 | This is an RfA talk page.
While
voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.
|
From Cyber's counter, 31 October 2015.
- First edit: Aug 06, 2014 19:40:05
- User groups: reviewer, rollbacker, *, user, autoconfirmed
- Unique Pages Edited: 4,493
- Average edits per page: 1.83
- Live edits: 8,201
- Deleted edits: 585
- Total edits (including deleted): 8,786
- Main: 3,195 (38.96%)
- User talk: 2,462 (30.02%)
- Wikipedia: 1,069 (13.03%)
- User: 801 (9.77%)
- Talk: 310 (3.78%)
- Wikipedia talk: 264 (3.22%)
What's occurring with the cut-and-paste opposes from
user:EurovisionNim and [(pasted from]
User:Rationalobserver['s)]?
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 13:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
- Dunno, but it doesn't look very cool. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Some people think RfA is a good place to play silly buggers. However I cannot think of an area where one would cause more damage to the project by fucking around than RfA. Agree with Kudpung, not cool. Not cool at all. HighInBC 15:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I posted this on their tp earlier today. Probably have no effect. Trollish behaviour by a schoolie by the looks of things. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough, what on earth are you talking about? I didn't copy-paste my oppose. RO (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- @
Rationalobserver: No, but
EurovisionNim did. --
Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 16:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Right, but I shouldn't be named if they copied my oppose.
Rich Farmbrough, please consider striking or amending that comment.
RO
(talk) 16:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I thought it fair to ping you. I thought the meaning was obvious if anyone looked at RfA. I have clarified. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
- The pinging of Rationalobserver was correct and necessary procedure; unwrtten protocol demands she be granted that courtesy. I would suggest she try to be a little less jittery - people who live in glass houses and all that stuff... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 19:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I thought it fair to ping you. I thought the meaning was obvious if anyone looked at RfA. I have clarified. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
- Right, but I shouldn't be named if they copied my oppose.
Rich Farmbrough, please consider striking or amending that comment.
RO
(talk) 16:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I am really clueless when it comes to such things, so I would appreciate comments: I followed a link provided by user:Kudpung and came upon this redirect: User:WritingEnthusiast14. Does this not mean that User:Biblioworm has also edited under a different name?
The nominee has stated: “I have only edited under one account here” (see q#10) Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support I appreciate
Biblioworm's desire to improve the RFA process but I too think it was done in a way that only contributed to the marathon of RFC proposals which ultimately spread the community's attention in too many directions to impossibly affect any real change. That being said, this editor will be a clear net positive and I agree with much of how this editor reviews situations. Also, roughly 40% main space editing proportion used to be considered a respectable percentage. I'm not sure when or why it arbitrarily changed to make a candidate untrustworthy of the tools.
Mkdw
talk 19:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a cite to an RfA where 40% of edits to mainspace was considered "respectable"? It ain't never been that in my book -- anything under 50% (except for an admin) is atrocious, in my opinion. After all, we are here to build an encyclopedia.
BMK (
talk) 08:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- This RFA has more than enough editors pointing out that article space ratios are not a good indicator on whether someone is a content creator, untrustworthy of the tools, or that editors under 50% are somehow not here to build an encyclopedia. Do you have any evidence that correlates promoted candidates with low article space ratios who then turned out to be untrustworthy?
Mkdw
talk 17:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- This did peak my curiosity though so I compiled a list of candidates between 2010 and now who were unanimously promoted with low mainspace edit ratios below 40%:
- There were more such as
Callanecc and
myself who had only one oppose. Didn't seem like anyone had a problem with low article space ratios. Back then people were seemingly more focus on quality than quantity. Whether they had content work which was either yes or no. At least that no one opposed them over their mainspace edit ratios.
Mkdw
talk 18:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the list, which I found interesting. Concerning standards changing, yes they have, just as the status of Wikipedia itself has changed in the world. Remember "Consensus can change", and so can what the community is looking for in an admin, or the way they go about finding what they're looking for. Saying, essentially, "that's not the way we did it in the old days" isn't a terribly convincing argument: if you look back even farther, you'll see an RfA "process" which is highly informal, and in which a handful of people could just say "sure, why not" and give out the bit.As for quality vs. quantity, see my response to HJ Mitchell.
BMK (
talk) 20:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well I never said that's not the way we did it in the old days nor used that as a rationale for my support. I made the point that it's changed and arbitrarily so.
Mkdw
talk 21:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- You wrote: "Also, roughly 40% main space editing proportion used to be considered a respectable percentage." "Used to be" Back in the old days. When everything was done the right way...not like now.
BMK (
talk) 08:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, a typo: "pique my curiosity" not "peak".
BMK (
talk) 09:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. I never used it as a rationale stating the old ways were better, like you inferred. Merely that it was one way and then changed to a way that seemed to not be better or logical. Never said the old ways were better but rather the change was worse. You've misunderstood and implied meaning that wasn't there so I suggest we move this to the talk page as this seems to be a circular disagreement based on a misunderstanding. In any case it's getting off-topic and I think you respect my position on the matter. Mkdw talk 12:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, a typo: "pique my curiosity" not "peak".
BMK (
talk) 09:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- You wrote: "Also, roughly 40% main space editing proportion used to be considered a respectable percentage." "Used to be" Back in the old days. When everything was done the right way...not like now.
BMK (
talk) 08:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well I never said that's not the way we did it in the old days nor used that as a rationale for my support. I made the point that it's changed and arbitrarily so.
Mkdw
talk 21:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the list, which I found interesting. Concerning standards changing, yes they have, just as the status of Wikipedia itself has changed in the world. Remember "Consensus can change", and so can what the community is looking for in an admin, or the way they go about finding what they're looking for. Saying, essentially, "that's not the way we did it in the old days" isn't a terribly convincing argument: if you look back even farther, you'll see an RfA "process" which is highly informal, and in which a handful of people could just say "sure, why not" and give out the bit.As for quality vs. quantity, see my response to HJ Mitchell.
BMK (
talk) 20:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- This RFA has more than enough editors pointing out that article space ratios are not a good indicator on whether someone is a content creator, untrustworthy of the tools, or that editors under 50% are somehow not here to build an encyclopedia. Do you have any evidence that correlates promoted candidates with low article space ratios who then turned out to be untrustworthy?
Mkdw
talk 17:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I had 42.9% of mainspace contributions when I ran for RfA six months ago, including a support from BMK, though it's been steadily increasing as old AfC reviews get deleted per G13. I guess I'd fail if I ran today as it's not quite on 45%. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Statistics do have a legitimate place in RfA discussions. That said, setting an arbitrary bright-line percentage for mainspace edits is kinda silly, especially if the proponent is unwilling to consider other evidence or to delve into the details. If a candidate has 4,000 article edits, constituting 30% of his total -- is that good or bad? What if the average size of those edits is large, say in excess of 1,000 bytes per edit? What if those 4,000 edits include the creation of multiple new articles and promotion of multiple Good Articles? What if those 4,000 edits are almost all small, gnome-y, non-substantive edits, and the candidate has no history of article creation or addition of quality content? I think those are very different scenarios based on actually reviewing the substance of the candidate's contributions, but both scenarios start with the same top-line statistic. I hear RfA discussion participants rail against the use of AfD statistics all the time, and I say the same thing to them: sure, quoting the top-line percentage AfD stat, without delving into the details, is relatively shallow and meaningless. Citing the top-line stat, however, and then providing a meaningful analysis of the substance behind the statistic is why we are here: that is, to gain some understanding of the quality of candidate's contributions as well as their understanding of policy and the guidelines. Let's not lose sight of the forest because we're focused on only the leaves at the very top of a particular tree. Sure, those leaves may tell us something about the health of the tree, but there's a lot more where they came from. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a cite to an RfA where 40% of edits to mainspace was considered "respectable"? It ain't never been that in my book -- anything under 50% (except for an admin) is atrocious, in my opinion. After all, we are here to build an encyclopedia.
BMK (
talk) 08:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I really don't think that beating these issues to death is going to change anyone's mind at RfA, but I do find it interesting that of the eight RfAs highlighted above...two are basically retired users and two more are users that apparently edit very infrequently on Wikipedia.
- I personally have a very high (maybe even too high - it's around 88% I believe) percentage of total edits made to mainspace, but I try very hard to avoid needless drama and the many Wikipedia drama boards myself. I started actively editing on Wikipedia to improve articles, not waste my time on many of the other forums on Wikipedia. I also really have no interest in becoming an administrator myself.
- What really bothers me is that these administrator positions are basically for life, and, if one doesn't have a large amount of personal knowledge of a candidate's editing experience on Wikipedia, then one doesn't have a huge amount to go on when one is judging a candidate's "worthiness" for being an administrator. I know of a few administrators that were given "the mop" long ago with relatively little Wikipedia experience to begin with that morphed (I guess over time) into administrators that apparently think that they are above everyone else on here, which isn't helpful to say the least. I don't know that this specific editor under consideration here will eventually fall into that category or end up abandoning Wikipedia altogether. What I do know from past experience is that, for me anyways, if I can't confidently say "yes" to a candidate for something here on Wikipedia (administrator, ArbCom, etc.), then I really should say "no for now" and leave it at that...no hard feelings... Guy1890 ( talk) 04:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
|
| This is an RfA talk page.
While
voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.
|
From Cyber's counter, 31 October 2015.
- First edit: Aug 06, 2014 19:40:05
- User groups: reviewer, rollbacker, *, user, autoconfirmed
- Unique Pages Edited: 4,493
- Average edits per page: 1.83
- Live edits: 8,201
- Deleted edits: 585
- Total edits (including deleted): 8,786
- Main: 3,195 (38.96%)
- User talk: 2,462 (30.02%)
- Wikipedia: 1,069 (13.03%)
- User: 801 (9.77%)
- Talk: 310 (3.78%)
- Wikipedia talk: 264 (3.22%)
What's occurring with the cut-and-paste opposes from
user:EurovisionNim and [(pasted from]
User:Rationalobserver['s)]?
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 13:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
- Dunno, but it doesn't look very cool. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Some people think RfA is a good place to play silly buggers. However I cannot think of an area where one would cause more damage to the project by fucking around than RfA. Agree with Kudpung, not cool. Not cool at all. HighInBC 15:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I posted this on their tp earlier today. Probably have no effect. Trollish behaviour by a schoolie by the looks of things. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough, what on earth are you talking about? I didn't copy-paste my oppose. RO (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- @
Rationalobserver: No, but
EurovisionNim did. --
Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 16:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Right, but I shouldn't be named if they copied my oppose.
Rich Farmbrough, please consider striking or amending that comment.
RO
(talk) 16:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I thought it fair to ping you. I thought the meaning was obvious if anyone looked at RfA. I have clarified. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
- The pinging of Rationalobserver was correct and necessary procedure; unwrtten protocol demands she be granted that courtesy. I would suggest she try to be a little less jittery - people who live in glass houses and all that stuff... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 19:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I thought it fair to ping you. I thought the meaning was obvious if anyone looked at RfA. I have clarified. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
- Right, but I shouldn't be named if they copied my oppose.
Rich Farmbrough, please consider striking or amending that comment.
RO
(talk) 16:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I am really clueless when it comes to such things, so I would appreciate comments: I followed a link provided by user:Kudpung and came upon this redirect: User:WritingEnthusiast14. Does this not mean that User:Biblioworm has also edited under a different name?
The nominee has stated: “I have only edited under one account here” (see q#10) Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support I appreciate
Biblioworm's desire to improve the RFA process but I too think it was done in a way that only contributed to the marathon of RFC proposals which ultimately spread the community's attention in too many directions to impossibly affect any real change. That being said, this editor will be a clear net positive and I agree with much of how this editor reviews situations. Also, roughly 40% main space editing proportion used to be considered a respectable percentage. I'm not sure when or why it arbitrarily changed to make a candidate untrustworthy of the tools.
Mkdw
talk 19:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a cite to an RfA where 40% of edits to mainspace was considered "respectable"? It ain't never been that in my book -- anything under 50% (except for an admin) is atrocious, in my opinion. After all, we are here to build an encyclopedia.
BMK (
talk) 08:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- This RFA has more than enough editors pointing out that article space ratios are not a good indicator on whether someone is a content creator, untrustworthy of the tools, or that editors under 50% are somehow not here to build an encyclopedia. Do you have any evidence that correlates promoted candidates with low article space ratios who then turned out to be untrustworthy?
Mkdw
talk 17:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- This did peak my curiosity though so I compiled a list of candidates between 2010 and now who were unanimously promoted with low mainspace edit ratios below 40%:
- There were more such as
Callanecc and
myself who had only one oppose. Didn't seem like anyone had a problem with low article space ratios. Back then people were seemingly more focus on quality than quantity. Whether they had content work which was either yes or no. At least that no one opposed them over their mainspace edit ratios.
Mkdw
talk 18:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the list, which I found interesting. Concerning standards changing, yes they have, just as the status of Wikipedia itself has changed in the world. Remember "Consensus can change", and so can what the community is looking for in an admin, or the way they go about finding what they're looking for. Saying, essentially, "that's not the way we did it in the old days" isn't a terribly convincing argument: if you look back even farther, you'll see an RfA "process" which is highly informal, and in which a handful of people could just say "sure, why not" and give out the bit.As for quality vs. quantity, see my response to HJ Mitchell.
BMK (
talk) 20:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well I never said that's not the way we did it in the old days nor used that as a rationale for my support. I made the point that it's changed and arbitrarily so.
Mkdw
talk 21:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- You wrote: "Also, roughly 40% main space editing proportion used to be considered a respectable percentage." "Used to be" Back in the old days. When everything was done the right way...not like now.
BMK (
talk) 08:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, a typo: "pique my curiosity" not "peak".
BMK (
talk) 09:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. I never used it as a rationale stating the old ways were better, like you inferred. Merely that it was one way and then changed to a way that seemed to not be better or logical. Never said the old ways were better but rather the change was worse. You've misunderstood and implied meaning that wasn't there so I suggest we move this to the talk page as this seems to be a circular disagreement based on a misunderstanding. In any case it's getting off-topic and I think you respect my position on the matter. Mkdw talk 12:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, a typo: "pique my curiosity" not "peak".
BMK (
talk) 09:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- You wrote: "Also, roughly 40% main space editing proportion used to be considered a respectable percentage." "Used to be" Back in the old days. When everything was done the right way...not like now.
BMK (
talk) 08:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well I never said that's not the way we did it in the old days nor used that as a rationale for my support. I made the point that it's changed and arbitrarily so.
Mkdw
talk 21:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the list, which I found interesting. Concerning standards changing, yes they have, just as the status of Wikipedia itself has changed in the world. Remember "Consensus can change", and so can what the community is looking for in an admin, or the way they go about finding what they're looking for. Saying, essentially, "that's not the way we did it in the old days" isn't a terribly convincing argument: if you look back even farther, you'll see an RfA "process" which is highly informal, and in which a handful of people could just say "sure, why not" and give out the bit.As for quality vs. quantity, see my response to HJ Mitchell.
BMK (
talk) 20:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- This RFA has more than enough editors pointing out that article space ratios are not a good indicator on whether someone is a content creator, untrustworthy of the tools, or that editors under 50% are somehow not here to build an encyclopedia. Do you have any evidence that correlates promoted candidates with low article space ratios who then turned out to be untrustworthy?
Mkdw
talk 17:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I had 42.9% of mainspace contributions when I ran for RfA six months ago, including a support from BMK, though it's been steadily increasing as old AfC reviews get deleted per G13. I guess I'd fail if I ran today as it's not quite on 45%. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Statistics do have a legitimate place in RfA discussions. That said, setting an arbitrary bright-line percentage for mainspace edits is kinda silly, especially if the proponent is unwilling to consider other evidence or to delve into the details. If a candidate has 4,000 article edits, constituting 30% of his total -- is that good or bad? What if the average size of those edits is large, say in excess of 1,000 bytes per edit? What if those 4,000 edits include the creation of multiple new articles and promotion of multiple Good Articles? What if those 4,000 edits are almost all small, gnome-y, non-substantive edits, and the candidate has no history of article creation or addition of quality content? I think those are very different scenarios based on actually reviewing the substance of the candidate's contributions, but both scenarios start with the same top-line statistic. I hear RfA discussion participants rail against the use of AfD statistics all the time, and I say the same thing to them: sure, quoting the top-line percentage AfD stat, without delving into the details, is relatively shallow and meaningless. Citing the top-line stat, however, and then providing a meaningful analysis of the substance behind the statistic is why we are here: that is, to gain some understanding of the quality of candidate's contributions as well as their understanding of policy and the guidelines. Let's not lose sight of the forest because we're focused on only the leaves at the very top of a particular tree. Sure, those leaves may tell us something about the health of the tree, but there's a lot more where they came from. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a cite to an RfA where 40% of edits to mainspace was considered "respectable"? It ain't never been that in my book -- anything under 50% (except for an admin) is atrocious, in my opinion. After all, we are here to build an encyclopedia.
BMK (
talk) 08:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I really don't think that beating these issues to death is going to change anyone's mind at RfA, but I do find it interesting that of the eight RfAs highlighted above...two are basically retired users and two more are users that apparently edit very infrequently on Wikipedia.
- I personally have a very high (maybe even too high - it's around 88% I believe) percentage of total edits made to mainspace, but I try very hard to avoid needless drama and the many Wikipedia drama boards myself. I started actively editing on Wikipedia to improve articles, not waste my time on many of the other forums on Wikipedia. I also really have no interest in becoming an administrator myself.
- What really bothers me is that these administrator positions are basically for life, and, if one doesn't have a large amount of personal knowledge of a candidate's editing experience on Wikipedia, then one doesn't have a huge amount to go on when one is judging a candidate's "worthiness" for being an administrator. I know of a few administrators that were given "the mop" long ago with relatively little Wikipedia experience to begin with that morphed (I guess over time) into administrators that apparently think that they are above everyone else on here, which isn't helpful to say the least. I don't know that this specific editor under consideration here will eventually fall into that category or end up abandoning Wikipedia altogether. What I do know from past experience is that, for me anyways, if I can't confidently say "yes" to a candidate for something here on Wikipedia (administrator, ArbCom, etc.), then I really should say "no for now" and leave it at that...no hard feelings... Guy1890 ( talk) 04:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)