Please note that I've filed a case an ANI regarding the vote of one of the users here. Dennis - 2¢ 23:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- More specifically, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Casting_aspersions NE Ent 00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing this out-of-order and unacceptable oppose, and am placing it here because of all its beautiful prose. I don't mind if Rotten regard reinserts an acceptable rationale, but this is not one. Sockpuppetry accusations are serious and should not be made in a venue like RfA. Drmies ( talk) 02:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Too many intersections on obscure articles between you and
[1] and
[2], something doesn't smell right to me. --
Rotten
regard
23:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Perhaps. And I have not made up my mind about whether to !vote on this candidacy. But maybe a little more than mere intersection is needed to weigh this much or at all against the candidate. Just for an example I thought would turn out to have quite a few intersections, I ran Donner60 with a well known active administrator in the intersection tool. I found many more intersections than the two examples here. I am reasonably sure no one would consider our accounts to be related in any way. This may not be a good example because of vandalism reversion edits but it makes me wonder whether to put much weight on intersections alone, even if many are on obscure articles. Having made this comment, I will not park myself in neutral for the time being, but I am going to wait for more comment and do a little more investigation as time may permit. Donner60 ( talk) 00:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Opposing an Rfa through innuendo definitely smells rotten to me. You have sock concern, -->
WP:SPI.
NE Ent
00:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- NA1000 and Candelabracadabra have quite a few edits on each other's user talk pages. I'd suggest that's consistent with two editors sharing similar interests. It's also consistent with a very clever long-game socking attempt. But if you were that clever you wouldn't edit the same articles to begin with or do obvious shit like
this. Most of the time the intersections seem to be
two ships passing in the night. --
Mkativerata (
talk)
00:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm. And look at NA1000's high overlap with User:Anna Frodesiak:
[3]. Over 1500 pages in common, many of them very obscure. More in common with Anna than either of the other two accounts. You don't think that NA1000 and Anna are trying to get control of another admin account, do you? [tongue firmly in cheek]
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
01:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- the intersections appear to be mostly due to his categorizing AfDs in which the other eds. have participated, or placing cleanup tags on articles, and similar routine. And you'll find an even greater number of intersections with me (2400).
DGG (
talk )
01:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- DGG you and I have way more intersects than CoM and NA, 838 vs 629. [4] As I explained elsewhere, the intersect tool is just that, a tool, and attempting to call it "evidence" is foolish. Otherwise, they should block you and I right now. Dennis - 2¢ 01:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- the intersections appear to be mostly due to his categorizing AfDs in which the other eds. have participated, or placing cleanup tags on articles, and similar routine. And you'll find an even greater number of intersections with me (2400).
DGG (
talk )
01:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm. And look at NA1000's high overlap with User:Anna Frodesiak:
[3]. Over 1500 pages in common, many of them very obscure. More in common with Anna than either of the other two accounts. You don't think that NA1000 and Anna are trying to get control of another admin account, do you? [tongue firmly in cheek]
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
01:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- NA1000 and Candelabracadabra have quite a few edits on each other's user talk pages. I'd suggest that's consistent with two editors sharing similar interests. It's also consistent with a very clever long-game socking attempt. But if you were that clever you wouldn't edit the same articles to begin with or do obvious shit like
this. Most of the time the intersections seem to be
two ships passing in the night. --
Mkativerata (
talk)
00:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
Thank you for moving this comment and thread, Dr. Mies. I think it is quite reasonable to treat the unsupported accusation as a personal attack per WP:NPA ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."), and remove it to this RfA talk page in the absence of any actual evidence. Every RfA candidate deserves a fair shake, and several neutral comments had already cited this comment as a basis of possible opposition or withdrawal of support. That's grotesquely unfair. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think both Drmies' and Dennis Brown's actions are appropriate. While some advocate just letting silly !votes go and leaving them to 'crat discretion, research has shown that such behaviour on RfA is the main thing that discourages potential candidates from wanting go through the process. As most users probably know, I have possibly been the strongest voice for RfA reform for years and while I firmly believe that by now the process has cleaned itself up somewhat, there are still some users who need to be taught a lesson in Wikipedia participation. Such lessons, more than anything, send an important message to the community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm at the complete opposite end of the RfA ideology spectrum from Kudpung. I've never seen an RfA !vote I've thought should be indented or removed (read: censored). Nor do I think we should be in the business of "teaching lessons in Wikipedia participation". But today's is a special case: we just can't allow such completely unfounded and highly prejudicial accusations that, if not removed, are susceptible to triggering pile-ons from inexperienced editors who don't know better. Removing this vote isn't some kind of corrective behavioural mechanism; it is a sensible and proportionate response to ensure this candidate is treated fairly. But as I said, a special case. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 07:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- The key here is, we wouldn't allow this behavior at ANI, Arb or VP, we shouldn't allow it here. I'm tolerant of low quality votes (that is the Crat's domain), but not of low blows (that is the admins and community's domain). Dennis - 2¢ 12:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think what happened here and in I JethroBT's RfA are exactly what should have happened. We mere plebs trust the admins to make tough calls on the community's behalf. Rr's "no thank you" was just foolish, we can count on the crats to disregard it. But this case was more severe, and Drmies did exactly the right thing - removed it, then opened a discussion. Clearly nobody here was opposed to that action. Ivanvector ( talk) 23:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- More generally, what we probably need is RfA clerks--this is a very easy modification of current procedure that will make an improvement, without the several years it will take us to decide if we want to make fundamental changes.
DGG (
talk )
21:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- An excellent idea, DGG. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've proposed that in the past, but it didn't seem to catch on. I would support it at any level, although I think there is some wisdom in having one Crat clerk, another Crat close. That puts clerking in the hands of our most trusted and experienced editors. With no name changing duties, you would think they have enough time for the few RFAs we have. One could just declare themselves the clerk at the start of the RFA. And Crats have final say on all matters RfA. Of course, they might not like it.
Dennis -
2¢
21:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- If adding such clerks, who would serve as such?
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- That was the hang up last time. You really need the admin tools to clerk, and people didn't like admin clerking RFA. I understand the concern, but you need to be able to revdel, block, etc. You can't go ask someone to do your work for you. Not all of it would require the tools, but much would. That is the other reason I liked Crats, no need for a board or that formality, there aren't many, any will do, they have already passed the highest scrutiny, much higher than admin or arbs.
Dennis -
2¢
21:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, using the crats would be perfect. The potential problem, of course, is getting the existing crats to assume the additional proposed role. In their presently defined role, the crats are almost completely above controversy, and the new role would almost by definition involve some measure of controversy. It would seem prudent to sound out the existing crat corps for their opinions.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
18:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- We outnumber them 100k to 1, but I would rather get them onboard (or hear an alternative) rather than impose. If possible.
Dennis -
2¢
22:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- What about promote more crats? --
AmaryllisGardener
talk
22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- While the Crat is an endangered species, they've managed to keep their population steady by avoiding controversy, hence the dilemma. Crats are required to stay above the fray, and there is a reasonable argument to be made that this isn't 100% above the fray. What if a Crat removes your vote? Can you appeal it? Where? WP:AN? WP:ARB? All of that is unworkable for various reasons, you really can't have an appeal if a Crat does it. We would probably have to give them god-like powers, the final say, as we do with closing RFAs, and not everyone is ready for that. Technically, if someone gets 40% approval, but a Crat says "close enough", previous cases have indicated that no one can revert them. Not another Crat, not Arb. Arb can desysop, but that is different, politically speaking. I suppose a Steward might can, I don't know. See? It gets all gray area, and Crats hate the gray, avoiding it whenever possible. I have to imagine they often think "I don't care what the result is, as long as it is a landslide". So I do understand the hesitancy, although I do think they should come in between RFCs and discuss clerking and individually give us their highly experienced opinions and ideas. Dennis - 2¢ 22:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- What about promote more crats? --
AmaryllisGardener
talk
22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- We outnumber them 100k to 1, but I would rather get them onboard (or hear an alternative) rather than impose. If possible.
Dennis -
2¢
22:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, using the crats would be perfect. The potential problem, of course, is getting the existing crats to assume the additional proposed role. In their presently defined role, the crats are almost completely above controversy, and the new role would almost by definition involve some measure of controversy. It would seem prudent to sound out the existing crat corps for their opinions.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
18:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- That was the hang up last time. You really need the admin tools to clerk, and people didn't like admin clerking RFA. I understand the concern, but you need to be able to revdel, block, etc. You can't go ask someone to do your work for you. Not all of it would require the tools, but much would. That is the other reason I liked Crats, no need for a board or that formality, there aren't many, any will do, they have already passed the highest scrutiny, much higher than admin or arbs.
Dennis -
2¢
21:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- If adding such clerks, who would serve as such?
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- More generally, what we probably need is RfA clerks--this is a very easy modification of current procedure that will make an improvement, without the several years it will take us to decide if we want to make fundamental changes.
DGG (
talk )
21:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I've never before on Wikipedia seen an RfA so blatantly ignoring the opposes by a nom and a candidate and given so much leeway by the supporters. Really, utterly shocked. Was this planned? It looks to me that knowing what my oppose would be from the last RfA, the candidate was coached not to respond so as to avoid showing the exact behaviors that we're complaining about. My oppose, which is well supported, is about the candidate's behavior during discussions. Now, in a discussion about the candidate themselve, the candidate has avoided proving that they are capable of handling themselves in a dispute by ignoring the discussions altogether. That's very unethical behavior and if candidate was coached to do that, then I am severely disappointed in whomever did the coaching. Telling an admin candidate to ignore discussions about themselves is not how you prove someone should be an admin. We mine as well delete WP:ADMINACCT if that's an appropriate behavior.--v/r - T P 19:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- The more I've watched pile-on supports, when nothing changed from the first RFA to the second, the more I have felt you should have placed the first oppose you spoke of as more harsh. Perhaps it would have spurred some action, perhaps not, but it might have been worth a try.
LHM
ask me a question
19:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Everything I was going to say was eventually covered by other opposes. I don't care of NA1K passes, but I get a free pass the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time that NA1K blows up ANI because they lose their mind in a dispute and I say "I told ya so". No one can go accuse me of being childish about it when the processes to remove bad admins is so fucked up and I've clearly pointed out a candidate that has basic communication problems. The supporters keep saying "no evidence of abuse". This isn't about abuse. It's about those times when all admins screw up and have to explain themselves. NA1K will complicate those times because they have a basic inability to admit fault and move on. They must wikilawyer the crap out of everyone to prove that - technically - they were right all along and everyone else is wrong. The fact that someone, or NA1K by himself, decided not to participate in this RfA and ignore the entire discussion to avoid having to prove that he is capable of behaving well in a dispute is a clear matter of gaming the system.--v/r -
T
P
20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've actually seen people argue the other way: that a candidate should NOT respond to the oppose !votes, and if they do it shows they are argumentative and unsuited for adminship. You are faulting him for failing to respond, but it's kind of a no-win situation for the candidate. Your points were certainly heard;
probably halfthe majority of the oppose !votes cite your opposition as their reason. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)- Agree with MelanieN. Any candidate should want to avoid the appearance of badgering. The best chance of getting a response is to post under "Questions for the candidate".—
Bagumba (
talk)
20:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- This editor is avoiding drama because they don't want it exposed that they can't avoid drama? Seems unlikely. (About as unlikely that they're making thousands of good edits to Wikipedia in order to "hide".....well, what? That part of the argument was completely unclear to me too.) As others have said, You could have asked the candidate a question if you wanted him to deal with you directly. Without that, I don't see that there was anything less than reasonable or traditional about letting the community sort out what they felt about the candidate among themselves. Lack of badgering shows maturity.
__ E L A Q U E A T E
20:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- He's made so many unnecessary edits that it's nearly impossible to actually scrutinize his record, given the length of his contrib list. It's really not that difficult to understand. LHM ask me a question 20:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm confident that, despite any difficulty in that regard, motivated editors still managed to scrutinize his record. If they are only now complaining about the overall amount of edits they had to look at, I take that as nothing but an encouraging sign of this editor's overall integrity. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- @ MelanieN: You are taking one extreme and going to the other. There have been complaints about candidates who reply to every oppose and that is called badgering.--v/r - T P 20:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- This editor is avoiding drama because they don't want it exposed that they can't avoid drama? Seems unlikely. (About as unlikely that they're making thousands of good edits to Wikipedia in order to "hide".....well, what? That part of the argument was completely unclear to me too.) As others have said, You could have asked the candidate a question if you wanted him to deal with you directly. Without that, I don't see that there was anything less than reasonable or traditional about letting the community sort out what they felt about the candidate among themselves. Lack of badgering shows maturity.
__ E L A Q U E A T E
20:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with MelanieN. Any candidate should want to avoid the appearance of badgering. The best chance of getting a response is to post under "Questions for the candidate".—
Bagumba (
talk)
20:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've actually seen people argue the other way: that a candidate should NOT respond to the oppose !votes, and if they do it shows they are argumentative and unsuited for adminship. You are faulting him for failing to respond, but it's kind of a no-win situation for the candidate. Your points were certainly heard;
- Everything I was going to say was eventually covered by other opposes. I don't care of NA1K passes, but I get a free pass the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time that NA1K blows up ANI because they lose their mind in a dispute and I say "I told ya so". No one can go accuse me of being childish about it when the processes to remove bad admins is so fucked up and I've clearly pointed out a candidate that has basic communication problems. The supporters keep saying "no evidence of abuse". This isn't about abuse. It's about those times when all admins screw up and have to explain themselves. NA1K will complicate those times because they have a basic inability to admit fault and move on. They must wikilawyer the crap out of everyone to prove that - technically - they were right all along and everyone else is wrong. The fact that someone, or NA1K by himself, decided not to participate in this RfA and ignore the entire discussion to avoid having to prove that he is capable of behaving well in a dispute is a clear matter of gaming the system.--v/r -
T
P
20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
-
TParis, I have to be frank, you seen a bit invested here and this is a bit of a pot stirring. This is not what I'm used to seeing. I tell every candidate I nom to not respond to every oppose, instead waiting and addressing multiple concerns with one reply so it doesn't look like you are
WP:BLUDGEONing the RFA. That it is better to say nothing than to respond reactively. I DO coach them before the RFA, that is my job. Any idiot can write a paragraph of platitudes and plop it on the top of a page, I actually work with my candidates to find their weaknesses and prepare them. Seldom do I need to email during the event, because they are already prepared. I'm not the nom here obviously, but you act like this is an unethical thing to do, and I take exception to that. I have no idea what coaching he received, but to declare that any input from the nominator is "unethical" simply makes you look like a bitter, angry little man who isn't getting his way. Your biggest complaint here is that candidate refuses to cooperate with your preconceived ideas about him, that he is not being courteous enough to behave in the exact manner which you unflatteringly defined him.
Dennis -
2¢
20:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wow. As long as we're being "frank" about things: "a bitter, angry little man" is, well, completely uncalled for and out of line. It should be struck immediately. LHM ask me a question 20:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Take note of "makes you look like", instead of "you are". -- AmaryllisGardener talk 20:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was describing the impression, not Tom. Tom knows I think very highly of him, and still will tomorrow, this event doesn't change that. I just so happen to think that this is not his finest hour, and that pausing to reflect may be in order.
Dennis -
2¢
20:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- In the following phrase, to whom does the pronoun "you" refer? "...simply makes you look like a bitter, angry little man who isn't getting his way."
LHM
ask me a question
21:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Tom gets what I mean. We get along well enough to be blunt with each other the rare times it is needed. He can do the same with me when needed. Enemies ignore you, friends hold you to account.
Dennis -
2¢
21:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- This minor kerfuffle won't be taken personally at all and will be forgotten at the end of this RfA. I can take a bit of heat, especially from someone as good-willed and good-intentioned as Dennis.--v/r - T P 21:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Tom gets what I mean. We get along well enough to be blunt with each other the rare times it is needed. He can do the same with me when needed. Enemies ignore you, friends hold you to account.
Dennis -
2¢
21:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- In the following phrase, to whom does the pronoun "you" refer? "...simply makes you look like a bitter, angry little man who isn't getting his way."
LHM
ask me a question
21:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was describing the impression, not Tom. Tom knows I think very highly of him, and still will tomorrow, this event doesn't change that. I just so happen to think that this is not his finest hour, and that pausing to reflect may be in order.
Dennis -
2¢
20:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, I'm going to be frank with you. Show me where I was invested or retract the attack. I have nothing to be invested about. My only investment is this project and seeing a glaringly obvious flaw that no one seems to be taking seriously. Once again, you've misunderstood what I wrote. Coaching a candidate is not unethical. Coaching a candidate to ignore opposers is. My own RfA advice includes a segment about allowing the supporters to argue with the opposes and to address the strongest 10%. And no, my complaint isn't that the candidate didn't have the courtesy to prove my point, but that the candidate didn't even bother to prove me wrong.--v/r -
T
P
20:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I find myself agreeing with Dennis. You seem very determined to keep this candidate from being promoted and some of your commentary makes it seem personal.-
Mr
X
21:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you cannot find evidence of it being personal, repeating the accustion that it is doesn't make sense and is ad hominem. You're responding to tone rather than argument. I am very determined, though, that much is true. Why? Because I have personal experience trying to explain policy to this user when they are determined not to be wrong. Not in a dispute with me, mind you. And I am concerned that, with the already bitter regard of admins who are incapable of admitting fault, that the problem is only going to be exasperated with this candidate. The problem isn't that they will abuse the tools, it is that they have a very difficult time admitting to a mistake without writing a book about how right they are. Is that so hard to comprehend for others? Is that message somehow not being communicated?--v/r -
T
P
21:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's not an accusation, and I didn't say your concerns were completely invalid. I was telling you my impression, which I formed after comments like
"Despite being well aware that I did not want to interact with him anymore, he felt the need to twice make a bunch of edits to an article I was working on getting to FA status."
and from your desperate-sounding post that started this thread.- Mr X 21:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's not an accusation, and I didn't say your concerns were completely invalid. I was telling you my impression, which I formed after comments like
- If you cannot find evidence of it being personal, repeating the accustion that it is doesn't make sense and is ad hominem. You're responding to tone rather than argument. I am very determined, though, that much is true. Why? Because I have personal experience trying to explain policy to this user when they are determined not to be wrong. Not in a dispute with me, mind you. And I am concerned that, with the already bitter regard of admins who are incapable of admitting fault, that the problem is only going to be exasperated with this candidate. The problem isn't that they will abuse the tools, it is that they have a very difficult time admitting to a mistake without writing a book about how right they are. Is that so hard to comprehend for others? Is that message somehow not being communicated?--v/r -
T
P
21:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- The interpretation is based on both the number of posts and the intensity in those posts, combined with how many times others have used your post as a reason to support or oppose. I've not asked you to retract a single comment. My focus is on this one comment above, which claims it is unethical to do an activity that I partake in, and it does seem very petty to complain about good behavior that doesn't match your description. You are flatly claiming that NA is probably taking part in something unethical, based on conjecture, when you are wrong about the ethics, have no evidence of the action, and nothing to gain except to sway votes against him. Your only evidence is that he isn't acting as you described him. That is ad hominem. That is badgering; to paint someone in an unflattering light as to undermine their position. Take whatever action you deem necessary, but you DO appear so blinded by your own desire to see this RFA fail, that you overlook your failings here. And by definition, that is "invested".
Dennis -
2¢
21:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, if you do not instruct your admin candidates to not partake in the RfA after it has been transcluded, then I am not talking about an activity you partake in. My concern is that a candidate who is very vocal about how they are perceived, even making 107 edits on this RfA pre-transclusion to ensure every single word is perceived exactly like they intended, suddenly has no interest at all in any of it.--v/r - T P 21:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I find myself agreeing with Dennis. You seem very determined to keep this candidate from being promoted and some of your commentary makes it seem personal.-
Mr
X
21:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, here is an offer for you. I will step back from this RfA that you deem me so invested in if you promise that the first time NA1K writes 5 paragraphs in a single comment on an ANI complaint against them wikilawyering their defense and misapplying policy to avoid being 'in the wrong', that you will leave a friendly 'Oracle' barnstar on my talk page.--v/r -
T
P
21:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- What I can do is promise I will probably be around NA a good bit, and I will make it a point to look out. I actually love editing the food articles because it is stress free, and well, I like good food. So as far as I can (once I get back from wikibreak), I will promise to be mindful, be helpful and pay a little extra attention. Please note, your message above short circuited my "as a former airman" comment I had planned, complete with "overshot the runway" reference, so maybe it was good timing. ;) Dennis - 2¢ 21:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Please note that I've filed a case an ANI regarding the vote of one of the users here. Dennis - 2¢ 23:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- More specifically, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Casting_aspersions NE Ent 00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing this out-of-order and unacceptable oppose, and am placing it here because of all its beautiful prose. I don't mind if Rotten regard reinserts an acceptable rationale, but this is not one. Sockpuppetry accusations are serious and should not be made in a venue like RfA. Drmies ( talk) 02:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Too many intersections on obscure articles between you and
[1] and
[2], something doesn't smell right to me. --
Rotten
regard
23:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Perhaps. And I have not made up my mind about whether to !vote on this candidacy. But maybe a little more than mere intersection is needed to weigh this much or at all against the candidate. Just for an example I thought would turn out to have quite a few intersections, I ran Donner60 with a well known active administrator in the intersection tool. I found many more intersections than the two examples here. I am reasonably sure no one would consider our accounts to be related in any way. This may not be a good example because of vandalism reversion edits but it makes me wonder whether to put much weight on intersections alone, even if many are on obscure articles. Having made this comment, I will not park myself in neutral for the time being, but I am going to wait for more comment and do a little more investigation as time may permit. Donner60 ( talk) 00:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Opposing an Rfa through innuendo definitely smells rotten to me. You have sock concern, -->
WP:SPI.
NE Ent
00:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- NA1000 and Candelabracadabra have quite a few edits on each other's user talk pages. I'd suggest that's consistent with two editors sharing similar interests. It's also consistent with a very clever long-game socking attempt. But if you were that clever you wouldn't edit the same articles to begin with or do obvious shit like
this. Most of the time the intersections seem to be
two ships passing in the night. --
Mkativerata (
talk)
00:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm. And look at NA1000's high overlap with User:Anna Frodesiak:
[3]. Over 1500 pages in common, many of them very obscure. More in common with Anna than either of the other two accounts. You don't think that NA1000 and Anna are trying to get control of another admin account, do you? [tongue firmly in cheek]
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
01:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- the intersections appear to be mostly due to his categorizing AfDs in which the other eds. have participated, or placing cleanup tags on articles, and similar routine. And you'll find an even greater number of intersections with me (2400).
DGG (
talk )
01:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- DGG you and I have way more intersects than CoM and NA, 838 vs 629. [4] As I explained elsewhere, the intersect tool is just that, a tool, and attempting to call it "evidence" is foolish. Otherwise, they should block you and I right now. Dennis - 2¢ 01:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- the intersections appear to be mostly due to his categorizing AfDs in which the other eds. have participated, or placing cleanup tags on articles, and similar routine. And you'll find an even greater number of intersections with me (2400).
DGG (
talk )
01:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm. And look at NA1000's high overlap with User:Anna Frodesiak:
[3]. Over 1500 pages in common, many of them very obscure. More in common with Anna than either of the other two accounts. You don't think that NA1000 and Anna are trying to get control of another admin account, do you? [tongue firmly in cheek]
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
01:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- NA1000 and Candelabracadabra have quite a few edits on each other's user talk pages. I'd suggest that's consistent with two editors sharing similar interests. It's also consistent with a very clever long-game socking attempt. But if you were that clever you wouldn't edit the same articles to begin with or do obvious shit like
this. Most of the time the intersections seem to be
two ships passing in the night. --
Mkativerata (
talk)
00:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
Thank you for moving this comment and thread, Dr. Mies. I think it is quite reasonable to treat the unsupported accusation as a personal attack per WP:NPA ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."), and remove it to this RfA talk page in the absence of any actual evidence. Every RfA candidate deserves a fair shake, and several neutral comments had already cited this comment as a basis of possible opposition or withdrawal of support. That's grotesquely unfair. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think both Drmies' and Dennis Brown's actions are appropriate. While some advocate just letting silly !votes go and leaving them to 'crat discretion, research has shown that such behaviour on RfA is the main thing that discourages potential candidates from wanting go through the process. As most users probably know, I have possibly been the strongest voice for RfA reform for years and while I firmly believe that by now the process has cleaned itself up somewhat, there are still some users who need to be taught a lesson in Wikipedia participation. Such lessons, more than anything, send an important message to the community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm at the complete opposite end of the RfA ideology spectrum from Kudpung. I've never seen an RfA !vote I've thought should be indented or removed (read: censored). Nor do I think we should be in the business of "teaching lessons in Wikipedia participation". But today's is a special case: we just can't allow such completely unfounded and highly prejudicial accusations that, if not removed, are susceptible to triggering pile-ons from inexperienced editors who don't know better. Removing this vote isn't some kind of corrective behavioural mechanism; it is a sensible and proportionate response to ensure this candidate is treated fairly. But as I said, a special case. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 07:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- The key here is, we wouldn't allow this behavior at ANI, Arb or VP, we shouldn't allow it here. I'm tolerant of low quality votes (that is the Crat's domain), but not of low blows (that is the admins and community's domain). Dennis - 2¢ 12:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think what happened here and in I JethroBT's RfA are exactly what should have happened. We mere plebs trust the admins to make tough calls on the community's behalf. Rr's "no thank you" was just foolish, we can count on the crats to disregard it. But this case was more severe, and Drmies did exactly the right thing - removed it, then opened a discussion. Clearly nobody here was opposed to that action. Ivanvector ( talk) 23:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- More generally, what we probably need is RfA clerks--this is a very easy modification of current procedure that will make an improvement, without the several years it will take us to decide if we want to make fundamental changes.
DGG (
talk )
21:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- An excellent idea, DGG. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've proposed that in the past, but it didn't seem to catch on. I would support it at any level, although I think there is some wisdom in having one Crat clerk, another Crat close. That puts clerking in the hands of our most trusted and experienced editors. With no name changing duties, you would think they have enough time for the few RFAs we have. One could just declare themselves the clerk at the start of the RFA. And Crats have final say on all matters RfA. Of course, they might not like it.
Dennis -
2¢
21:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- If adding such clerks, who would serve as such?
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- That was the hang up last time. You really need the admin tools to clerk, and people didn't like admin clerking RFA. I understand the concern, but you need to be able to revdel, block, etc. You can't go ask someone to do your work for you. Not all of it would require the tools, but much would. That is the other reason I liked Crats, no need for a board or that formality, there aren't many, any will do, they have already passed the highest scrutiny, much higher than admin or arbs.
Dennis -
2¢
21:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, using the crats would be perfect. The potential problem, of course, is getting the existing crats to assume the additional proposed role. In their presently defined role, the crats are almost completely above controversy, and the new role would almost by definition involve some measure of controversy. It would seem prudent to sound out the existing crat corps for their opinions.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
18:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- We outnumber them 100k to 1, but I would rather get them onboard (or hear an alternative) rather than impose. If possible.
Dennis -
2¢
22:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- What about promote more crats? --
AmaryllisGardener
talk
22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- While the Crat is an endangered species, they've managed to keep their population steady by avoiding controversy, hence the dilemma. Crats are required to stay above the fray, and there is a reasonable argument to be made that this isn't 100% above the fray. What if a Crat removes your vote? Can you appeal it? Where? WP:AN? WP:ARB? All of that is unworkable for various reasons, you really can't have an appeal if a Crat does it. We would probably have to give them god-like powers, the final say, as we do with closing RFAs, and not everyone is ready for that. Technically, if someone gets 40% approval, but a Crat says "close enough", previous cases have indicated that no one can revert them. Not another Crat, not Arb. Arb can desysop, but that is different, politically speaking. I suppose a Steward might can, I don't know. See? It gets all gray area, and Crats hate the gray, avoiding it whenever possible. I have to imagine they often think "I don't care what the result is, as long as it is a landslide". So I do understand the hesitancy, although I do think they should come in between RFCs and discuss clerking and individually give us their highly experienced opinions and ideas. Dennis - 2¢ 22:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- What about promote more crats? --
AmaryllisGardener
talk
22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- We outnumber them 100k to 1, but I would rather get them onboard (or hear an alternative) rather than impose. If possible.
Dennis -
2¢
22:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, using the crats would be perfect. The potential problem, of course, is getting the existing crats to assume the additional proposed role. In their presently defined role, the crats are almost completely above controversy, and the new role would almost by definition involve some measure of controversy. It would seem prudent to sound out the existing crat corps for their opinions.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
18:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- That was the hang up last time. You really need the admin tools to clerk, and people didn't like admin clerking RFA. I understand the concern, but you need to be able to revdel, block, etc. You can't go ask someone to do your work for you. Not all of it would require the tools, but much would. That is the other reason I liked Crats, no need for a board or that formality, there aren't many, any will do, they have already passed the highest scrutiny, much higher than admin or arbs.
Dennis -
2¢
21:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- If adding such clerks, who would serve as such?
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- More generally, what we probably need is RfA clerks--this is a very easy modification of current procedure that will make an improvement, without the several years it will take us to decide if we want to make fundamental changes.
DGG (
talk )
21:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I've never before on Wikipedia seen an RfA so blatantly ignoring the opposes by a nom and a candidate and given so much leeway by the supporters. Really, utterly shocked. Was this planned? It looks to me that knowing what my oppose would be from the last RfA, the candidate was coached not to respond so as to avoid showing the exact behaviors that we're complaining about. My oppose, which is well supported, is about the candidate's behavior during discussions. Now, in a discussion about the candidate themselve, the candidate has avoided proving that they are capable of handling themselves in a dispute by ignoring the discussions altogether. That's very unethical behavior and if candidate was coached to do that, then I am severely disappointed in whomever did the coaching. Telling an admin candidate to ignore discussions about themselves is not how you prove someone should be an admin. We mine as well delete WP:ADMINACCT if that's an appropriate behavior.--v/r - T P 19:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- The more I've watched pile-on supports, when nothing changed from the first RFA to the second, the more I have felt you should have placed the first oppose you spoke of as more harsh. Perhaps it would have spurred some action, perhaps not, but it might have been worth a try.
LHM
ask me a question
19:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Everything I was going to say was eventually covered by other opposes. I don't care of NA1K passes, but I get a free pass the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time that NA1K blows up ANI because they lose their mind in a dispute and I say "I told ya so". No one can go accuse me of being childish about it when the processes to remove bad admins is so fucked up and I've clearly pointed out a candidate that has basic communication problems. The supporters keep saying "no evidence of abuse". This isn't about abuse. It's about those times when all admins screw up and have to explain themselves. NA1K will complicate those times because they have a basic inability to admit fault and move on. They must wikilawyer the crap out of everyone to prove that - technically - they were right all along and everyone else is wrong. The fact that someone, or NA1K by himself, decided not to participate in this RfA and ignore the entire discussion to avoid having to prove that he is capable of behaving well in a dispute is a clear matter of gaming the system.--v/r -
T
P
20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've actually seen people argue the other way: that a candidate should NOT respond to the oppose !votes, and if they do it shows they are argumentative and unsuited for adminship. You are faulting him for failing to respond, but it's kind of a no-win situation for the candidate. Your points were certainly heard;
probably halfthe majority of the oppose !votes cite your opposition as their reason. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)- Agree with MelanieN. Any candidate should want to avoid the appearance of badgering. The best chance of getting a response is to post under "Questions for the candidate".—
Bagumba (
talk)
20:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- This editor is avoiding drama because they don't want it exposed that they can't avoid drama? Seems unlikely. (About as unlikely that they're making thousands of good edits to Wikipedia in order to "hide".....well, what? That part of the argument was completely unclear to me too.) As others have said, You could have asked the candidate a question if you wanted him to deal with you directly. Without that, I don't see that there was anything less than reasonable or traditional about letting the community sort out what they felt about the candidate among themselves. Lack of badgering shows maturity.
__ E L A Q U E A T E
20:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- He's made so many unnecessary edits that it's nearly impossible to actually scrutinize his record, given the length of his contrib list. It's really not that difficult to understand. LHM ask me a question 20:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm confident that, despite any difficulty in that regard, motivated editors still managed to scrutinize his record. If they are only now complaining about the overall amount of edits they had to look at, I take that as nothing but an encouraging sign of this editor's overall integrity. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- @ MelanieN: You are taking one extreme and going to the other. There have been complaints about candidates who reply to every oppose and that is called badgering.--v/r - T P 20:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- This editor is avoiding drama because they don't want it exposed that they can't avoid drama? Seems unlikely. (About as unlikely that they're making thousands of good edits to Wikipedia in order to "hide".....well, what? That part of the argument was completely unclear to me too.) As others have said, You could have asked the candidate a question if you wanted him to deal with you directly. Without that, I don't see that there was anything less than reasonable or traditional about letting the community sort out what they felt about the candidate among themselves. Lack of badgering shows maturity.
__ E L A Q U E A T E
20:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with MelanieN. Any candidate should want to avoid the appearance of badgering. The best chance of getting a response is to post under "Questions for the candidate".—
Bagumba (
talk)
20:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've actually seen people argue the other way: that a candidate should NOT respond to the oppose !votes, and if they do it shows they are argumentative and unsuited for adminship. You are faulting him for failing to respond, but it's kind of a no-win situation for the candidate. Your points were certainly heard;
- Everything I was going to say was eventually covered by other opposes. I don't care of NA1K passes, but I get a free pass the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time that NA1K blows up ANI because they lose their mind in a dispute and I say "I told ya so". No one can go accuse me of being childish about it when the processes to remove bad admins is so fucked up and I've clearly pointed out a candidate that has basic communication problems. The supporters keep saying "no evidence of abuse". This isn't about abuse. It's about those times when all admins screw up and have to explain themselves. NA1K will complicate those times because they have a basic inability to admit fault and move on. They must wikilawyer the crap out of everyone to prove that - technically - they were right all along and everyone else is wrong. The fact that someone, or NA1K by himself, decided not to participate in this RfA and ignore the entire discussion to avoid having to prove that he is capable of behaving well in a dispute is a clear matter of gaming the system.--v/r -
T
P
20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
-
TParis, I have to be frank, you seen a bit invested here and this is a bit of a pot stirring. This is not what I'm used to seeing. I tell every candidate I nom to not respond to every oppose, instead waiting and addressing multiple concerns with one reply so it doesn't look like you are
WP:BLUDGEONing the RFA. That it is better to say nothing than to respond reactively. I DO coach them before the RFA, that is my job. Any idiot can write a paragraph of platitudes and plop it on the top of a page, I actually work with my candidates to find their weaknesses and prepare them. Seldom do I need to email during the event, because they are already prepared. I'm not the nom here obviously, but you act like this is an unethical thing to do, and I take exception to that. I have no idea what coaching he received, but to declare that any input from the nominator is "unethical" simply makes you look like a bitter, angry little man who isn't getting his way. Your biggest complaint here is that candidate refuses to cooperate with your preconceived ideas about him, that he is not being courteous enough to behave in the exact manner which you unflatteringly defined him.
Dennis -
2¢
20:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wow. As long as we're being "frank" about things: "a bitter, angry little man" is, well, completely uncalled for and out of line. It should be struck immediately. LHM ask me a question 20:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Take note of "makes you look like", instead of "you are". -- AmaryllisGardener talk 20:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was describing the impression, not Tom. Tom knows I think very highly of him, and still will tomorrow, this event doesn't change that. I just so happen to think that this is not his finest hour, and that pausing to reflect may be in order.
Dennis -
2¢
20:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- In the following phrase, to whom does the pronoun "you" refer? "...simply makes you look like a bitter, angry little man who isn't getting his way."
LHM
ask me a question
21:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Tom gets what I mean. We get along well enough to be blunt with each other the rare times it is needed. He can do the same with me when needed. Enemies ignore you, friends hold you to account.
Dennis -
2¢
21:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- This minor kerfuffle won't be taken personally at all and will be forgotten at the end of this RfA. I can take a bit of heat, especially from someone as good-willed and good-intentioned as Dennis.--v/r - T P 21:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Tom gets what I mean. We get along well enough to be blunt with each other the rare times it is needed. He can do the same with me when needed. Enemies ignore you, friends hold you to account.
Dennis -
2¢
21:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- In the following phrase, to whom does the pronoun "you" refer? "...simply makes you look like a bitter, angry little man who isn't getting his way."
LHM
ask me a question
21:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was describing the impression, not Tom. Tom knows I think very highly of him, and still will tomorrow, this event doesn't change that. I just so happen to think that this is not his finest hour, and that pausing to reflect may be in order.
Dennis -
2¢
20:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, I'm going to be frank with you. Show me where I was invested or retract the attack. I have nothing to be invested about. My only investment is this project and seeing a glaringly obvious flaw that no one seems to be taking seriously. Once again, you've misunderstood what I wrote. Coaching a candidate is not unethical. Coaching a candidate to ignore opposers is. My own RfA advice includes a segment about allowing the supporters to argue with the opposes and to address the strongest 10%. And no, my complaint isn't that the candidate didn't have the courtesy to prove my point, but that the candidate didn't even bother to prove me wrong.--v/r -
T
P
20:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I find myself agreeing with Dennis. You seem very determined to keep this candidate from being promoted and some of your commentary makes it seem personal.-
Mr
X
21:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you cannot find evidence of it being personal, repeating the accustion that it is doesn't make sense and is ad hominem. You're responding to tone rather than argument. I am very determined, though, that much is true. Why? Because I have personal experience trying to explain policy to this user when they are determined not to be wrong. Not in a dispute with me, mind you. And I am concerned that, with the already bitter regard of admins who are incapable of admitting fault, that the problem is only going to be exasperated with this candidate. The problem isn't that they will abuse the tools, it is that they have a very difficult time admitting to a mistake without writing a book about how right they are. Is that so hard to comprehend for others? Is that message somehow not being communicated?--v/r -
T
P
21:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's not an accusation, and I didn't say your concerns were completely invalid. I was telling you my impression, which I formed after comments like
"Despite being well aware that I did not want to interact with him anymore, he felt the need to twice make a bunch of edits to an article I was working on getting to FA status."
and from your desperate-sounding post that started this thread.- Mr X 21:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's not an accusation, and I didn't say your concerns were completely invalid. I was telling you my impression, which I formed after comments like
- If you cannot find evidence of it being personal, repeating the accustion that it is doesn't make sense and is ad hominem. You're responding to tone rather than argument. I am very determined, though, that much is true. Why? Because I have personal experience trying to explain policy to this user when they are determined not to be wrong. Not in a dispute with me, mind you. And I am concerned that, with the already bitter regard of admins who are incapable of admitting fault, that the problem is only going to be exasperated with this candidate. The problem isn't that they will abuse the tools, it is that they have a very difficult time admitting to a mistake without writing a book about how right they are. Is that so hard to comprehend for others? Is that message somehow not being communicated?--v/r -
T
P
21:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- The interpretation is based on both the number of posts and the intensity in those posts, combined with how many times others have used your post as a reason to support or oppose. I've not asked you to retract a single comment. My focus is on this one comment above, which claims it is unethical to do an activity that I partake in, and it does seem very petty to complain about good behavior that doesn't match your description. You are flatly claiming that NA is probably taking part in something unethical, based on conjecture, when you are wrong about the ethics, have no evidence of the action, and nothing to gain except to sway votes against him. Your only evidence is that he isn't acting as you described him. That is ad hominem. That is badgering; to paint someone in an unflattering light as to undermine their position. Take whatever action you deem necessary, but you DO appear so blinded by your own desire to see this RFA fail, that you overlook your failings here. And by definition, that is "invested".
Dennis -
2¢
21:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, if you do not instruct your admin candidates to not partake in the RfA after it has been transcluded, then I am not talking about an activity you partake in. My concern is that a candidate who is very vocal about how they are perceived, even making 107 edits on this RfA pre-transclusion to ensure every single word is perceived exactly like they intended, suddenly has no interest at all in any of it.--v/r - T P 21:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I find myself agreeing with Dennis. You seem very determined to keep this candidate from being promoted and some of your commentary makes it seem personal.-
Mr
X
21:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, here is an offer for you. I will step back from this RfA that you deem me so invested in if you promise that the first time NA1K writes 5 paragraphs in a single comment on an ANI complaint against them wikilawyering their defense and misapplying policy to avoid being 'in the wrong', that you will leave a friendly 'Oracle' barnstar on my talk page.--v/r -
T
P
21:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- What I can do is promise I will probably be around NA a good bit, and I will make it a point to look out. I actually love editing the food articles because it is stress free, and well, I like good food. So as far as I can (once I get back from wikibreak), I will promise to be mindful, be helpful and pay a little extra attention. Please note, your message above short circuited my "as a former airman" comment I had planned, complete with "overshot the runway" reference, so maybe it was good timing. ;) Dennis - 2¢ 21:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)