Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Avicennasis
Stats as of 06:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Username: Avicennasis User groups: accountcreator, autoreviewer, filemover, ipblock-exempt, reviewer, rollbacker First edit: Aug 11, 2006 06:50:49 Unique pages edited: 59,095 Average edits per page: 1.27 Live edits: 68,249 Deleted edits: 6,857 Total edits (including deleted): 75,106 Namespace Totals Article 29495 43.22% Talk 6660 9.76% User 1584 2.32% User talk 6444 9.44% Wikipedia 1945 2.85% Wikipedia talk 395 0.58% File 3088 4.52% File talk 794 1.16% MediaWiki talk 7 0.01% Template 1345 1.97% Template talk 1089 1.60% Help 5 0.01% Help talk 7 0.01% Category 13119 19.22% Category talk 1173 1.72% Portal 9 0.01% Portal talk 1082 1.59% Book 4 0.01% Book talk 4 0.01% Month counts 2006/08 1 2006/09 0 2006/10 0 2006/11 0 2006/12 0 2007/01 0 2007/02 0 2007/03 0 2007/04 0 2007/05 0 2007/06 0 2007/07 0 2007/08 0 2007/09 0 2007/10 0 2007/11 1 2007/12 0 2008/01 0 2008/02 0 2008/03 0 2008/04 0 2008/05 0 2008/06 0 2008/07 0 2008/08 0 2008/09 1 2008/10 0 2008/11 0 2008/12 0 2009/01 0 2009/02 1 2009/03 0 2009/04 0 2009/05 0 2009/06 0 2009/07 1 2009/08 0 2009/09 0 2009/10 0 2009/11 0 2009/12 0 2010/01 23 2010/02 1909 2010/03 2994 2010/04 1085 2010/05 156 2010/06 1988 2010/07 848 2010/08 1011 2010/09 107 2010/10 16 2010/11 153 2010/12 652 2011/01 1017 2011/02 5883 2011/03 7762 2011/04 3172 2011/05 1166 2011/06 3579 2011/07 2434 2011/08 9629 2011/09 5744 2011/10 2687 2011/11 727 2011/12 325 2012/01 1027 2012/02 6359 2012/03 4169 2012/04 1043 2012/05 579
- Note, top edited pages are not provided for editors with over 45,000 edits consider using wikichecker link to analysis of 500 most recent edits link to analysis of all edits (may take 5-10+ minutes to load) Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion regarding Dr. Blofeld's support vote
[edit]- Anyone could use the tools. You could, I could, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all could. Malleus Fatuorum 12:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that commenting on various supports is a good idea. It could also badger the voter. →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 13:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Remind me. Why should I care about your opinion? Malleus Fatuorum 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus, apart from your question to the candidate and your !vote, both of which are entirely beyond criticism, this is your seventh comment here; I feel that further comments in the same vein could be seen as disruptive. You have the choice of either desisting, defending your approach, or fighting the block which I will impose if what I see as disruptive behaviour persists.I am aware of the previous ArbCom comment. Which would you prefer?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Anthony, you can stop acting like a grade-school bully (shadow-boxing with a departed editor, which makes you look even more ridiculous), or lose the bit. Which would you prefer? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- The irony of you complaining about bullying behavior at all, much less proceeding to threaten to look to remove Anthony Bradbury's adminship, isn't lost on me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Blade, your apologizing and enabling of administrative abuse has been shameless for some time, and you have declared your favoring of your friends before (e.g. on my talk page). I suggest that you resign your bit and try for reconfirmation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- If that's what you want, take it here. But you might try not misrepresenting my comments the next time; there, I was simply pointing out that I know where my biases lay. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Blade!
- You are correct that I read your "irony" as an insult rather than as praise of my parody. Sorry for misreading your intention, which you clarified in the last edit summary.
- Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Kiefer, please stop wasting space here with your ridiculous and antagonistic comments. Be constructive please. Malick78 (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Malick78, the others hounding Malleus and you have ignored incivility and NPA directed at Malleus. You all have been repudiated by the community at the ArbCom enforcement page. Until you say a word on behalf of Malleus, you have nothing to say to me. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- If that's what you want, take it here. But you might try not misrepresenting my comments the next time; there, I was simply pointing out that I know where my biases lay. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Blade, your apologizing and enabling of administrative abuse has been shameless for some time, and you have declared your favoring of your friends before (e.g. on my talk page). I suggest that you resign your bit and try for reconfirmation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- The irony of you complaining about bullying behavior at all, much less proceeding to threaten to look to remove Anthony Bradbury's adminship, isn't lost on me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Anthony, if you block Malleus for making such innocuous comments without first getting a consensus, I will consider it an abuse of your admin tools and I will unblock him - unless someone else does it first, or someone blocks me to prevent me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Say what you will about Malleus, he's certainly got a knack for exposing lame admins. Keepscases (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Anthony, you can stop acting like a grade-school bully (shadow-boxing with a departed editor, which makes you look even more ridiculous), or lose the bit. Which would you prefer? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus, apart from your question to the candidate and your !vote, both of which are entirely beyond criticism, this is your seventh comment here; I feel that further comments in the same vein could be seen as disruptive. You have the choice of either desisting, defending your approach, or fighting the block which I will impose if what I see as disruptive behaviour persists.I am aware of the previous ArbCom comment. Which would you prefer?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Remind me. Why should I care about your opinion? Malleus Fatuorum 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that commenting on various supports is a good idea. It could also badger the voter. →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 13:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion regarding Hut 8.5's support vote
[edit]- "Content contributions are essentially irrelevant for the vast majority of admin tasks" - on the contrary, content is relevant to the vast majority of admin tasks. If there was a technical or policy-based method of limiting non-content admins to the few areas to which content is truly irrelevant, that'd be great...but there isn't, so !voters must judge potential admins in the context of all admin duties. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have phrased that differently: the skills required to create high-quality content have essentially nothing to do with the skills required to perform the vast majority of admin tasks. Writing content is not an administrative task, and admins are not lords appointed to rule over content editors. Requiring that an RfA candidate produce an FA or similar high-quality content does not mean that the candidate will be any better at deciding, say, whether a username is inappropriate, and if we did require it before granting adminship then we would either get large backlogs in places like UAA or we would have to draft content editors in to handle inappropriate usernames. Neither is a good outcome. We don't require that potential admins be experienced in the area of all admin duties - something which is virtually impossible - provided the candidate has enough good sense to avoid the areas where they have no experience, which this candidate has demonstrated in their answers to the questions. Hut 8.5 09:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, admins are not lords, and you'll notice I didn't say anything about FAs. However, a) article work demonstrates collaborative skills and ability to interpret policies and guidelines (and sometimes conflict resolution), and b) admins can block content editors, protect pages, and otherwise "interfere" with or affect article editing. If we could limit the candidate to areas like UAA which actually have little effect on content, I'd support - but we can't. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is a collaborative project, you'd be hard pressed to find any aspect of it which doesn't involve a considerable amount of interaction with other editors and interpretation of policies and guidelines. You didn't mention FAs, no, but other people did and the argument works equally well if you substitute some other type of high-quality content. Requiring a candidate to be experienced in every possible area of admin work on the grounds that it's impossible to keep them out of those areas would make it virtually impossible for anyone to pass RfA. Hut 8.5 13:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, some editors may feel that any admin hopeful must have a GA or preferably a FA collaboration on their portfolio...I use to feel that extensive article writing experience was a minimal expectation. However, with the serious decline in our admin staff and few successful new recruits, my stance has changed to looking for abuses of others, potential tool misuse and potential abuse of power and position. I have seen nothing that indicates this candidate will misuse their tools or position...and though we can't predict the future, this candidate has demonstrated further evidence of coolness under pressure during this Rfa.MONGO 15:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is a collaborative project, you'd be hard pressed to find any aspect of it which doesn't involve a considerable amount of interaction with other editors and interpretation of policies and guidelines. You didn't mention FAs, no, but other people did and the argument works equally well if you substitute some other type of high-quality content. Requiring a candidate to be experienced in every possible area of admin work on the grounds that it's impossible to keep them out of those areas would make it virtually impossible for anyone to pass RfA. Hut 8.5 13:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, admins are not lords, and you'll notice I didn't say anything about FAs. However, a) article work demonstrates collaborative skills and ability to interpret policies and guidelines (and sometimes conflict resolution), and b) admins can block content editors, protect pages, and otherwise "interfere" with or affect article editing. If we could limit the candidate to areas like UAA which actually have little effect on content, I'd support - but we can't. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have phrased that differently: the skills required to create high-quality content have essentially nothing to do with the skills required to perform the vast majority of admin tasks. Writing content is not an administrative task, and admins are not lords appointed to rule over content editors. Requiring that an RfA candidate produce an FA or similar high-quality content does not mean that the candidate will be any better at deciding, say, whether a username is inappropriate, and if we did require it before granting adminship then we would either get large backlogs in places like UAA or we would have to draft content editors in to handle inappropriate usernames. Neither is a good outcome. We don't require that potential admins be experienced in the area of all admin duties - something which is virtually impossible - provided the candidate has enough good sense to avoid the areas where they have no experience, which this candidate has demonstrated in their answers to the questions. Hut 8.5 09:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Request
[edit]The two threads above, moved to talk from the RfA page, aren't linked there. I find Nikkimaria's comments to be particularly compelling, and frankly don't believe either set of comments should be moved. But if they have to be moved, please provide a clear link for those of us who haven't yet !voted. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Done - Not sure if it was necessary to move them, certainly not happy with who did, but not interested in kicking up a fuss and have linked them. WormTT · (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)- If we're going to move discussion for support !votes, in my opinion it only seems fair to move that for opposes as well. Just pointing that out, mind. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Quite frankly none of these discussions are long enough to have warranted moving and it's only stirring more in an already stirred situation, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I moved the off-topic misunderstanding of the ArbCom case below, leaving Malleus's short query, "have you looked?", which received favorable comments at ArbCom Enforcement.
- Malleus could have phrased it more prosaically, but his point is clear, I think. When I comment responsibly, I typically state something like
- "I did only a quick review" or
- "I looked at the last few hundred edits and the main articles".
- Such qualifications or statement of non-superficial scrutiny were missing from many supports/opposes, as noted by many. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Although it's probably moot, it does seem a little unfair that conversations regarding Malleus are moved to the talk page, since he cannot comment on them due to the arbcom restriction. Once this has all died down I might consider asking for clarification on the matter - can Malleus discuss votes at RfA, and if he can, what should happen if that discussion is moved to the talk page. I nearly did so in a previous RfA, but left it for precisely that reason. WormTT · (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- If Malleus complains, then let's restore it. I failed to remember the precise scope of the talk-page ban. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus' restriction didn't come to mind when I moved the threads to the talk page, and I agree that would be a legitimate reason to move the discussions back to the main page, should a complaint be lodged. FWIW, I moved the threads here because they were on the longer side (with the potential to become longer), and because neither of them were particularly relevant. The threads were not moved in an attempt to hide discussions that make the candidate look bad, or anything like that. If anyone wants to also move long oppose discussions here, please feel free. -Scottywong| yak _ 17:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- For the sake of appearances, it might be best first to propose an action and ask another to do it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus' restriction didn't come to mind when I moved the threads to the talk page, and I agree that would be a legitimate reason to move the discussions back to the main page, should a complaint be lodged. FWIW, I moved the threads here because they were on the longer side (with the potential to become longer), and because neither of them were particularly relevant. The threads were not moved in an attempt to hide discussions that make the candidate look bad, or anything like that. If anyone wants to also move long oppose discussions here, please feel free. -Scottywong| yak _ 17:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- If Malleus complains, then let's restore it. I failed to remember the precise scope of the talk-page ban. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion regarding MONGO and Malleus
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Have you looked for any? Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I thought arbcom asked you to cease disrupting Rfa...MONGO 13:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Then you thought wrong matey. Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I support this candidate whether you like it or not....make no mistake about it...you and I aren't "mates".MONGO 14:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. This remedy explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's; however, should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA. unless there has been a further amendment Agathoclea (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agathoclea, why are you disrupting this RfA by quoting this here? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. This remedy explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's; however, should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA. unless there has been a further amendment Agathoclea (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I thought arbcom asked you to cease disrupting Rfa...MONGO 13:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Have you looked for any? Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I left Malleus's question to Mongo, which bluntly asked about research into the candidate. I left this because of the comments at ArbCom's enforcement, which said that this was an example of a tough question that should be asked. (Others may disagree, of course.) The discussion goes downhill soon afterwords, so I doubt that anybody misses the rest. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't a "tough question"...it was disruputive, insulting and obnoxious. I don't know why Scottywong and now you are removing these discussions to this talkpage since they are relatively short exchanges.MONGO 17:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi MONGO,
- Somebody at ArbCom Enforcement called it "tough", and I reported another's judgment. Above, I noted that its point may have been made more prosaically, as I did above. I also have twice noted that others may disagree about leaving Malleus's question/comment.
- I think that I have always tried to be honest and fair with you. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Then perhaps you should also take down Malleus loaded quaetion as well...if I'm not mistaken...this Rfa is not about him or me or anyone else but the candidate...it would be nice if ANYONE could demonstrate for me and others by way of evidence how this candidate is likely to misuse the tools or position...mostly what I see are comments that since this candidate hasn't been involved in any conflicts, then we have no way to guage how they will act if they are in a conflict...looking at the focus area of this candidate, I see little chance they will face conflicfts, and judging by the cool demeanor displayed throughout this candidates history including now, this argument seems like a lousy one to not support.MONGO 18:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi MONGO!
- My burst of WP energy is gone. You are welcome to substitute the following for Malleus's statement (if you move it from the page to the appropriate place on this page)
- Then perhaps you should also take down Malleus loaded quaetion as well...if I'm not mistaken...this Rfa is not about him or me or anyone else but the candidate...it would be nice if ANYONE could demonstrate for me and others by way of evidence how this candidate is likely to misuse the tools or position...mostly what I see are comments that since this candidate hasn't been involved in any conflicts, then we have no way to guage how they will act if they are in a conflict...looking at the focus area of this candidate, I see little chance they will face conflicfts, and judging by the cool demeanor displayed throughout this candidates history including now, this argument seems like a lousy one to not support.MONGO 18:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Following [Diff_of_Malleus's_question Malleus's statement of concern], I would also like to state that I am alarmed by the paucity of statements, like "I went through the last 200 edits for 20 minutes and examined 3 articles as well as the first 200 edits, and I found the following .... Therefore I support." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Good evening! 18:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)~
- Ah...I had answered "yes"...that's all the response he needed to his santimonious query...and then I asked him my retort. I don't have to explain myself to him..ever.MONGO 19:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- MONGO, please treat yourself to a Brooklyn Lager or an egg cream and chill out. :)
- Nobody is asking you to explain yourself to Malleus. But a word to the other 100 editors viewing this RfA may be useful. A few words about the depth of your investigation and a telling example would still make your conclusion more persuasive. Share your wisdom! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I moved the entire Q & A here...either it's all here or none of it is--MONGO 22:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ah...I had answered "yes"...that's all the response he needed to his santimonious query...and then I asked him my retort. I don't have to explain myself to him..ever.MONGO 19:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Good evening! 18:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)~