Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for adminship/Wbm1058 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HiDrNick (talk | contribs) at 14:54, 26 August 2015 (→Coretheapple: moved comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:54, 26 August 2015 by HiDrNick (talk | contribs) (→Coretheapple: moved comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Responding to the content creators

C'mon, guys. Give me a break. I spent the better part of my first year here working on one single article, which I pointed you to: Timeline of DOS operating systems. OK, technically I didn't "create" the article – someone else started it – and I don't want to get into which specific IP addresses I edited under before I signed up, but that article looked something like this when I started working on it. I spent months focused on this one single article; it is my showcase work here. So, why don't you review it, and tell me whether it's a "good" article, or maybe even one that merits being "featured".

You're picking on some pretty trivial stuff:

  • Special-purpose page name maintenance templates was a mistake. I intended to create Category:Special-purpose page name maintenance templates, and neglected to specify the namespace. An easy thing for a relative beginner to do. I requested the deletion of my own mistake.
  • R from foreign name – I don't remember my mistake there, but likely I intended Template:R from foreign name.
  • Brand New (prefix) was specifically created for some sort of page-views analysis for the one of the requested moves discussed at Talk:Brand New. It was only intended to be temporary, for analysis purposes.
  • Regarding my WP:RS/N edit asking whether "FamousWiki.com" was a reliable source: I was asking a question to which I knew the answer. A persistent editor kept reinserting a birth date sourced to that, and I wanted to get some backup to reinforce what I was telling them.
  • SMC Corporation, I created that, per my edit summary, because it was one of only three category:TOPIX 100 companies not to have an article yet on Misplaced Pages. I was just starting a stub to fill in a coverage gap.
  • "Lujanbio was simply a redirect to a page that did exist, created by a different editor, that was later deleted. Same story for MOGAS Oil, which incidentally was later recreated. Same story for Westland United F.C., IMDRF, K.Hari Kumar, and EHMC." Exactly. I patrol Category:Missing redirects. Someone starts a marginal article on an African oil company. They put a hatnote on their article {{Redirect|MOGAS Oil}} that says, "MOGAS Oil" redirects here. For other uses, see... Well, no it doesn't redirect here. Not until I do them a favor, and create the redirect to clear the maintenance category. Don't blame me if their article later gets deleted.

— Wbm1058 (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Wbm1058. I'm sorry, I like you and I like that you ran for ArbCom as a non-admin. But you don't create content. Even granting a pass on all of the above, you still have not taken an article to GA or FA status. We already have plenty of admins who are not content creators, way too many in fact. Once someone becomes an admin, it is basically an appointment for life. So I don't support RfAs for those that do not have content creation experience, and part of that experience is taking the article to GA/FA and dealing with the process. In your article's case, all of your prose is in a table format, which would normally cause a fail. You would need to convert most of the article to prose. You may be able to get it to a featured list status, see Timeline of chemistry as an example, but you need to be the one to take it through the process. You need the experience of that to understand what content creation is all about. GregJackP Boomer! 06:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wbm1058, if you think never having created even a halfway decent article is "pretty trivial stuff", then you clearly do not have the mindset to be an admin, in my opinion. Likewise, if you are going to whine (in my opinion) at length like this over every well-thought-out oppose, then I don't think you understand RfA very well. Your work on the Timeline article was admirable, but the article already existed, and it's just a timeline article, and it's one single article. You need to allow editors to use what criteria they use for assessing your qualifications for adminship. The tools are not handed out piecemeal, and candidates are expected to have shown the broad range of administrative skills before being given lifetime access to the entire set of tools. Please see Misplaced Pages:Advice for RfA candidates, if you need to. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    It doesn't look like whining to me, but a list of bona fide explanations. Wbm1058 has also not responded in this manner to any of the opposes specifically. The post above is, in fact, their only contribution to this RfA after accepting and transcluding. To me, it reads liks a collective response to those who have not (or are unable to) consider each deleted mainspace page (not all of which were articles) on its own merits.
    Making my own independent assessment, I see that there were fifteen mainspace pages created by Wbm1058 which were later deleted; most of these were redirects, but the report cannot distinguish between deleted redirs and deleted "normal" pages. The deletion log for all of them is linked from that report, and is public; it shows why the deletion took place. Eleven of these do not reflect badly on the candidate:-
    This leaves four which might be considered problems. Two of these were redirects: ''唐山'' was deleted following Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 20#Several redirects that have wiki markup in their titles; and Kitchen collection was deleted following Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 30#Kitchen collection. Of the other two, one (Brand New (prefix)) was an attempt to create an index page using Special:PrefixIndex; the other (Wbm1058/sandbox1.php) was apparently intended to be in user space, but mistakenly created in mainspace instead, it was deleted as G2 (Test page). So to my mind, there are few actual problems here, and the most recent of these occurred one year ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Redrose. I created ''唐山'' because an editor was quite persistent in insisting that Chinese characters should not be italicized in hatnotes. I would have been happy to have simply removed that foreign-language "redirects here" hatnote, but they insisted on keeping it. So, my compromise kludge was to create that redirect to keep the page out of the "flagged for maintenance" category. I was quite happy to see the redirect finally come off that page, which in turn made my work-around unnecessary. And no, I never said that creating even a halfway decent article was trivial. I meant that focusing on pages I created and which were subsequently deleted was focusing on a trivial aspect of my overall contribution history. The content contributions you should focus on are substantial improvements I've made to articles which were started by others. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@GregJackP: Re your comment "But you don't create content." It's one thing to oppose per idiosyncratic criteria; As a something of an inclusionist myself I find your only works on existing articles - never creates new ones opposes go somewhat further than I would, I oppose people who have made multiple recent deletion mistakes, but I don't agree that creating new articles is an essential skill for someone to make a good administrator. When you oppose a candidate because they "have not taken an article to GA or FA status" again I find your comments accurate, though I think your criteria unhelpfully harsh. However we have plenty of content contributors who have never taken an article through the GA or FA processes, the test of whether someone has created content is whether their edits include adding content to articles, not whether they have audited content contributions. So can I suggest that you strike your words "But you don't create content." as incorrect? ϢereSpielChequers 13:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@WereSpielChequers:, only works on existing articles - never creates new ones is not and has never been my position, nor will you find that statement by me anywhere. I don't care if he created the article or not, I'm perfectly happy with a content creator who takes an existing stub to GA or FA status. Adding a word here or there is not, IMO, content creation. In this case, Wbm1058 does not create content, he does other stuff for WP. I don't support non-content creators for lifetime appointments as admins. So can I suggest that you strike your statement as incorrect? Or should you be allowed to have your own opinion about who should or should not be an administrator? GregJackP Boomer! 15:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If you read the rest of the Oppose section you will find several examples being debated where the candidate has added rather more than a word or two. We may have to debate at another time whether someone who only adds a word here or there is creating content, this candidate clearly goes beyond that. As for creating new articles, I'm happy to accept your reassurance that you are "perfectly happy with a content creator who takes an existing stub to GA or FA status." I'd genuinely prefer that we disagreed on one issue rather than two, but this very recent oppose of yours "Has only created 2 articles", left me with the opposite impression. ϢereSpielChequers 15:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Had you gone further down the page, you would have seen: The whole point is that the editor needed to have some background in content creation and in working with others to bring articles up to a certain level. That review process, whether at FAC or GAN, gives the editor an experience that no amount of time on the drama boards can replace. I'm sorry, but Wbm does not have that experience. In Liz's case, most of her time was not dedicated to content creation and never had been. It's a moot point, she got the mop and I wish her well, but I did not believe that she had sufficient content creation experience. GregJackP Boomer! 16:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with WereSpeilChequers; the number of articles one has taken to FA, FL, or GA is not in itself an indicator of whether one should be an admin. Users are not required to have any of those to be good admins. I hope nobody gets discouraged for running for adminship simply due to not having FA's, FL's, or GA's. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely hope that non-admins look at this, and if they are not content creators, I hope that they reconsider an RfA until they have created content. They should be discouraged from running until they have created GA, FL, or FAs. GregJackP Boomer! 15:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Remember that there is a difference though between creating content and getting articles to FA, FL, or GA. Having articles promoted doesn't by itself mean someone is going to be a good admin. There are many great users (both admins and non-admins) who have no such articles, but nonetheless frequently build and expand upon pages. I highly doubt a proposal for being discouraged from running for adminship without such articles would be accepted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no policy about those with extensive block logs from running either, but they are de facto discouraged from running. I'm not talking about a policy, I'm talking about what passes an RfA and what does not. I also disagree with you on what is content creation. I have no problems with the gnomes who build and expand pages, but this is an encyclopedia. We should be focused on content creators, not the support staff. GregJackP Boomer! 15:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It used to be that those with a block in the last twelve months needed a pretty good explanation, and after a certain time most blocks were considered moot. But that isn't a relevant topic for the RFA of an editor with a clean block log. As for those who build and expand pages, in my book they are the content creators, and some but not all content creators have contributed FAs or GAs. I'm primarily a gnome, most of my mainspace edits are fixing typos. Adding the missing l in public typically only adds one byte per edit. I suppose that makes me "support staff" in your book, but on that basis admins are support staff - the FAC coordinators certainly need to have written FAs, but admins don't. ϢereSpielChequers 13:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
We both know that no block in twelve months hasn't been the standard for a while. Many look for clean block logs now. Look, if we could be sure that the new crop of admins were going to be more like you, it would truly be no big deal, but that's not what happens. You have some admins whose sole purpose in life seems to be to nitpick and hound content creators. Some who believe that they should be SJW and "fix" what we should believe, allowing for no dissent at all. Those who don't understand the real concept of WP:IAR. So I look for candidates who I believe will not do that, and for the most part that means content creators. It is, after all, the primary goal of WP, to create content. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 15:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Break

It's entirely possible to be a dedicated content creator without being keen on the GA and FA processes. There's nothing special about having successfully nominated an FA; you write a decent article, then entertain periodical and hollow MoS checks until enough people in your WikiProject type up a two-line "support" rationale—usually on the order of 8 or 10 weeks. It's admirable to be a serial recognized-content creator, but on the same token I can easily understand why someone might not like the idea of being bound to FAC for the entire summer. Wbm1058 is not a content creator—on that, you'll get no argument from me—but generally speaking it would be a darn shame for a qualified candidate to be "discouraged from running" because they don't have as many tacky GA icons as you or I. – Juliancolton |  16:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Fully agreed. You can think content creation is important but the important part stems from the actual writing of encyclopedic material, not the process of GA/FA/FL/FT/ITN/DYK itself. Someone could well have written an FA standard article but never felt confident enough to nominate it for FA, or didn't want to go through the hassle, heard the process took too long, didn't want to add to the backlog etc. And in my opinion at least, lots of C class articles is about the same as a few GA class articles (and the former is probably worth more to the encyclopedia), so people who create them are just as valuable as those with hat-collection-esque topicons on their user page (me included). — Bilorv(talk) 16:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I remember being at RFA and 60% article space contributions used to be considered a good ratio for article to project edits. Mkdw 16:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to be able to say that the experience of peer review is an important component of content creation, but I can't. If we had a process that said "experienced Wikipedians knowledgeable about the topic area have reviewed this article and believe it to be thorough and accurate, but nobody has bothered with the niceties of prose, or checked that the dashes are all the right length, or made sure that the footnote formatting is consistent" then I'd use it, but as it is I can't justify spending my limited amount of hobby time on that stuff. I certainly can't expect it as a prerequisite for things like performing history merges. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm with you, Julian and Opabinia. Personally when I passed RfA last January, I had four GAs and no FAs. In fact I don't ever intend to submit anything for FA. Writing good articles is one thing; submitting yourself to a months-long meat grinder where every punctuation mark is quibbled over is not why I am here at Misplaced Pages. There are many ways to be an excellent "content contributor" here; FAs are not the only measure (and in many ways not even a good measure). For that matter I don't require admin candidates to be "content contributors" at all, but that's another story. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree completely. An editor need not have created a single FA IMO to be a content creator, but if not, should have taken at least two articles to GA. I personally hate the FA process, but believe that it is needed to provide high-quality content to our readers. GA serves the same purpose, albeit on a lesser level. In any event it is my view that editors who are content creators prior to becoming admins have an entirely different perspective than those who don't create content. I want admins who have the content creation perspective. The rest are pretty much useless, IMO, so I don't support non-content creators.
I understand that admins who do not have a content creation background don't like my position. I don't much care what they think. Until they manage to get a policy where admins aren't appointed for life, I'll continue to hold that position. It's based solely on the perspective of the individual, and content creators have the perspective I want. GregJackP Boomer! 21:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
There's no doubt that FAC produces a polished product, but it's more fuss over trivialities than you get for a real publication. GA just takes too long and is too variable in review quality to feel like a good use of time. You've written admins who do not have a content creation background don't like my position as if it's just some kind of sour-grapes thing, but some admins who do have a content creation background disagree with (not "dislike") your position.
I don't see the connection between the "appointment for life" argument and the desire for pre-adminship content creation. While it's widely believed that admins who don't create much content are worse at their jobs in some way, I haven't seen any evidence of it. (Pointing to a specific individual does not count as evidence; you need to define what you mean by "bad admins" and then apply the definition to the group as a whole.) How would a different model for adminship (term limits, reconfirmations, etc.) actually address your problem? Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sure, a different model would dramatically alter my position. But that's not going to happen. An RfC is going on about whether there needs to be a better way to recall or desyop admins. Only one groups supports the idea—editors, at over 75% support. Admins, crats, and Arbcom members all oppose the idea. Overall you have 60-65% support for change, but it won't happen, because those currently in power don't want to change. As an example, recently an admin who had an open for recall sign up was asked about recall—and immediately removed the open for recall statement, telling the editor to take it to ArbCom. You can't trust them to follow up on what they say if it looks like they may lose the bit.
So what I look for in an admin is someone who creates content, who does not look at this as a big social media exercise, and who doesn't have a grudge against content creators. I want someone with the perspective that content creation is why we are here, and who protects content creators from the riff-raff. In my view, those who have created content are the most apt to hold that view. And while some admins disagree with my position, other admins have denigrated the position, so I will stand by my comments on that.
Finally, I'm not trying to convert anyone. This is solely my criteria, and if no one else agrees with me, that's fine. I know it is not the majority position, most of the time when I oppose the candidate still gets the bit, and that's fine. It's what the community wants. But my position will be the same on the next RfA and the next, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 02:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, but the question was how any of that would change under an alternative model. You say you'll demand content creation until admins aren't appointed for life. Below you suggest two-year reconfirmation. So you'd vote in a non-content-creator because their coming reign of terror is term-limited? Because a reconfirmation two years from now will be a meaningful constraint on behavior two days from now? Not likely. These two things just don't go together.
What's more, you don't seem to have any evidence that people who have written content are any better at keeping the riff-raff away. The fact that it 'sounds right' isn't good enough. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The offer's open to you also. It's not a proposal at the Village Pump, it is an offer to admins who do not like my position on content creation. On the second part, I don't need any evidence, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. You are free to vote however you want, and I'm good with it. I would only need evidence if I were trying to convince someone to change to my way of thinking.
No, what I'm doing is saying what I look for, what I believe. You have to find your own path. Unless of course, you want to make the deal with me on resigning the bit and all. GregJackP Boomer! 07:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I try not to believe things without evidence to substantiate them. And if I do, I don't expect other people not to challenge question express doubts "badger" me about my poorly substantiated beliefs. Your "offer" is specious: nobody is disagreeing with you just out of general dislike. I don't want you to change your position; I want you to be amenable to changing it based on actual evidence. Otherwise you might as well post on every RfA "Oppose, I like pie" for all the use it is. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I could oppose on the basis of pie, but then I doubt that three-quarters of the other opposers would agree with me, at least to some extent, as they have here. Even some of the supports have cited the lack of content creation as a concern. You know, a content creator just got blocked for incivility because he protested that another editor was f'ing up the citations in violation of WP:CITEVAR - and the blocking admin, having no content experience over a single B-class (the rest were stubs/start), couldn't recognize the actual problem, but became the civility police. And we lose the use of a valuable content creator because the admin doesn't have a clue.

I'm not going to go out and look for evidence, anecdotal observations are good enough for me. Hounding me isn't going to change that. GregJackP Boomer! 23:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Right. I've probably done 250 FAs, FLs, GAs, etc., and I could not disagree more with the assertion that you need recognized content to be a good admin. Oppose votes to that effect often (but not always) seem like tremendous exercises in ego-stroking. I'm a big fan of the recognized content institutions and will continue to support them as long as I edit here, but it's simply not true that they're "needed to provide high-quality content to our readers". Our readers aren't idiots; they don't need stickers to tell them whether an article is worth studying.

I think you have to be awfully naive to think that counter-abuse specialists and the like are "pretty much useless". Spam, simple typos, malformed pages, subtle vandalism, BLP violations, misnamed articles, link rot, plagiarism, and disruptive editing disputes are all so rampant on Misplaced Pages that so-called gnomes can play a much, much larger role in improving the site than someone who writes a handful of 1,100-word GAs that struggle to hit 400 views per month. – Juliancolton |  01:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that it sometimes does seem like ego stroking. We get content contributors are great, we get that you wish everyone was like you. That is not the end all be all of contributing to the encyclopedia though. If you are a great content contributor and think admins should be great content contributors then run for RfA and pick up a mop and help. There are other forms of contributions and being an admin is one of them. Chillum 02:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You going to nominate me? You and I both know that I don't stand a snowball's chance of being an admin, nor do I want to be an admin. Don't make facetious comments. It's not becoming.
What this is actually about is that you don't like my position and want me to change it. I'll make a deal with you, resign the bit and agree that to regain it you have to stand an RfA every two-years, and I'll no longer oppose based on content creation. After all, the bit is no big deal, right? GregJackP Boomer! 06:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Bad deal @GregJackP:. I have no intention of resigning, I have have no wish for you to stop expressing your opinion. You seem to be confusing me disagreeing with you wish me thinking your opinion should not be expressed. You are welcome to express dubious claims all you want, just don't cry foul when people disagree with them or think your judgement is flawed. You need to be more able to handle people telling you they don't agree with you if you are going to support unpopular ideas. This "don't disagree with me it is badgering" nonsense only discredits your position. If you don't want to support your position then you may want to reconsider it. Chillum 13:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised that you wouldn't take the deal... As far as badgering, one of the support !votes dropped out because of the badgering he observed, and I believe that he didn't like your comments to him telling him how he should !vote either. GregJackP Boomer! 14:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I though you were an admin, albeit a slightly cranky one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
LOL, only "slightly" cranky? I've gotta up my game. GregJackP Boomer! 07:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Second break

I don't know why expecting an admin to have GA or FA experience is whined about. I'd support a guy or gal who had two decent sized GAs if they were solid articles. Successfully getting through FAC is an achievement, but even that isn't as hard as it used to be. It isn't that hard to do and expecting it isn't demanding. It should be a no-brainer. JackTheVicar (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, GAs are sufficient. What I want to see is how the admin candidate dealt with critiques of his work, for one thing. And I want him to be able to point to some portion of the encyclopedia that he contributed to in major part, and that he has had to justify to a reviewer. If he's averse to processes where his work is reviewed, why is he submitting himself to RfA?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, a couple of GAs are sufficient, and it is how the candidate handles the process that's important. GregJackP Boomer! 20:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Question to "supporting editors" not Wbm1058

Please explain the notability of Pygments according to the latest edit right now.

Why the page Stern Stewart & Co has only company website, with no third party/independent review at this time? Aero Slicer 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Which administrative duties is this related to? Chillum 16:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
To comprehend WP:COMPANY and respecting the principles of WP:PROMOTION for WP:AFD. Aero Slicer 17:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Deletion policy, basically. Lack of notability is a major reason why the deletion button is pressed, so to speak. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Deletion policy says that administrators do not determine notability. That is to be decided by the community at AfD. We look for a mere assertion of importance to determine if CSD is viable, but we don't delete based on our perception of notability. I point this out because this is a content issue not an administrative issue, a very intentional separation by the comminity. It is determined by everyday editors not by admins. Determining consensus is an administrative duty, determining notability is not.
I agree it is important to know deletion policy off by heart. I also think it is important to know all relevant content policies and guidelines related to an AfD, though I generally read up on those as I am closing the AfD as there are just so many of them. Chillum 17:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Stern Stewart & Co

This was the original title of Stern Value Management, created by User:Boris Barowski. In 2013 Wbm1058 made the move (see the page histories). Stern Stewart & Co was then expanded from the redirect by others. So in short Wbm1058 is not responsible for the creation of this weak-notability page. BethNaught (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Frankly a lot of the examples being given are poor. For example Special-purpose page name maintenance templates was given as an example of a page created that got deleted, except the deletion log shows it was deleted at the authors request per WP:CSD#G7. I think there is a lack of homework being done resulting in these poor examples. I sincerely hope that people do their on homework before taking these claims at face value. Chillum 18:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep. This. Pygments is the only even arguably problematic example offered so far, and our approach to notability and sourcing for open-source software is (ironically) so broken that I can't hold that against someone. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This is why I cannot abide by the philosophy that we are not supposed to debate people's point of view. Those who think that people commenting on your oppose !vote is badgering should take into account that debate allows us to see when people are just plain incorrect. Chillum 19:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion about statements of Support

Mkdw

Has someone stated or inferred that Wbm1058 is untrustworthy? GregJackP Boomer! 00:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It was a general statement. The fundamental point of RFA is to determine whether the community would trust this editor with the tools and not abuse their position. Mkdw 01:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hahc21

"Sure" does not indicate why you believe that Wbm should be trusted with the mop. Please justify your support of his candidacy. GregJackP Boomer! 15:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I can see you have a bone to pick against him. → Call me Hahc21 10:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually not. I like Wbm. What I was asking is for the basis of your support of his request for the mop. "Sure" does not indicate your reasons, and per the guys hectoring the opposes, we should be asking the same question of the supports who have not laid out an actual reason for support. My personal view is that people should state their opinion and be done. GregJackP Boomer! 14:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Pick a position Greg. Either you think people asking people to justify their opinion is hectoring, which you have decided to do here. Or you think that it is a reasonable thing to do, which you have decided to do here. If you call it hectoring when opposes are questioned, but are just asking for a basis when you do it then you have discredited yourself by contradicting your own premise. Hahc21 would do well to explain their point of view, regardless of the manner in which it was questioned. If this ends up being close no crat' worth their salt will give much weight to what you have put down. Chillum 14:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You are the one that said to question both sides, now you're opposed to it? I'm happy to post my position and be done, but you and others won't let that happen, so, although I disagree with it, I'm doing what you suggested. And now you criticize for that too? Why don't you just leave people alone instead of badgering them? GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Someguy1221

"Because I see no good reason not to" does not indicate why you believe that Wbm should be trusted with the mop. Please justify your support of his candidacy. GregJackP Boomer! 15:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I trust our excellent contributors in the oppose section to dig up the worst possible dirt on our candidate. If what's found there is the best they could find, Wbm will make an excellent admin. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Jianhui67

"No issues" does not indicate why you believe that Wbm should be trusted with the mop. Please justify your support of his candidacy. GregJackP Boomer! 15:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Kusma

Articles like these are well sourced other than official websites? Stern Stewart & Co, Barco Silex. In AFD , i have seen many new users who create articles about their company with only company website as reference without any independent source. Aero Slicer 06:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Neither of these articles was started by the candidate (although the candidate made the oldest edit in the page history), so I do not know what you are talking about. —Kusma (t·c) 09:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The page creator is Wbm1058. Stern Stewart & Co Barco Silex.Aero Slicer 09:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but if you actually look at the pages, you'll see Wbm1058 just created a redirect and moved a page; neither of these count as creating articles and neither have had significant work by Wbm1058. I also dispute your implication that someone who creates an article is responsible for its content; they don't own the page or have any obligation to help expand it once it's been created. — Bilorv(talk) 09:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You know there are users who represent a company and create Misplaced Pages articles about their company where the lone source is their official website. Now if Wbm1058 becomes administrator, i hope he is able to take the tough decision of deleting such articles. Such articles maybe like the one I have pointed above. Aero Slicer 10:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I simply don't see why COI editing is relevant to Kusma's support !vote. — Bilorv(talk) 10:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell

Just curious: what do you mean by 'earlier'? He's been active since 2011. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Chillum

Can you provide a "sensible reason" to support this candidate? The absence of an objection should take you to a neutral position, not support. If you are going to give someone a lifetime appointment as an admin, it behooves us to show a positive, clearly thought out reason to do so, not that there is no reason to oppose. GregJackP Boomer! 23:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Being an admin is not a big deal and it is not a life time appointment. Plenty of people are now ex-admins. The candidate has contributed significantly here including a butload of content contributions and has not ran afoul of our policies and has been civil and reasonable. I have no reason to think they will abuse the tools so I am supporting them. The most important reason is that we need more admins and if there is nothing reasonable to object to in this candidate then it would be silly of me to object. Chillum 00:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"Being an admin is not a big deal..." Balderdash. It may have been true at one time, but it ain't true now, not when Misplaced Pages is the primary place people go to for a quick hit of information, where businesses and professionals go to try and promote themselves, where ethnic warriors fight each other for dominance, and conspiracy nuts and fringe advocates try to get traction for the pet theories. Yes, rank-and-file editors do a lot of the grunt work of holding back the tide, but it almost always comes down to someone having to be blocked, or topic banned, or IPs being range blocked, or enemies being IBanned, or articles being deleted, and the only ones who can do that are the admins. They're goddamned important, and it's demeaning to keep saying that they're not, that being one is "no big deal" -- especially coming from an admin! It just isn't true in the Wikiworld of right now, not 2003. BMK (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Admins are of course important, without them this place would grind to a halt. But it is no big deal. All of those things you listed are content issues, content is decided by the community not admins. Blocks, bans, and all other admin actions come down to the community too. It is not a big deal and that is not demeaning at all. Chillum 04:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, right. No big deal may be the spin admins put on it, but BMK is absolutely correct. GregJackP Boomer! 05:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay you caught me. I am secretly a rouge admin. Chillum 13:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Considering the recent ArbCom-mandated desysops, and the rather unsettling discussion now ongoing at AN/I, I think perhaps some of the fun has gone out of that joke, Chillum. BMK (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion about statements of Opposition

GregJackP

Could you expand on "too many of the created articles have been subsequently deleted"? Looking through Wbm's edit history, I only see a single mainspace page he created in the last year and a half that's been deleted since. I also see no pages moved to mainspace from AFC that have been deleted in that same time period. Sure, If I look back to 2012 I can find a bunch of categories he created that have since been deleted - is that what you were referring to? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Lujanbio, MOGAS Oil, Westland United F.C., https://en.wikipedia.org/''%E5%94%90%E5%B1%B1''?redirect=no ''唐山'', IMDRF, K.Hari Kumar, EHMC, Brand New (prefix), Special-purpose page name maintenance templates, Kitchen collection, and R from foreign name. In addition, MS-Net was deleted and recreated by another editor. The Bitter melon tea redirect was deleted to make room for a real article. Land to the tiller was deleted to create a dab page. He's created 47 mainspace pages. Of those, 15 have been deleted according to this. That's 32% of the articles that he's created being deleted. To me, that is a problem. GregJackP Boomer! 00:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Trolling? – Juliancolton |  00:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
No, Juliancolton, I do not believe that you are trolling. But thanks for your input. GregJackP Boomer! 01:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
No, Juliancolton, he's not trolling. In fact, he raises a legitimate concern. While this particular user seems like a fine candidate, I also think that admins should be able to create good and/or featured content, even it's just ITN or DYK. We have too many admins that don't contribute to content at all, even though content is the most vital part of Misplaced Pages. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree on that point, but it's monumentally silly to hold procedural deletions of single-revision redirects against a candidate. – Juliancolton |  02:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly how are non-admins supposed to know that it is a single-revision redirect? We cannot look at the contents of the deleted page and the information is not posted on the deletion log. GregJackP Boomer! 05:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You're not, but that's why a reasonable non-admin might first inquire as to the contents of the deleted pages instead of opposing straight-off. That said, you could have probably pieced together what was going on from the helpful deletion rationales, which overwhelmingly cite G7 or G8 and not something more indicative of wrongdoing. I'd be happy to describe each of the candidate's deleted pages, and the events leading to their deletions, if anybody's interested. – Juliancolton |  14:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm soo glad that you distinguish between reasonable and non-reasonable mere editors inquire about. That way, those who might otherwise be seen as trolls know how to properly act so that admins are satisfied. GregJackP Boomer! 15:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see you fall solidly into the "non-reasonable" camp. Thanks for making that so clear. My offer stands, in any case. – Juliancolton |  15:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I will give it all the consideration it is due. GregJackP Boomer! 21:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
That seems unfair, greg. Lujanbio was simply a redirect to a page that did exist, created by a different editor, that was later deleted. Same story for MOGAS Oil, which incidentally was later recreated. Same story for Westland United F.C., IMDRF, K.Hari Kumar, and EHMC. I won't defend the rest, but most were years ago. I get your point, but six of your examples are just instances of Wmb doing gnomish work related to an article, created by someone else, that was later deleted. I'm not trying to change your mind, by the way, just clarifying what you found. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm basing it on the x-tools articles created page, linked above in the hatted RfA/RfB toolbox section, or directly above in my response to your question. Even if you discount all of those, you still have no article creation to speak of, and in the questions above he speaks of hoping that someone else will take the article he is most proud of to a GA status. If he wants it to be a GA, read the instructions and do it. GregJackP Boomer! 01:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Gah, its almost a cliché for you to auto-vote oppose because of no GA/FA and I know that opinions will not change, but currently, I do find things like GA and FA extremely backlogged and slow. It simply isn't a good marker for content creation at this time. I nommed an article for GA back in June and it still hasn't been touched, like many articles. not (talk/contribs) 10:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
And I'll continue to oppose RfAs where there is no content creation. I actually agree with your position on the backlog, and would take that into consideration were it a factor. Thus far, none of the candidates I have opposed have even had an article in the GA/FA pipeline. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 15:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with GregJackP about much -- and, in fact, I don't agree with the extremely tight focus of his content creation requirements -- but he has as much right as every other editor on Misplaced Pages to set up standards which are his standards, and to follow them where they take him. The badgering of him in this RfA is unseemly, and counterproductive. More editors should do what he has done and come up with a set of standards they follow. (I certainly haven't, my standards are more ad hoc, although there are generally things I look for.) Now, can we stop this sideshow, leave GregJackP alone and get on with it? I'm not sure why supporters are being so aggressive, considering that it looks more than likely that the candidate will pass the bar. BMK (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we all understand that he's entitled to his opinion, and Greg knows full well that his singular RfA criterion stirs up a lot of controversy and he seems to be at peace with that fact. Whatever. His own behavior has become increasingly unseemly and counterproductive though and I suspect that has something to do with the ensuing flame war getting worse. Condescension, passive-aggressiveness and now badgering supporters for not offering a support rationale (something that's quite literally never been demanded from anyone at RfA), he seems to be hellbent on getting increasingly unreasonable and POINTy at RfA and I expect the sideshows he provokes will continue to grow with his own unproductive commentary. Swarm ♠ 20:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you go harass some little kids somewhere? If you want to know why I'm questioning supporters, talk to Chillum, he's the one that told me to do so. GregJackP Boomer! 23:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You asked me to leave you alone GregJackP and I did, why are you pinging me? If you want to talk about this you can come to my talk page but I have no intention of engaging you further here. Clearly this is a drama fest and not everyone is into that. Chillum 01:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a danger that this discussion will soon turn into a mud-slinging festival if it doesn't end shortly. Can't everyone just drop it and move forward with the RfA? I'm also moving this to the talk page; it's become much too long and messy for the main page. --Biblioworm (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I ask for a cessation of hostilities, and you come back with that? Not the kind of good judgment I expect to see from an admin. If you've got problems with GregJackP, bring it to the noticeboards. Let's allow this whole thing to drop, please. BMK (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Collect

You mention AfD despite the candidate clearly stating "My deletion activity will be limited to speedies, as I haven't been active at WP:AfD, nor do I expect to be soon". I don't follow. —Frosty ☃ 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT all he would need is a flag for moves - but he shows nothing to indicate he is aware and competent to handle anything about deletions, biographies, sources, conflicts etc. at all. Since Admins automatically have all powers to deal with them, it is, IMO, essential that their background on Misplaced Pages show some awareness of the major areas in which they will have the ability to act. There was a recent case where I held that opinion, and I continue to hold that opinion. And experience bears this position out - not that I insist on every aspect being known, but only knowing one thing is, IMO, insufficient to ask for the mop. Collect (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the editor's 2014 Arbcom run and noticed you supported him for Arbitrator, but now you don't support him for Administrator? If it's not considered badgering, would you mind explaining that? →StaniStani 01:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't speak for Collect, but had I been active then I would have supported him for ArbCom too. The reason is simple for me, he was not an admin and I firmly believe that a significant portion of the members of ArbCom should be non-admin, normal editors. It's two entirely different roles and issues. GregJackP Boomer! 02:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Aero Slicer

You're not an administrator, so you can't see what those deleted pages were as I can. Nearly all of them are redirects to pages Wbm did not create. Pages that were later deleted, along with their redirects. xtools has an option not to show redirects, but it can't tell what content a page held that no longer exists, and lists those pages anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It is reasonable to an editor to infer that a large number of deleted articles implies a problem with understanding notability or other issues. Non-admins have no way of viewing that information, and it is not really appropriate for an admin who is supporting the RfA to criticize his position based on the information he has access to. GregJackP Boomer! 05:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I am criticizing no one, merely providing information. Though you can interpret my statement however you like. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
When the statement starts You're not an administrator... it sound like you are saying that he's not as important or knowledgeable, so he should defer to your position. If it was not meant to intimidate or criticize, then I apologize, but RfAs should be based on information that all can see, not super-secret stuff that admins may deign to share with mere editors. GregJackP Boomer! 06:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I honestly regret using that wording then. I only said that to make it clear the information I was providing was not something he could check himself. My only intention here was to correct what I thought was a misconception on Aero's part, though he has made it clear below that he believes even G8 deletions reflect poorly on an editor. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Aero Slicer which created articles in particular were deleted as a result of notability issues? Perhaps we can review them to separate out the redirects or moved articles (which were created by others) that were subsequently deleted and help clarify a few things. Mkdw 04:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If he created redirect for deleted articles, then he supported those articles. Pygments - reference is wikipedia signpost. Stern Stewart & Co No reference and source right now. Only two external links which are official websites. Lepid What is the purpose of this article?. Barco Silex zero reference other than official website. I am talking about the current version of those pages. Aero Slicer 05:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Criticizing Lepid with the rationale "What is the purpose of this article?" is ridiculous; it's a soft redirect to Wiktionary, not an article, and serves the purpose of taking Misplaced Pages readers to a relevant page on Wiktionary, since WP is not a dictionary. If you have a problem with this, go to Template talk:Wiktionary redirect, not the RfA of someone who happened to use the template once. — Bilorv(talk) 09:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Adding SMC Corporation as the pdf links are taken from the websites.Aero Slicer 09:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the history of Barco Silex the candidate created a redirect in 2012 which others have expanded to an article. In what way could the candidate be held responsible for that article's state of referencing? Struck as that example has now been struck ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
SMC corporation was created three years ago, arguably the use of primary sourcing indicates that the candidate wasn't ready for adminship in July 2012. But how is that relevant to a 2015 RFA? ϢereSpielChequers 14:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Last edited by Wbm1058 on 26 September 2014 and at that time the page looked like this.___ Stern Stewart & Co First and last edit in 2014 by him.____ Pygments created edited regularly in July 2015 by Wbm1058 using Misplaced Pages signpost as source . All three pages depend on the official websites. I am not 100% confirmed, but there is a small concern, that if he becomes Administrator, he will create more articles about private entities, software firm, newly created industries using official website as his best reference as he did here. ____This page states All article topics must be verifiable with independent,third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. Thanks.Aero Slicer 14:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The first reference in SMC_Corporation, back in 2012, was to www.jpx.co.jp a primary source, but surely an independent one, and an indicator that this is most unlikely to be a very small "garage" or local company. As for date of most recent edit, we encourage people to watchlist articles, it is an important layer of our defences against vandalism; The content was contributed in 2012, editors are under no obligation to take ownership of articles they have partly written. ϢereSpielChequers 15:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"there is a small concern, that if he becomes Administrator, he will create more articles about private entities..." – Aero Slicer, there are 79 user rights that administrators have. The only one that is relevant to creating articles is the ability to create salted pages, which is only necessary in rare situations. Wbm1058 can create articles under almost any title now, without sysop tools. Ability to create pages is not what adminship is about. — Bilorv(talk) 14:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Bilorv As an administrator, he will get more respect and there will be problems if he uses Misplaced Pages as reference. Aero Slicer 14:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Admins do not get more respect, where did you get that idea? Go read the talk page of any random admin and see just how much respect they get. Chillum 15:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've had a look through all of the deleted pages that Wbm1058 created, and they were all redirects, not articles, so the notability policy wouldn't have applied. The only one that looked at all bad was his redirect of Kitchen collection to Kitchen utensil, which was deleted at this RfD discussion. Personally, I don't think that's a very big deal. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

BMK

@Beyond My Ken: Please explain why you don't think he should be an administrator. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you ask the equivalent question of the "support" vote that said "sure"? No, you did not. BMK (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
By long convention Support votes such as "sure" or "per nom" are interpreted as agreeing with the nomination. Oppose !votes presumably disagree with the nomination, but it helps the RFA to know in what way they disagree with the nomination. ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
BMK if you are going to oppose someone at least of the courtesy to explain why. If this turn out to be close don't expect the crats' to give your "Nah" any weight at all. If you want to question the guy who said "sure" be my guest. Chillum 16:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Nah. BMK (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, let's start a new "convention". Just as a support without an explanation is said to mean "per nom" (lotta thought went into that vote, dinnit?), an oppose without an explanation means "per what every other 'oppose' vote above me has already said". So, if things get close, and the 'crats are starting to weigh votes, I fully expect that if my "nah" is thrown out or undervalued, so will all those "sure"-type support votes which took no time or effort to produce. BMK (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If you combine that with a proposal that Support and Oppose votes should have the same value then I wouldn't agree, but I could see the logic of that. However "Nah" is rude and dismissive in a way that "per Soft Lavender" or "per the above opposes" isn't. ϢereSpielChequers 10:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Support and oppose votes already have the same value, each is worth exactly 1 vote. That we set a certain bar for acceptance doesn't make them of unequal value. BMK (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt

The candidate already has access to content, just like IPs do. Do you have any concerns about their use of admin tools? Chillum 19:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Chillum, admins should be able to create content because then they actually know how to handle content disputes using said tools due to their experience in the area. I see an awful lack of content-creating admins nowadays. A lot of admins have created few or no articles and spend <10% of their time in the mainspace. The whole point of this site is to build an encyclopedia. We don't need admins at places like ANI and Arb pages (in fact, Misplaced Pages could live without that shit). We need admins handling content issues and helping to build and improve the encyclopedia. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Except that any admin acting as an admin in an area should not be involving themselves with a content dispute, and if they are involved in the content dispute they must not act as an admin. "Handling" of content issues by admins should be limited to interpreting the desires of the community as described in policy and by consensus. They should not be using their content skills to be making the right administrative decision in a content dispute, because deciding what is right in a content dispute is beyond the discretion of an administrator. I am unconvinced that anything put forward indicates this candidate will not do well with the tools. Chillum 20:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I mean, I guess I concur with that, considering that I !voted support in spite of the concerns regarding content. All I'm saying that it's not fair to badger those kinds of opposes, as they are legitimate concerns. We have far too many admins that waste too much time in meta areas and spend almost no time helping out with content, even just by helping resolve content disputes. So it would be nice if you would eschew negative responses to legitimate opposition/concern(s) (I could understand being concerned by an opposition like BMK's though). Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see my comment at the bottom of the discussion page. It is not badgering, it is the same debate that happens everywhere else on Misplaced Pages. I also got my support challenged and I met it in the spirit that it was given. If we do not talk about each others opinions then we are really not doing a very good job at exploring the issues. As to your other point administration is meta work, that is the job. If they do content as well that is be great too but they need to take off their admin hat while they do that. Chillum 00:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Procedural note: Comment in question since moved to talk.
No, Chillum, there's not much to debate here. The whole point of Misplaced Pages is to build an encyclopedia, which is something too many admins fail to actually try to do. Admins should be doing meta work in addition to content work. Even admins are expected to hold up their end in helping the encyclopedia, and that certainly doesn't happen by hanging around arb and drama board pages all day. I'd like to bet that a lot of current admins on this project couldn't even create a GA on their own (now, there are a lot that could and have made lots, such as Casliber, Bagumba, Go Phightins!, Wizardman, to name a few, but there are also many that couldn't, which is disappointing). Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sportsguy17: None of us have unlimited time available, and the admin bit does not grant anybody more hours in the day. To do meta work - even if only a small amount - means that time has to be found for that by not doing something else. Inevitably, time that would otherwise have been spent in content work is going to be sacrificed at some point. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax

@Jusdafax: I trust you won't mind a bit of "badgering" from me. I want to note that I'm not seeing any replies to opposes by the candidate, only by other editors. I'll also point out that there are replies to supports this time, and in my opinion there's something to be said for everyone who comments at RfA to explain what they say, and not just post canned !votes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Coretheapple

Wbm1058 has clearly stated that he has no intention of doing article deletion. Why are the opposed insisting that the candidate do gruntwork in an area that the candidate has already expressed no interest in?! It's this kind of oppose rationale, right here, that is the best argument that this concept of the "one-size-fits-all" Adminship is broken, and that we need to unbundle the tools so that editors like Wbm1058 can work in the areas they want to without getting slapped with demands that they work in areas of the project for which they have no interest... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: Re: Wbm1058 has clearly stated that he has no intention of doing article deletion - actually he only said he has no intention of doing deletion at AfD. He said he does intend to do speedy and prod deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the 'oppose' I responded to specifically referenced AfD's, which is what I was referring to. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem with any RfA candidate's statement of intention is that we don't hand out admin tools that are only good in one place or for one task; once you have the tools, you can do anything, and people's interest naturally change over time. So, in evaluating a candidate, one really has to think about the whole enchilada: article deletions, blocks, protection, moves, etc. etc., because the candidate will be able to do all of them. BMK (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
That's why good judgment is more important than experience with some specific process. What you want to know is whether the candidate will do the research before jumping in when their interests change later. By your standards, shouldn't we also expect admin candidates to demonstrate proficiency with editing full-protected templates or interface pages? After all, those are bundled in the admin toolset too. The abusefilter right might as well be - should we start asking questions in the form of "design an edit filter to catch the following instances of vandalism"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
No one said that every admin candidate needs to show proficiency in every possible task they could do, that would be, as you imply, silly; instead the argument is that having a candidate say "I will do X" is fine, but the potential is there for them to do many other things as well, so the candidate should not be evaluated only in terms of X -- and, yes, "good judgment" is a more-than-acceptable proxy for that. But has this candidate showed good judgment by, for instance, creating articles which are later deleted? Have not the opposing voters pointed out concerns about the candidate's judgment? And for this, the opposers are -- well, not "vilified", but certainly not treated well. It seems to be lost on some people that opposition -- for a wide variety of reasons, some of which may seem picayune to some of the supporters -- is a legitimate part of this process, in fact, the core of the process, because without it, we'd just be handing out the bit to anyone who wanted it. BMK (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wbm1058 has not edited this page outside of the "questions to candidate" section, so I am not sure how he can be accused of "hassling" opposers. Could you clarify this point, please? Reyk YO! 18:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

He didn't say Wbm was hassling opposers, just that we were being hassled. GregJackP Boomer! 18:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I really hope that's not part of the reason for Coretheapple's oppose. Punishing the candidate because you disapprove of what other people say in the RfA would be really low. Reyk YO! 18:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe he was hoping that Wbm would tell them to knock off the harassment of opposers. Maybe the policy concerns that he mentioned as his primary reason for opposing, is really his primary reason, and, as he indicated, the harassment by supporters is just another straw. GregJackP Boomer! 20:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I take the candidate's silence as signifying approval for his supporters tactics. As an aside, it's almost amusing to read some of the support !votes. "Nothing alarming," for example. Yet those are pretty common in these RfAs. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion about statements Neutrality or Ambivalence

Townlake

This is baseless. You are withdrawing support because we are discussing the opinions presented? Several supports have been questioned as well, I think you will find this is normal, and very much beyond the candidates control. I hope you don't find my response to your decision to be "badgering" but on Misplaced Pages people are going to tell you what they think about your opinion. And I think it is baseless and unhelpful. Chillum 02:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You are the expert on unhelpful. Stop lecturing me about what to do with my vote. Townlake (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Townlake, he, and the others don't see it as badgering. I would prefer that everyone just put their reason for support or oppose in their own section and be left alone. Unfortunately, they want to do it this way. I'm sorry that he did the same to you as he did to us. GregJackP Boomer! 05:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion of general comments

GregJackP

  • It's really inappropriate for those who oppose an RfA to have to face a gauntlet of comments, criticism, and calls for explanations. If those in opposition did the same to every lame reason for supporting a candidate, we would be accused of disrupting the RfA. If it's not disruption, just let me know, and we can ask the same sort of questions to the supporters. GregJackP Boomer! 06:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree, it is utterly inappropriate. As that has not happened here, this comment seems a little disingenuous. Of the three current Opposes, one (#2) has been questioned because it appeared to be based on something outside the candidate's request, that was then more clearly stated; the other two, brought explanations or clarifications from admins who have extra information that the !voters are unable to see, thus giving them the opportunity, should they want it, to rethink their oppose in light of the clarification/new information. That neither chose to do so does not make the attempted help comments following the opposes inappropriate. I, for one, am glad to know what has been deleted, as i cannot see it, and to learn that much is not anything to concern us. Cheers, Lindsay 07:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Nobody's stopping you from asking questions of supporters. There's a couple of reasons for the questions asked of opposers. Since you need at least 75-80% support to pass an RfA it follows that opposes are 3 or 4 times as powerful as supports. It's only natural to scrutinise influential vetos more closely. Another reason is that opposes are, by their nature, expressions of disapproval towards the candidate. If someone is going to disrespect a candidate's character and contributions, they should expect objections if that derision is not well-founded. Another reason is that sometimes you just can't win. For example, we have one RfA regular who opposes anyone who doesn't write articles, and another who opposes anyone who works on articles in the "wrong" subject areas (ie. every subject area), so the deck is really stacked against all candidates. Reyk YO! 07:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Greg, I usually agree that you get too much badgering for your !votes (even if I personally disagree with your criteria), but I'm not sure that's true here, especially if you're referring to responses to your oppose in particular. "Could you expand..." is a perfectly valid question and if you want, you can ask it to as many supporters as you want. Juliancolton's "Trolling?" was unhelpful, but everything else seemed to be constructive. (I know this general comments section has been moved already but I'm still going to complain; I think this discussion belongs on the talk because it's not directly related to Wbm1058.) — Bilorv(talk) 09:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
While I think calling out unhelpful RfA rationales like GregJackP's (which has nothing to do with the question whether the candidate can be trusted with the tools) is necessary in the current RfA structure: shouldn't we rather have this discussion at WT:RFA? It is not at all related to the candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 09:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Unhelpful comments such as yours are the exact reason that this discussion should be here. Harassing and belittling those who take the time to participate is not appropriate behavior. GregJackP Boomer! 15:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@GregJackP, We've already seen some of the Oppose examples stricken by the people who made them because of the comments that others have raised. I'm sure if there were an equivalent in the support section then it would be challenged. Taking a hypothetical example, if there was a support for writing a particular article, and all the candidate had done was rename that article, then I would hope that there would be a challenge from someone else pointing that out and the person who had done that would amend or even remove their support. But whilst there were clear mistakes in the oppose section, so far there don't seem to be among the supporters. ϢereSpielChequers 14:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure is an equivalent in the support section, yet it has been unchallenged. Are you saying it should be challenged? GregJackP Boomer! 15:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure is the equivalent of per nom, it is not in any way the equivalent of the example I gave. The equivalent in the Oppose section would be an oppose that was per one or more of the earlier opposes, such are common in RFAs once the Oppose section gets into double figures. The only challenge I have made to such !votes in the past is when someone opposes per an earlier Oppose, and the original opposer later strikes that oppose. ϢereSpielChequers 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Odd that this is brought up by the first person in this RFA to "call for an answer". And now they've asked a number of supporters to explain their rationales despite clearly stating this shouldn't be done for the opposes. It seems particularly WP:POINTY. Mkdw 15:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you make an opinion here you can expect it to be challenged, questioned and commented on. Just like on the rest of Misplaced Pages. I don't know where the idea came from that someone questioning your opinion is some sort of inappropriate act. This is how things get done here. If you don't feel like you can defend your position then perhaps you need to reconsider it.

Question the opposes, question the supports. It is the only way to filter out when people are basing their opinion on sensible or stupid things. Chillum 16:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why it is important to question people's opinions: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Wbm1058#Explanation_of_Stern_Stewart_.26_Co.
Sometimes people are wrong and debate allows us to find that out. If we are just to let people put down their opinion without the opportunity for rebuttal then we are going to miss it when they are incorrect. Chillum 19:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Moved from RFA page.
  • GregJackP RFA is, at base, a discussion, so this must be kept in mind when expressing your opinion (even if done in the form of a numbered list). Asking someone to expand their position is a completely legitimate exercise in this context and if the position is well-founded, the elucidation of same may in fact sway participants to opine similarly if they are able to fully understand the position. Of course there is a line to be drawn between "questioning" and "hectoring", but I do not think that line has been crossed here. –xeno 10:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree. It happens on every single RfA. Comments such as "trolling," "non-reasonable," "unhelpful," and other pointed comments are badgering, especially when numerous editors are also pointing out the same thing about content creation. GregJackP Boomer! 14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll agree, but in less polite terms: it's extremely childish to post an admittedly controversial vote and start barking about "badgering" when somebody tries to engage you in discussion. "I'm sorry that he did the same to you as he did to us"? Really? RfA becomes a round of "us vs. them" as soon as a conversation emerges? Well, apparently so, seeing as people have begun voting to align with the victims of this rampant badgering. I'm not often this blunt, and I hold no animosity toward anybody involved in this discussion, but some of the ideas submitted here have been absolutely outrageous. – Juliancolton |  14:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Your comments, coming from one whose first comment to me was to ask if I were "trolling," are hypocritical and disingenuous. It is outrageous and you should be ashamed of yourself. GregJackP Boomer! 14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I was genuinely wondering the same thing. I held my tongue though. It seems now that you are serious. Really it is a bit much that you complain that people have challenged your position when several of the examples you have given are shown to be flawed. If we did not challenge your claims we would not have figured that out. Chillum 14:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)