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.
|
This is getting out of hand. This new user has repeatedly cited his extreme requirements as a reason to oppose, his stats indicate he opposes more for the same reasons, lack of 25 created articles, but supports 2 candidates, with the rationale "we need more admins". He has received advice from 2 different users about it and has chosen to ignore it. He never elaborates on the same reason he gives on opposing when other users ask about it. I think it's time this user's presence on RfA is discussed, and what, if anything, should be done about it. Inviting User:Kudpung to this discussion.
I'm not proposing a topic ban or anything, I will let the course of the discussion decide that, but I do think we should discuss it at least. Thoughts?
User:MartinZ02 please do chime in as I would like to hear from you about this.
As an FYI, I am a neutral uninvolved observer.— cyberpower Merry Christmas:Unknown 23:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
MartinZ02, the problem is that for most candidates, the level of familiarity with every possible tool that an administrator might use, or task that an administrator might perform, is not possible. I've been editing for more than 10 years and I have never seen such a candidate. I became an administrator in January 2007 and in all that time I have not performed every possible administrator task on this project—do you think I should resign because I'm still an amateur at template syntax? It's no more valid to say that we shouldn't allow an editor to register unless he or she shows ability to edit articles about anime and about vector calculus and about African villages and about 19th century legal history and about Pokémon and about Star Trek and about complex number theory and about the ancient civilizations of the Aztecs and Incas, because any editor is permitted to edit articles about any or all of these things. We trust editors to stick to areas they are knowledgeable and competent to write about, and we trust qualified candidates for adminships to stick to the aspects of administrator work they are knowledgeable and competent to perform. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Request for clarification on two queries. Lourdes 12:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
While I did not get into concerns raised about the candidate's sourcing choices, I do want to quibble with the idea that ever citing Ancestry.com is somehow a
WP:RS no-no. It has to be evaluated on a cite-by-cite basis. The site provides many things, only some of which are
WP:UGC. Many other things on the site are the direct equivalent of
WikiSource,
Project Gutenberg, etc.: scans and OCR of actual manuscript materials. I've cited it for this very purpose myself. Don't confuse the content being sourced with the hostname of the site the copy was provisioned from; our citation templates have a |via=
parameter for a reason. This is essentially the same judgement call as citing something on YouTube; a large amount of material on that site is user-generated, unreliable blather, but that is not the only thing to be found there. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:57, 26 December 2016 (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.
|
This is getting out of hand. This new user has repeatedly cited his extreme requirements as a reason to oppose, his stats indicate he opposes more for the same reasons, lack of 25 created articles, but supports 2 candidates, with the rationale "we need more admins". He has received advice from 2 different users about it and has chosen to ignore it. He never elaborates on the same reason he gives on opposing when other users ask about it. I think it's time this user's presence on RfA is discussed, and what, if anything, should be done about it. Inviting User:Kudpung to this discussion.
I'm not proposing a topic ban or anything, I will let the course of the discussion decide that, but I do think we should discuss it at least. Thoughts?
User:MartinZ02 please do chime in as I would like to hear from you about this.
As an FYI, I am a neutral uninvolved observer.— cyberpower Merry Christmas:Unknown 23:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
MartinZ02, the problem is that for most candidates, the level of familiarity with every possible tool that an administrator might use, or task that an administrator might perform, is not possible. I've been editing for more than 10 years and I have never seen such a candidate. I became an administrator in January 2007 and in all that time I have not performed every possible administrator task on this project—do you think I should resign because I'm still an amateur at template syntax? It's no more valid to say that we shouldn't allow an editor to register unless he or she shows ability to edit articles about anime and about vector calculus and about African villages and about 19th century legal history and about Pokémon and about Star Trek and about complex number theory and about the ancient civilizations of the Aztecs and Incas, because any editor is permitted to edit articles about any or all of these things. We trust editors to stick to areas they are knowledgeable and competent to write about, and we trust qualified candidates for adminships to stick to the aspects of administrator work they are knowledgeable and competent to perform. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Request for clarification on two queries. Lourdes 12:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
While I did not get into concerns raised about the candidate's sourcing choices, I do want to quibble with the idea that ever citing Ancestry.com is somehow a
WP:RS no-no. It has to be evaluated on a cite-by-cite basis. The site provides many things, only some of which are
WP:UGC. Many other things on the site are the direct equivalent of
WikiSource,
Project Gutenberg, etc.: scans and OCR of actual manuscript materials. I've cited it for this very purpose myself. Don't confuse the content being sourced with the hostname of the site the copy was provisioned from; our citation templates have a |via=
parameter for a reason. This is essentially the same judgement call as citing something on YouTube; a large amount of material on that site is user-generated, unreliable blather, but that is not the only thing to be found there. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)