasent or nasty" then?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not on that basis. I never said I never oppose. I do oppose people. I haven't said that we should "never say no ever". We should, when making opposes, be polite, be fair, be nice, be helpful and prepare to reply to people without kicking up a silly fuss about it. Whenever I make an oppose (or a support for that matter) I always reply without complaint. Why can't others do the same? Al Tally ^talk 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But some do not want to reply. Maybe they have some privileged reason for not supporting that they are sworn to keep private, for example. Is that a problem?

And what if you are not asked just once or twice about your oppose, but 29 times why you oppose? And when you give your answers, you are told your answers are invalid and others argue with you over and over and tell you that you are stupid for opposing. Or worse. And this goes on over and over and over and over. And then someone threatens you for daring to oppose. Does that sound like a pleasant experience to you?

THAT is when things cross from the reasonable to the unreasonable. And that is why there has to be a change in direction at these "votes".--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You would only have to ban someone once or twice, and the message would get around pretty quickly. If you warn editors two, three, four, five, ten, 20, 30, 50 times, and do not act, then eventually the rule has no meaning. Just like things are currently. In principle, it is highly uncivil to threaten people, and it violates the banning policy against coercion, but since we do not enforce it, it is ignored and meaningless. In principle, it is highly uncivil to say "I am doing bad thing X to you since you opposed me/ my friend/ editor Y at RfA 6 months ago, or a year ago". However, I have seen this several times. And no one bats an eye. It is just "business as usual" and totally expected. And people start to expect that it is their right to take these kinds of actions and make these kinds of statements.

I disagree. This is all part and parcel of the idea that it is permitted, and expected, that people opposing should have the ^%$#@ beat out of them for daring to oppose. Well I say that is a stupid attitude. And if the voting is to mean anything, people have to be allowed to vote "oppose" without being attacked. Or badgered. Or threatened. Or someone taking revenge on them later for daring to oppose. If your goal is just to operate like some sort of criminal enterprise and brutalize other editors, then maybe Wikipedia is not for you. I thought Wikipedia was actually about creating an encyclopedia. I did not think it was some sort of a social club and an excuse for you to attack others at meaningless "votes" like RfA.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that revenge opposes are bad and should be discounted. Al Tally ^talk 00:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Al Tally spoke of "bullying" by piling-on. I'm doing a small study about piling-on and I should be done with it in the near future. I'm interested to see the results and I'll put them on this talk page when it's ready. Useight (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been accused of seeking revenge or holding grudges against editors who have never wronged me. It is impossible to create a working definition of "revenge oppose". Go ahead and try. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. --JayHenry (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, folks, calm down. AGF doesn't only apply to people who are opposing - it also applies to the folks who engage the opposers. On occassion it looks like badgering, sometimes it can get impolite, but I don't think I've ever seen it get nearly as bad as Fill describes above. Its important, for the candidate and for other participants, to understand what the opposers feel the problems are. A detailed and rational oppose can have a huge effect on a request (and rightly so), while an unexplained oppose will prompt people to wonder "Why is this person opposing? Is there something we should know?" Not to mention the not unusual situation where an oppose is based on a misunderstanding of some sort, and a bit of discussion clears things up. At any rate, few people who can be accused of "badgering opposers" on RfAs read this talkpage and hardly anything can be done about it from here. Best to address these people on their talkpage or the RfA itself, if you wish to correct the problem you perceive. Avruch 01:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but unfortunately I see many more "oppose hounds" who seem to have thrown their assumptions of good faith in the garbage prior to their "questioning" of an oppose than you do. Beam 01:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know. I haven't been around Wikipedia as long as many, but I've been reading through most RfAs at least cursorily for about 8 or 9 months. Your first edit (as Beamathan) was in March, so maybe if you give it a few more months you'll have a better sense of what happens on a regular basis. I think that the threshold of considering a response "oppose hounding" is probably too high - engaging with critics, either by the candidate or others, for the purpose of explication is not going to be a bad thing in itself. Only if it becomes impolite or personal should it be considered in poor taste or disruptive to the process. Avruch 01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone should become desensitized to the harassment of oposers, so I hope after I'm here for 9 months I don't "get used" to it. Beam 01:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, it's not harassment to respond to people, opposers included, in RfAs. Harassment is something totally different to discussion, and in my opinion, it's not a word to be used lightly. Acalamari 15:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I can fully accept that Beam and Filll and others above believe that people are being harassed badgered, etc... but just like with such a claim made at an actual RfA where are the diffs? Where are the plethora of ArbComm cases and RfC's indicative of such a widespread and horrendous issue? I haven't seen them, and you saying "it happens, I've seen it" isn't convincing anyone. Moreover, pointing at the aether and claiming that all who badger opposers "disgust" you makes any of us who have ever questioned an opposer defensive. What does your definition of badgering cover, does a question of an opposer's reasoning in good faith make your list of badgering opposes? I for one have no idea. I agree that the example given above is absolutely unacceptable, but where does it leave good faith discussion and reach this bannable state you call badgering? Assume far a few seconds that some of us understand your argument but still disagree with you. Just show us the diffs that show this 14 month badgering spree you talk about, or even an oppose over a single vote six months ago. I might be convinced by that but hand waving isn't good enough. Adam McCormick (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to take a look at my talk page where I describe, with diffs, a couple of cases. However, I have seen more than these; the situations I list on my talk page were just the easiest to dig up quickly.

Although I admit that people are likely curious when they see someone oppose with no explanation, they have to accept that sometimes the opposer does not want to reveal any more information. The information might be sensitive, it might make the candidate feel bad, it might overly sway the other voters in a fashion the opposer does not want to do, it might lead to further unpleasantness. Maybe one could start a precedent where opposers who do not want to be questioned could put a short notation after their "vote" signalling their willingness or unwillingness to explain further, that others would respect. In the past, requests by opposers that they not be questioned have not been respected, leading to lots of unpleasantness.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to discuss and defend your vote, then don't vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy (or rather it should not be, because right now that's what it seems to be). Discussion is infinitely more important than votes, especially votes made by people who aren't willing to justify and discuss them. This is the way it works for FAC and FLC reviews, and it works very well. This isn't the way it works here, and look at all the problems it causes. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA is a vote. If you've got 5 supports with people giving some good reasons, but 58 opposes that were all just name signs, it'll be closed as un-succesful.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 16:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Isn't the rule on wikipedia, be it RFA, AFD etc. that you go for consensus. In case of RFA with 5 good reasons in favor and 58 votes to oppose without giving any reasons, granting the RFA would be a decision that is consistent with the reasons given by the 5 voters who are in favor, and it is also consistent with all the reasons given by the opponents (as there were none). If you don't grant RFA, you ignore the arguments of the 5 who are in favor. I don't see any valid reasons why you could do that in such a case. Count Iblis (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately policy and rules do not always match reality as the "Free Encyclopedia Anyone can Edit!". Beam 17:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(5/58/0) seems unlikely. Where it gets tricky is when it's (58/24/0). This is where the bureaucrat's discerning mind comes into play. So, yes, it is a vote - to a point. But when it gets into the grey area of the margin, some RfAs will succeed that have lower support percentages than other RfAs that have failed. Kingturtle (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I am willing to discuss my vote sometimes. Othertimes, I am voting based on information I would rather not discuss or reveal. If you don't like that, then maybe you don't need to be participating in these polls.

What I am unwilling to put up with is:

• being attacked as "revenge" for voting "incorrectly" on an RfA six months or a year or more previously.
• being threatened with outing, or worse, for voting "the wrong way" on an RfA
• being the target of RfCs and RfArs because I did not support the "right candidate" on an RfA.
• being called names and worse at assorted offwiki sites such as blogs operated by Wikipedians, or offwiki attack sites, for voting in a politically incorrect fashion on an RfA or other poll.

These types of harassment are nonsense and have no place on a website like Wikipedia.

The reason I am disconcerted by the "discussions" after every oppose vote is they create a very negative atmosphere. And they often go way beyond what is reasonable and polite. And these "discussions" more often than not turn into angry fights. And this contributes to the impression that some editors have that anyone who votes the wrong way (that is, usually oppose) is a suitable target for intimidation, for harassment, for badgering, for threats, for vengeance, for personal attacks, for pestering, for persecution, for torment, and other assorted irritations. And worse. And since no one does anything about this, or speaks out against it (particularly those in positions of authority like administrators or arbitrators), this emboldens the harassers. They feel confident. They feel justified. It is their "right" to attack those filthy $#@% jerks that opposed them at RfA, or opposed their friends at RfA, etc.

I even see this in this thread. Some claim that even opposing anyone at all is harassment and must be stamped out (except possibly those editors that they personally decide are "politically incorrect" - maybe for not wanting to unblock a notorious troll, or for making a negative comment about Wikipedia Review. Heaven forbid that anyone would say anything negative about Wikipedia Review! Oh my !!).

So I ask you, if you are so sure that you are correct, why not propose mandatory banning of anyone who ever votes to oppose? Just ban immediately.

If you are so %$#^& sure of your position, then I dare you. Go ahead and propose it. Make it at Administrator's Noticeboard, say. And let's see how far it gets. If you don't want to take me up on this challenge, clearly you are not so serious after all, right?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! After reading through the wall of text above, I think one note hasn't been made yet. I think that oppose !votes can reasonably expect to receive more scrutiny than a "Yayz support!" because an oppose is essentially five times as significant as a support, based on the rough 80% guideline applied towards determining consensus. If someone fires off an opposition that seems unclear or ill supported and it single handedly "wipes out" 5 supports, then requesting clarification would seem appropriate. Hounding is crap, though, and this is not an endorsement of hounding. Polite discussion should always be the goal, but an oppose !vote can also be far more useful to the project and the candidate if it helps identify an area of improvement. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, please clam down. Anyone with half an ounce of decency agrees that harassment is disruptive behaviour. If you are harassed, then RfC for said harassers, and if things don't improve go to ArbCom. You could also make a request to bureaucrats to crack down the whip at harassers, to ban harassers from RfA (after a stern cease and desist warning of course), and to remove harass votes as they appear rather the de-facto non-involvement policy that seems to be followed right now. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 17:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He appears calm to me. Beam 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

All good suggestions. So far, my efforts to highlight this problem have not been successful, but I am not giving up. Since you have some good ideas, maybe you would like to informally join me in my campaign to modify our culture a bit to discourage this kind of activity?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm there, believe me. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully not a preposterous suggestion

I'm growing a bit weary (as I imagine many RfA regulars are) of the constant harassment Kurt Weber receives for his prima facie opposes. Agree with him or not, his right to voice his opinion has been upheld on several occasions. Nevertheless, in every self-nom RfA there are several editors who give him grief over it. The comments he receives are often shockingly insulting, and I commend Kurt for remaining exceedingly civil through all of it. At the very least they're unnecessary, annoying and contribute nothing to the RfA. My humble proposition is this: when Kurt makes his prima facie argument at an RfA, that a small note is placed under it 1.) asking editors not to badger Kurt 2.) reminding them that he is entitled to his opinion and 3.) pointing them to a page which more thoroughly explains that time and again the community has upheld his right to make his argument. I hope this isn't a ridiculous idea, I'm just growing tired of seeing this at every other RfA, and I'm betting that I'm not the only one. Thoughts? faithless (^speak) 02:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting we link them to, something along those lines. faithless (^speak) 03:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I used to link them there in the past, but last time I did it Giggy seemed kind of upset[2]. Don't wanna get yelled at :-/ --Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not angry... just making sure people don't go to that page thinking that its word is law (protip; it's not). giggy _(:O) 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

While every editor certainly has the right to be heard, I have a hard time considering opposition from someone who insists on painting the whole world with a wide brush as being valid. Self-nom = autofail with no possibility of appeal is as inconsiderate as it is unfair towards those who self-nominate themselves for completely pure motives. It's awfully reminiscent of xenophobic philosophies such as "because of there are Italian mobs around, being Italian is prima facie evidence that you're a mobster, and thus you can't ever be a cop even if you're Frank Serpico unless a red-blooded American vouches for you out of the blue". Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

...was that red-blooded american bit meant as offensive? Anyway, this has been discussed a ba-gillion-fillion times, right now I think faithless is asking wether we should link to the essay or restriuct people's rights to badger him.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think that what I said could easily be misinterpreted. To clarify I'll point out that I'm not accusing Kurt of being a racist or anything like that, only of using the same form of arguments. As for the "red blooded american" thing, it seemed to fit the example. I went with Frank Serpico, because I had the page open and I thought it'd make a good example and we'll all tired of hearing examples of Muslim=Terrorists and I try to make a point of not bringing up Nazis as per Godwin's rule. Could've picked any group of people as there's racism all over the world.

Back to the important thing, I think that referring to the essay is the sound thing. I'm kinda surprised that Kurt doesn't automatically link to that essay if "badgering" is that big a problem. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Headbomb. If you think Kurt's arguments are repetitive, dull, weak, and annoying, you clearly haven't spend much time around WT:RFA. ;-) To actually rebut your statement, as is my role in commenting here (other than to offer to nominate every second commentator... the real purpose of this page!), I would point out that an oppose from Kurt doesn't equal instant fail. It equals an instant oppose vote. Some overly innocent not-so-old-timers will tell you that bureaucrats don't give this as much weight because it's not a very good argument. I consider myself more of an old timer to RfA than others here and will gladly tell you that RfA is a vote. But that doesn't mean 'crats can't exercise judgement over the vote, and I'm sure someone will draw a comparison to federal elections in some countries. But that isn't the point. The point can be found here. Thanks for reading. My advice is to unwatch this page and go build and encyclopedia—two things I'm hopelessly incapable of doing. Cheers, giggy _(:O) 03:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to spend a lot of time here to see that there are worse arguments out there. I've received a few myself. And in the two-three months here, it also was apparent to me that anytime there's a vote, WP:DEMOCRACY goes out the door quicker that this thing. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Faithlessthewonderboy, I'm also tired of seeing this come up over and over. Unfortunately, I don't see any outcome as likely until arbcom accepts a case. The statement "his right to voice his opinion has been upheld on several occasions" distorts what's going on. There isn't any "right" to self-expression on RFA; the RFCs on the issue have been mixed at best; there has never been any broad community acceptance of Kurt's RFA edits.

In any case, there's no need to feel sorry for any self-inflicted criticism Kurt draws upon himself, or complain at others for their justifiable complaints about Kurt's comments. The disruption because of Kurt's comments continues because other well-intentioned editors enable it to continue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Kurt Weber's opinion thoroughly, but I also respect that his opinion is valid and should be counted. I would like to see more civility in the RfAs - not only toward the nominees but toward the voters. Kingturtle (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are definitely a lot of people who object to the prima facie argument and I'm not bringing this up because I agree with Kurt and want people to lay off of him (I'm intentionally not stating my opinion here). But it's the same thing at every self-nom, sometimes by newcomers who aren't familiar with Kurt, but inexplicably often by people who ought to know better. I'm not saying that they aren't entitled to their opinions, just that an RfA is the wrong place for it. Ironically, these editors usually say how pointless or stupid or a waste of time Kurt's oppose is, but they don't realize that their comments are even worse in that regard! I just think that a link to something like H20's essay will save us from having to read a bunch of pointless banter by people alternately attacking or defending Kurt, will instantly remove a lot of needless incivility and, most importantly, not distract from the reason we're here in the first place, the RfA. No matter how you feel about the Kurt's oppose, I think we can all agree that 1.) though the names change, it's the same thing at every RfA and 2.) they do absolutely nothing to contribute to the RfA, and in fact only detract from it. It's a shame that such a preemptive measure is even necessary, but it's never going to stop otherwise. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 05:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well said. Useight (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regretfully agree. giggy _(:O) 08:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't badger opposes at all. How's that? Beam 10:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA is is supposed to be a vote discussion. giggy _(:O) 10:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Until all opposes are fair and about the proposal at hand, bad idea. Al Tally ^talk 10:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How come Kurt gets away with making these silly opposes, when I do the same thing I'm apparently disrupting and all my votes got removed. Why is Kurt special? Why should he get away with making thinly veiled attacks on every self-nom RfA? Al Tally ^talk 10:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the opposer is arguably "badgering" the nominee in the first place by questioning the basis of the nomination. If we assume that a nomination represents a qualified candidate, then an opposer is putting forth the proposition that this is not so (otherwise the oppose is simply partisan and may be discounted). So long as RfA is still a discussion and not a vote, there's as much a right to question an oppose as there is to question a nomination. I grant that the persistent refusal of the bureaucrats to show any kind of leadership on the question has confused the issue. Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Simple version: RfA is a discussion, not a vote. If you aren't prepared to discuss then don't comment. HTH -- Mackensen (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No the opposer is not arguably "badgering" the nominee. And it's that type of idea, that attitude, that leads to supporters seemingly upset that someone would have the nerve to oppose someone. Beam 12:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Simple version: A discussion is all good and fine but opposing should be allowed. Beam 13:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I regret that you misunderstood the thrust of my comment; please re-read. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I regret that you think I misunderstood your thrusting; good luck in the future. Beam 12:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • We don't need no stinking badgers! Mackensen (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I believe you meant, "Badgers? We ain't got no badgers. We don't need no badgers! I don't have to show you any stinkin' badgers!'". Ahhh, for the love of a misquote. :-) --Ali'i 13:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Aye, which was also misquoted in UHF...Mackensen (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
          • As well as Blazing Saddles, and about a hundred other movies. And people criticize Wikipedia for perpetuating bad information. Blame Hollywood! --Ali'i 13:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Stop badgering me. :( Beam 13:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A message to you Kurt: self-noms are not power hungry. Self-noms are made by people who don't really know anyone else who knows their contributions like they do. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 13:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. Kurt is entitled to his opinion and others are entitled to question him about it. The problem is not the oppose, nor the response to it. The problem is when either gets out of hand and becomes disruptive. At which point, there are many, many options for preventing the disruption growing. I'd oppose some kind of pre-emptive strike against people querying Kurt's oppose. Who knows? Maybe one day, someone will make a very good point and change Kurt's mind. (Does anyone else remember the opposes made because candidates weren't supported by a WikiProject? That stimulated some interesting discussion, IIRC)

I'm all for debate, not stifling it. But we shouldn't permit disruption at RfAs or anywhere else for that matter. --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone opposed every nominee who had the color green in their signature because they felt green signatures were prima facie evidence enviromentalism biased editors, then people would say something to that guy. Kurt's oppose is the epitomy of bad faith against people he has no connection with. The community has generally agreed to disagree on the fact that he has the right to leave such posts on RfAs. It is his right to do so, and it also the right of others to take offense to what is in any other medium an insult to a stranger. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Additionally, as is widely known, the guy failed his own self-nominated RfA and ran for the board this year. Great example of power declining humility. So if I'm an experienced editor who is a noob to the RfA process and regulars, and I innocently open an RfA because I want some extra tools and get called power hungry by a guy like Kurt, how does that make me feel? If I question his vote, its not so much because I want to argue with him, as expose his hypocrisy to the nominee. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In all fairness to Kmweber, that RfA did take place over 2 1/2 years ago, and that's more than enough time for someone to change their opinion about something. Acalamari 16:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. It was last week's board vote that added some relevance to it again though as it brings forth a pattern. His vote attempts to make a criticism of hierarchy, which is an entirely legitimate position to take... unless you are doing things counter to the position that you stand for. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I for one took pride in Kurt's vote at my request. :-) But you make sense, people with green in their signatures should be opposed. --Ali'i 16:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is true. Green just makes me so angry! :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean you're not really a fan of The Cabbage? From your username, I assumed you were. --Dweller (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Different greenHiberniantears (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So, we seem to have established that:

a) RfA is at least supposed to be a "discussion" about the candidate, and

b) Kurt's !votes, with no indication of whether he has considered anything about the candidate other than the self-nom, are his voice in this discussion, to which he has a right. (This is true only for the sake of argument -- editing any page is a privilege, not a right -- but I'll buy it for a dollar.)

So, presumably, the community also has the "right" to inquire after Kurt's opposes, particularly on the line of whether Kurt has looked for something that might rebut the evidence of power hunger for any particular oppose. (After all, prima facie only means that it's demonstrated, not that it's proven.) If he has, and he hasn't found it, then such an oppose is reasonable. But opposing on "prima facie evidence" without either looking for the rebuttal (which good faith tells us to assume he's doing) or letting the candidate know what might constitute a rebuttal (which he's obviously not doing) would be bad faith, clearly. So for any given oppose, Kurt should be able to answer such a question, no? - Revolving Bugbear 20:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Kurt has previously stated that the self-nomination is itself the evidence upon which any given such vote is based. By the simple act of existence, the self-noms are self implicating as guilty of desiring "power" in the eyes of Kurt, and therefore are not worthy of his support. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Then 1) that's res ipsa loquitor, not prima facie, and 2) it's extremely bad faith and the community shouldn't accept it. Policies apply to established users, too. - Revolving Bugbear 21:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Bugbear said it best here. If Kurt softened the language, it would go a long way to prevent the long threads about his opposes (that seems to come in cycles). Though it would be a shame to change the boilerplate oppose he's been using for over a year now. –xenocidic (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this: who cares what's good faith or bad faith? or what's "soft languege" and "mean languege"? Let him scream about power hunger to his heart's content, and if people won't shut up about it, ignore them. Stupid people complain about stupid things, and make the intellectual people like yourselves come up with some kind of solution. If they don't like Kurt's vote, let them continue to not like it, let Kurt continue to not care, and let yourselves continue to not do anything about it.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I care, because right now Admiship seems to be more of a democracy rather than a meritocracy. Wikipedia should not be a democracy, and every time things get down to vote counting, things go bad. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the opinions expressed in that Diff are a large part of the problem. It takes a very thin skin to see Kurt's commentary as a "personal attack" or lacking in civility. The labels of attack and lacking civility are bandied about as frequently, and with often as much justification, as POV/NPOV here. Criticism is not an attack and neither is a philosophical point of view, as expressed by him. If all the editing that has happened on this subject was done to Prima facie the blasted thing would be on the front page by now ! - Peripitus (Talk) 21:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? You think calling people power-hungry is civil? - Revolving Bugbear 21:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a complicated question, and people can reasonably have different opinions. A related question is whether merely by saying "Every soldier is a potential murderer" you can insult an individual soldier. The courts are divided in this matter. The (current) final word in Germany is that you can't. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not it's not. What is insulting is something like Being a soldier is prima facie evidence of being a murdererHeadbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC).

@Koji, re "who cares what's good faith or bad faith?": Is that a trick question? - Revolving Bugbear 21:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to need saying: there's a world of difference between saying "I view all self-nominations as prima facie evidence of power-hunger" and "You're power-hungry". The later may be considered a personal attack, but the former is simply an expression of an opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, there isn't. Putting more words in the sentence doesn't mean he's not calling the person power-hungry.

By way of analogous example: "I view disagreeing with me as prima facie evidence of being an asshole." That's an opinion, isn't it? - Revolving Bugbear 22:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)There are multiple ways to interpret the statement, many of which incidentally would constitute a personal attack. Unfortunately, I cannot see a way to read it that would justify the oppose. If he is merely saying that self-noms are at first glance evidence of power-hunger, then clearly AGF comes into play: further evidence is required to prove the case and justify an Oppose (and as far as I know, this is rarely provided). On the other hand, if we are to assume that Kurt means to say "I view self-noms as adequate evidence of power-hunger" then we may proceed on that basis: we may either interpret his contribution as being a violation of AGF (since self-nomination is not on the list of demonstrations of bad faith) or as a simple error, i.e. Kurt thinks this in good faith, but he's mistaken: the evidence is widely considered to be inadequate. I'm left with the feeling that Kurt wants the consensus to change, and for self-nominations to be widely considered unacceptable, but I can't see how the course of action he's taking could achieve that. It seems to be not so much a case of WP:POINT as Polemic. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I can't remember who they were were, but there have been self-noms that Kurt's supported. – iridescent 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Naerii. Acalamari 22:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the oppose is quite able to be supported by examples of societies in which leaders are chosen from amongst who least want the job, and who quite happily hand the job over to others as and when the conditions under which they were chosen change. I would encourage you to look at the way in which American Indian chiefs were chosen, for instance. It is hardly a matter of bad faith to see something worthwhile in trying to combat the career administrators that wikipedi is presently suffering from. If a simple oppose, in Kurt's opinion, goes some way towards doing that, then that's fine. It is not an attack on any person, but a comment on the imperfections of the system. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really sound like good faith either. If it's a comment on the system, then he should comment on the system; if it's not a comment on any person, then he should not comment on any person. That seems pretty self-evident to me. - Revolving Bugbear 22:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

By your own logic you are now accusing me of acting in bad faith. Not impressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand. I didn't mean to say that what you said didn't sound like good faith. I meant to say that the motives you are (perhaps accurately) ascribing to Kurt don't sound like good faith. However, I invite him to prove me wrong. - Revolving Bugbear 22:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave this by saying that I have sympathy with what I believe to be Kurt's motivation. Whether his tactic is productive or not time will tell, but I do not agree that it can be considered to be "bad faith", or a "personal attack". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Bugbear here. Every time Kurt drops one his no-thought opposes, he should be called on the bad faith he is showing. The oppose certainly assumes bad faith, as he is making an assumption that the candidate is power-hungry with any evidence whatsoever to support his assumption. From WP:AGF "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it" Kurt does exactly the opposite. Those complaining about his harrassment seem to think he should be exempt from criticism for his extraordinary ability to assume bad faith in others. Nuts to that. Note: He is entitled to comment as he sees fit, others should be allowed to challenge him and the blame for any ensuing wiki-drama should lie fair and square on his shoulders. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"No-thought opposes"? For goodness sake, it's called having principles; it's not specifically directed at any particular editor. What is so offensive about the notion that Wikipedia would be better off with (as one might see it) a caste of co-opted administrators rather than self-promotional ones?Skomorokh 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be better off if it wasn't a buddy-buddy RfA system with co-opted admins.Beam 01:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a no-thought oppose because he makes no effort to take a look at the candidates contributions or study the response to the questions; instead he makes a assumption of bad faith. Drive-by supports are routinely castigated and rightly so, the same should apply to opposes. Your remark here, "not specifically directed at any particular editor" is exactly the problem not a justification. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just as Kurt has the right to express his opinion and vote basing on any reasoning whatsoever, other editors have the right to comment on that. We cannot deny the right to decline some reasoning or openly criticize it - I would be quite reluctant to take Kurt under umbrella and single him out (by adding links saying, basically, that he can think what he wants and vote as he likes - as we all) just because he is persistent in his views. However, I believe that in all cases where the critique of Kurt's principles is uncivil or overly harsh, the users should be advised that such behavior is unwelcome here. Extreme trolling or insults can be dealt with as usual, too. After all the right to disagree with some voting principle is not less important than the right to vote on any principles one may have - it is only crucial to keep both civil. Pundit|utter 01:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely wasn't suggesting that anyone should be prevented from commenting on Kurt's opposes. This is as much for the potential commenter as it is for all of us tired of seeing these pointless arguments; that is, if someone is about to question his oppose but then learns about the whole prima facie situation, they might not waste their time. I wouldn't have even started this thread if it wasn't for the fact that it is the same argument every single time. After Kurt's oppose the response is always one of three things: 1.) a mention of Kurt's failed self-nom RfA 2.) a request for him to expound/give a "better" reason or 3.) a comment along the lines of, "this shouldn't count." Regardless of one's opinion of Kurt, I'm sure we can all agree that nothing productive ever comes of these discussions, and that they are at least a bit disruptive. I'm also mystified by the logic behind them; it seems to be, "I disagree with what Kurt does (making ultimately fruitless and WP:POINTy comments) so I'm going to do the same thing. That'll show 'im!" I hope that it doesn't seem like I'm suggesting Kurt should be afforded a special don't-question-Kurt status; excepting the (surprisingly frequent) uncivil comments, Kurt is subject to legitimate criticism just like all of us. But these RfAs are just not the place for discussing Kurt's behavior. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 07:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Very sensible. Sadly though the topic below this one shows once again that every time an unfashionable opinion is expressed in an RfA, whether it be by Kurt or by anyone else, the wrath of the self-righteously indignant is sure to follow. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But these RfAs are just not the place for discussing Kurt's behavior. — Imho, these individual RfAs are also not the place for the concerns Kurt has about self-nominations. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• The considerable negative response which this particular templated oppose attracts should give the 'defenders of free speech' pause. Personally, I consider the mere fact of playing the same templated tune each time on the basis of as insignificant a common denominator as self-nomination an insult to the individual candidate. Granted, Kurt has every right to comment as he sees fit, but he should be prepared to receive feedback. Incidentally, I believe he himself is indeed prepared for that and doesn't really mind it all that much, as opposed to some of the crusaders who jump on everyone who dares to comment on Kurt's oppose. This constant harassment of people who uphold the status of RfA as an open community discussion must end. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Age and adminship

I would like to point out that while maturity, and the many patterns of behavior that contribute to it, is certainly relevant to adminship, age per se is not. We have had eminently capable young administrators for the entire history of the project. It is perfectly reasonable to oppose a candidacy because the candidate acts like he's twelve years old, but it is not reasonable to oppose a candidacy because the candidate is twelve years old. I consider opposition that cites age but gives no concrete examples of immaturity to be worthless, and probably insulting. — Dan | talk 07:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And should probably be removed on-the-spot, as should a lot of BS votes. (BS Support votes are fair game in my opinion as well). MessedRocker (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)My opinion has always been that if a user is immature, it shouldn't be hard to find evidence. Opposing because the user is young and therefore immature just seems to be laziness to me. Besides, I never felt it was fair to use information that a user freely shares against them. What if the user didn't say anything about their age? Would you be opposing then? If the answer is no, there's a problem here. Enigma ^message 07:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Ageism. Arguments centering around someone being "too young" for adminship are about as useful as those centering around being "too old." Although age is a good guideline for comparison to the average (e.g., judging someone's maturity in comparison to others their age or judging someone's intelligence relative to others their age), I would argue that it has a net detriment on those above the average on the proverbial scales.

For example, assume a 13 year old demonstrates maturity, a level head, responsibility in editing, and all of the other valid qualities we look for in an admin. He is no doubt above the average in comparison to most 13 year olds in maturity and wiki-savvyness. As a result, if age is to factor into his RfA it should, if anything, be only a positive thing, because it's only valid as a comparison to the average. We would never consider blocking someone's RfA because they had a high IQ (the exact same thing— an index normed against age-grouped peers); therefore, blocking someone's RfA because of their relatively high "WikiIQ" would be equally pointless and, at best, counterproductive to the goals of selecting good admins. --slakr^\ talk / 07:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that we should judge candidates based on solid facts as evidenced from the contribution history. To support or oppose an RfA on anything other than contributions (with rare exceptions of wikipedia related but off wiki actions such as email) seems to carry our prejudices onto a website that should fundamentally discourage prejudice or bias in all areas. Pedro :  Chat  08:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I feel like I'm much more likely to see the exact ages of editors on their userpages if they are under, say, 25. I've never wanted to post my age on this website, but I think if I were a teenager again, I probably would. That doesn't stop me from thinking, "if you don't want to be evaluated through the lens of your age, don't put your age on your userpage." Darkspots (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've no problems in admitting I am a "minor". Most Wikipedians are smart enough to judge me by my edits not my age. What does age matter anyway? Am I suddely going to get some massive wisdom boost on my 18th birthday? I'll be looking forward to it if I do. = ) --Cameron* 14:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite clearly there will be no sudden transformation when you reach 18. Just as there was no one day that you learned to crawl, or to walk, or to speak. But none of this argues against the validity of a minimum age. You may not share that view, but that does not mean that it is not a perfectly legitimate point of view. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In the apparently mistaken belief that there is no wikipedia rule-book of acceptable and unacceptable opinions, I will point out the irony of calling the vote of anyone who disagrees with one's own opinion as worthless, insulting, and bullshit. Indeed it displays a quite staggering lack of insight and understanding. The day that Rdsmith4's opinions are the only ones considered worthy of being taken seriously will be a sad day indeed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

While I understand what everyone is saying, throwing the term "ageism" around without acknowledging the actual real-world meaning of the word is pretty useless in terms of intelligent discussion. I'm not going to let a 12 year old take care of my infant, let's see someone call that ageism. No amount of shown maturity can make me comfortable with how a 12 year old might handle some emergency situations. Admittedly, taking care of an infant is a much larger responsibility than becoming an admin here, but regardless, some of us consider adminship a large responsibility as well, and in the same context, are uncomfortable with how a 12 year old might handle a tough situation, regardless of what they have done in their previous 2,500 edits. I understand their might be disagreement on this, but it's ludicrous to suggest that reasoning is some sort of discrimination on the level of racism or the like, or to suggest such votes be removed or discounted. It's just a disagreement. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm....don't we have a 'crat that is a teenager? Dusti^SPEAK!! 14:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Inadequately explained opposes are exactly as worthless as inadequately explained supports. But, for supports, it's so common as to be expected. Here's why opposing on age makes sense: If you know someone is only 13, for example, you don't have to look for examples of immaturity- it's expected. Rather, with a young kid, you should look for examples of unusual maturity. And, lacking a solid set of such examples, you should assume they're about as immature as their age would indicate. The entire rest of the world has no problem admitting that children are, by definition, immature. We do a disservice to Wikipedia to pretend otherwise. Friday (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I entirely understand. Despite what the majority of Americans believe, there are, in fact, mature children and teenagers, in some cases more so than adults. You are saying that, even if a young editor is immature, as soon as that person turns 18 or 21 or whichever, they become inherently mature, enough so for adminship? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good context, Friday, for looking at something like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nousernamesleft. Unusual maturity, no opposes based on age despite the editor being twelve. Darkspots (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Since some people feel so strongly that we shouldn't have underage admins, and will oppose any new ones, regardless of what kind of editor they are, in order to stop this unpleasantness, I propose we desysop all admins who are underage, since they are clearly all incapable and ban any new RfAs from users who are underage. Al Tally ^talk 14:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Good god. I wasn't serious about you posting this. NO. Bad idea. — _Maggot^Syn 14:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 14:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Majorly: Did you ever stop and think that there was more than just age? Seriously. — _Maggot^Syn 14:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In case everyone forgot, it's really not okay to go around calling other people's votes "bull shit". If you disagree with it, disagree with it. Just don't be a dick about it. Geez.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 14:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? That's their opinion! Lots of underage admins have proven to be much better than older ones. I think that statement was too pointy for my liking. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)