Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/I JethroBT
User ID: 1992122
User groups: OTRS-member, accountcreator, reviewer, rollbacker, user, autoconfirmed
First edit: Aug 13, 2006, 2:10 AM
Latest edit: Nov 9, 2014, 10:58 PM
Live edits: 15,716
Deleted edits: 1,736
Total edits: 17,452
Edits in the past 24 hours: 19
Edits in the past 7 days: 173
Edits in the past 30 days: 432
Edits in the past 365 days: 2,581
Ø number of edits per day: 5.8
Live edits:
Unique pages edited: 5,607
Pages created: 1,489
Pages moved: 74
Ø edits per page: 2.8
Ø change per page (bytes): extended
Files uploaded: 20
Files uploaded (Commons): 102
(Semi-)automated edits: 3,410
Reverted edits: 40
Edits with summary: 15,229
Number of minor edits (tagged): 3,197
Number of edits (<20 bytes): extended
Number of edits (>1000 bytes): extended
Actions:
Thank: 324 x
Approve: 52 x
Patrol: 1,349 x
Admin actions
Block: 0 x
Protect: 0 x
Delete: 0 x
Import: 0 x
(Re)blocked: 0 x
Longest block: –
Current block: –
SUL editcounter
(approximate): latest
► enwiki 17,351 +5 minutes
metawiki 261 +2 days
commonswiki 202 +1 day
wikimania2014wiki 10 > 30 days
mediawikiwiki 10 +22 days
enwikisource 8 > 30 days
wikidatawiki 2 > 30 days
outreachwiki 1 > 30 days
40 others 0 > 30 days
Total edits 17,845
Namespace Totals
Article 4,258 27.1%
Talk 810 5.2%
User 1,134 7.2%
User talk 4,695 29.9%
Wikipedia 4,051 25.8%
Wikipedia talk 427 2.7%
File 50 0.3%
File talk 1 0%
MediaWiki talk 3 0%
Template 190 1.2%
Template talk 63 0.4%
Help talk 1 0%
Category 24 0.2%
Portal 2 0%
Portal talk 2 0%
Draft 4 0%
Module talk 1 0%
Year counts
2006 237
2011 4,467
2012 3,233
2013 5,600
2014 2,179
Time card
Latest edit (global) - Edits in the past 30 days, max. 10 / Wiki [hide]
Date ↓ Wiki ↓ Links ↓ Page title ↓ Comment ↓
2014-11-09, 22:58 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) User:I JethroBT RfA notice
2014-11-09, 22:56 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/I JethroBT slight formatting here
2014-11-09, 22:55 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship transcluding RfA
2014-11-09, 22:54 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/I JethroBT phrasing
2014-11-09, 22:51 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/I JethroBT here we go...
2014-11-09, 22:39 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/I JethroBT accepting nomination
2014-11-09, 22:06 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions /* I am a Louisiana Historian I just started creating a s...
2014-11-09, 21:55 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions /* I am a Louisiana Historian I just started creating a s...
2014-11-09, 21:55 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions /* I am a Louisiana Historian I just started creating a s...
2014-11-09, 21:44 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) Rene Beauregard House problematic sections have been rephrased.
2014-11-08, 21:39 commonswiki ( diff · log · top ) File:Adolfo Farsari - Dancing Girl Playing Taiko.JPG /* {{int:license-header}} */ 100+ PD template
2014-11-07, 07:16 metawiki ( diff · log · top ) Grants:IEG/Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship/Timeline rm
2014-11-07, 07:16 metawiki ( diff · log · top ) Grants:IEG/Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship/Timeline
2014-11-06, 05:23 metawiki ( diff · log · top ) Grants:IEG/Visual dictionary /* Endorsements */ +1
2014-11-02, 12:40 metawiki ( diff · log · top ) Grants:IEG/Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship/Timeline /* September-October (Midpoint) */ note on updates
2014-11-01, 10:01 commonswiki ( diff · log · top ) File:Arthur James Iles - Tuterei Karewa of the Ngatimaru tribe, North Island, New Zealand - Google Art Project.jpg I JethroBT uploaded a new version of [[File:Arthur James ...
2014-11-01, 09:57 commonswiki ( diff · log · top ) File:Arthur James Iles - Tuterei Karewa of the Ngatimaru tribe, North Island, New Zealand - Google Art Project (alt).jpg I JethroBT uploaded a new version of [[File:Arthur James ...
2014-10-23, 21:14 commonswiki ( diff · log · top ) File:1874ChicagoFireMap.jpg /* {{int:filedesc}} */
2014-10-23, 21:10 commonswiki ( diff · log · top ) File:1874ChicagoFireMap.jpg User created page with UploadWizard
2014-10-22, 22:50 metawiki ( diff · log · top ) Grants:IEG/Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship/Midpoint /* Midpoint outcomes */ a few points for mentors.
2014-10-22, 22:36 metawiki ( diff · log · top ) Grants:IEG/Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship/Midpoint /* Midpoint outcomes */ conclusions from learners
2014-10-22, 07:54 commonswiki ( diff · log · top ) File:OTRSDashboard-en.png /* {{int:filedesc}} */ redacted info
2014-10-20, 22:43 commonswiki ( diff · log · top ) File:Arthur James Iles - Tuterei Karewa of the Ngatimaru tribe, North Island, New Zealand - Google Art Project (alt).jpg PD licensing
2014-10-20, 22:01 commonswiki ( diff · log · top ) File:Arthur James Iles - Tuterei Karewa of the Ngatimaru tribe, North Island, New Zealand - Google Art Project (alt).jpg summary
2014-10-20, 22:01 commonswiki ( diff · log · top ) File:Arthur James Iles - Tuterei Karewa of the Ngatimaru tribe, North Island, New Zealand - Google Art Project (alt).jpg /* {{int:filedesc}} */
2014-10-20, 22:00 commonswiki ( diff · log · top ) File:Arthur James Iles - Tuterei Karewa of the Ngatimaru tribe, North Island, New Zealand - Google Art Project (alt).jpg User created page with UploadWizard
2014-10-18, 05:52 mediawikiwiki ( diff · log · top ) Mentorship programs/Possible projects /* Front-end development of the Co-op mentorship space */
2014-10-18, 05:50 mediawikiwiki ( diff · log · top ) Mentorship programs/Possible projects /* Raw projects */ adding in raw project for the Co-op
2014-10-17, 02:42 metawiki ( diff · log · top ) Grants:Learning patterns/Keeping documentation of discussions with team /* What problem does this solve? */
2014-10-15, 21:35 metawiki ( diff · log · top ) Grants:IEG/Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship/Midpoint /* Research and measurement */ caps
2014-10-15, 21:34 metawiki ( diff · log · top ) Grants:IEG/Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship/Midpoint /* Midpoint outcomes */ detail on RQs and measurement dev...
2014-10-15, 21:28 metawiki ( diff · log · top ) Grants:IEG/Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship/Midpoint /* Research and measurement */ RQs
2014-10-12, 18:46 mediawikiwiki ( diff · log · top ) Help:Echo /* Technical details */ chunk sp
2014-10-11, 07:10 mediawikiwiki ( diff · log · top ) User:I JethroBT phrasing
2014-10-11, 07:10 mediawikiwiki ( diff · log · top ) User:I JethroBT
2014-10-11, 06:49 mediawikiwiki ( diff · log · top ) User:I JethroBT phrasing
2014-10-11, 06:48 mediawikiwiki ( diff · log · top ) User:I JethroBT Little bit about me.
Month counts
2006-08 236
2006-09 1
2011-06 570
2011-07 1,775
2011-08 910
2011-09 16
2011-10 1
2011-11 609
2011-12 586
2012-01 16
2012-02 3
2012-03 1
2012-05 16
2012-06 2
2012-08 957
2012-09 474
2012-10 1,111
2012-11 647
2012-12 6
2013-01 82
2013-02 4
2013-05 47
2013-06 133
2013-07 1,276
2013-08 1,228
2013-09 1,138
2013-10 898
2013-11 644
2013-12 150
2014-01 213
2014-02 10
2014-03 37
2014-04 356
2014-05 27
2014-06 117
2014-07 203
2014-08 246
2014-09 431
2014-10 311
2014-11 228
Top edited pages
Main
Taiko — 469
Retrieval-induced forgetting — 181
Game Boy — 64
Kodo (taiko group) — 55
Miss Major Griffin-Gracy — 53
Happy Wheels — 53
Kiki (Kiki's Delivery Service) — 52
The Chicago Lincoln — 48
Sacred Twenty — 48
Oedo Sukeroku Taiko — 47
Talk
Heroes in Hell — 32
Gemini (2002 Tamil film)/GA1 — 30
Barack Obama — 23
Taiko — 21
Gemini (2002 Tamil film) — 17
Chelsea Manning — 16
Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 — 15
Frances Hugle — 13
Retrieval-induced forgetting/GA1 — 12
Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request — 12
User
I JethroBT/CSD log — 448
I JethroBT — 434
I JethroBT/PROD log — 88
I JethroBT/common.js — 42
I JethroBT/monobook.js — 37
I JethroBT/MontyHall — 18
I JethroBT/vector.js — 5
Zppickups/Fury Guitar — 3
Seabuckthorn/Wildly New Genome — 3
BD2412/Tenth dated archive — 3
User talk
I JethroBT — 728
Jimbo Wales — 43
Anshulkumardhiman — 33
TonyTheTiger — 29
Kudpung — 28
Cullen328 — 27
Keilana — 26
Missvain — 23
MichaelQSchmidt — 20
Hiter11 — 15
Wikipedia
Teahouse/Questions — 369
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents — 165
Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure — 148
Administrator intervention against vandalism — 59
Teahouse/Host landing — 53
GLAM/Pritzker — 45
Imagine others complexly — 41
Meetup/Chicago 8 — 40
Administrators' noticeboard — 35
Non-free content review — 34
Wikipedia talk
Teahouse/Host lounge — 52
Teahouse — 35
WikiProject Chicago — 26
WikiProject Editor Retention — 25
Did you know — 25
Co-op — 25
Meetup/Chicago 8 — 22
WikiProject Video games — 20
Flow — 14
WikiProject Japan — 13
File
DragonQuestYangus.jpg — 7
Game Boy(RTSide).png — 4
Barry Kooser.png — 2
JohnBooth Rabbit.jpg — 2
TaikOzLogo.png — 2
SquareRootsLogo.png — 2
CoD Black Ops cover.png — 2
All Saints Episcopal Church (Chicago) - 1880s.jpg — 2
OedoSukeroku.jpg — 1
Plugz.jpg — 1
File talk
NetballFiji07 Logo.jpg — 1
MediaWiki talk
Spam-whitelist — 3
Template
Did you know nominations/All Saints Episcopal Church (Chicago, Illinois) — 12
Did you know nominations/Davis Theater — 12
Did you know nominations/Kiki (Kiki's Delivery Service) — 7
Did you know nominations/Merz Apothecary — 6
Did you know nominations/Nørreballe — 6
Did you know nominations/Jason Healey — 5
Did you know nominations/The Sacred Twenty — 5
Did you know nominations/Grand Prix of America — 5
Did you know nominations/Yatai-bayashi — 5
Did you know nominations/Tyus Jones — 5
Template talk
Did you know — 53
Islamophobia — 5
USRepSuccessionBox — 1
Infobox Chinese/Chinese — 1
Racism topics — 1
Did you know/Veet — 1
Antisemitism — 1
Help talk
Citation Style 1 — 1
Category
Dating sims — 3
NA-Class Pritzker Military Library-related articles — 2
NA-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles — 2
Top-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles — 1
High-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles — 1
Pritzker Military Library-related articles by importance — 1
Low-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles — 1
Start-Class Pritzker Military Library-related articles — 1
Unknown-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles — 1
Mid-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles — 1
Portal
Current events/Sports — 1
Current events/2012 November 14 — 1
Portal talk
Current events/Sports — 2
Draft
The Orti Oricellari Intellectual Circle — 2
Thing: She Knows Who She Is — 1
Ferry Lane Estate — 1
Module talk
Location map/data/Syria — 1
(Semi-)automated edits (approximate)
3,397 Twinkle
13 Articles For Creation tool
0 NPWatcher
0 HotCat
0 FurMe
0 Igloo
0 AutoWikiBrowser
0 STiki
0 Popups
0 Huggle
0 WPCleaner
"Opposes" in the Support section
[edit]I get that people are being cheeky "opposing" the nomination and placing it in the Support section. But it seems to be confusing other editors, on whether or not the voter is serious. You'd think that this process would have some degree of seriousness to not have that happen a lot. GamerPro64 16:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- As someone said on the RFA - You'd of thought those opposing would've pulled that stand on April Fools Day ... Not in the middle of November!
... And we all wonder why RFA's becoming an utter joke......–Davey2010 • (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just assume clue on the part of the !voters.--v/r - TP 17:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- While I believe some went too far with their sarcasm, humor is definitely not RfA's problem,
at least it's not like the last RfA (with serious ridiculous opposes instead of sarcastic ones). --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is trying to make this process a joke. I think the goofing around is more inspired by the fact that we have a candidate here who in a record time has garnered almost 100 supports and not a single oppose and who quite obviously is going to breeze through RFA, because of being such an excellent candidate. I think it just makes people a bit giddy :-) If there were any foreseeable problems, people would be very serious indeed. --Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- As someone who opposed the Jack's candidacy, I don't appreciate your characterization of the opposes there as "ridiculous." LHMask me a question 18:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- As per Randykitty. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 18:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- AmaryllisGardener, I'm with LHM on bringing up Jack's nomination. It would be best not to bring up things that aren't germane to the discussion at hand. Especially due to you undermining the Opposes from that nomination. GamerPro64 18:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- @GamerPro64 and Lithistman: Not all were ridiculous, if fact, less than half were, IMO. LHM, yours was one of the reasonable ones. There were a few ridiculous opposes there, as there are a few sarcastic !votes here. I'm also not the only user that called the opposes ridiculous (one was an enwiki admin). Did not mean to lump everyone in. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- And as someone who opposed Jack's candidacy, in response to similar questions, this candidate gave a straight up answer and cleared any concerns straight away. They were legitimate concerns in both cases but this candidate handled it much better. What didn't help in Jack's candidacy was the lambasting of those raising concerns and the evasive response to those legitimate concerns. Please note for the next time. WCMemail 18:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- As someone said on the RFA - You'd of thought those opposing would've pulled that stand on April Fools Day ... Not in the middle of November!
I think we have consensus here on two points: (1) While humor in an RfA is welcome, wording that may confuse other editors should be avoided. (2) It's not going to help to discuss the last RfA on the talkpage for this one. Not sure there's much else to say. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- +1. Shouldn't have brought the last RfA up. But seriously, AGF people. Until RfA changes, I will abstain from arguing with anyone, because it always gets misunderstood for "badgering" or "lambasting". --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Brad for being a voice of reason (as always). However, on this current RfA there have certainly been some highly dubious oppose votes for which it is exceptionally difficult to AGF in any shape or form. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- The problem isn't the vote, however, it is that we collectively surrender control of the process by asking for an explanation. If we simply ignored useless votes, it would be better. Questioning them causes drama and turns the event into a discussion about opposing. So essentially, you have voluntarily given them control of the discussion. More importantly, in a case like the current RFA, the vote has no power, zero, zilch, it is a blow out. WE give it power by addressing it instead of simply ignoring it. We gladly ignore Support votes without reasons, perhaps we should offer Opposers the same courtesy, and let the Crats do the math. Dennis - 2¢ 23:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- WADR Dennis (and you know me well enough to know that I really mean that), the problem isn't the vote, it's the voter. I think it's low form for someone to breeze in and break an otherwise immaculate RfA just for the apparent sheer hell of it. Franky, if I had not already wanted to vote, I would have indented it myself. A cop does not let a speeding driver off just because it was the only fast car for hours on a lonely stretch of road (well not in the UK or Germany they don't). I call it disruptive editing, but in my mind I have a worse word for it. I fought hard for years to get RfA cleaned up and I ain't givin' up yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm getting more practical in my old age. Whether an RfA is "immaculate" or "barely good enough", it still ends with the person getting tools, so the difference is academic. We tolerate people starting threads on Opposers more than when they do with Supporters, so if I'm speaking in general and about the community as a whole, there are some questions regarding neutrality. An ignored vote (support or oppose) that isn't disruptive, obscene in itself causes no drama, even if it has no value. If my vote was "Support - He likes the color red", it would have been just as useless as a vote, yet it wouldn't have had anyone trying to get me to change my vote or explain it. Indenting a vote you don't like but is not socking or inherently disruptive is a very bad idea. Firstly, the Crats are smart enough to discount votes. Secondly, if I wouldn't do that to similar Support vote, then I wouldn't do it to an Oppose. I empathize with your frustration. I'm just saying that, like with children, sometimes the best way to prevent tantrums is to ignore them. We make the problem worse by engaging people when that is exactly what they are hoping for, attention. And you are just asking for their friends to join in as you reward that behavior so handsomely. Dennis - 2¢ 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm... Dennis, children, perhaps you're right. I lived on a development years ago on the edge of a village in Germany. Some kids on the block regularly delighted in throwing mud at the clean washing hung out in the neighbours' yards. There was this really old man - must have been about the age I am now - who used to chase them with a stick. He actually hit one of them once. Stopped them doing it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Now Kudpung, I agree that sometimes a stick IS the right tool, particularly with unruly children. Sometimes ignoring, thus depriving of the reward of attention, is the right tool. There are other tools. When one has failed, as confronting voters surely has, then perhaps it is time to try another tool. While you have years of studying RfA, and are perhaps biased by your own well-founded but primarily insider experiences, I'm blessed with the gift of blissful ignorance, which frees my mind to consider other ideas, perhaps less orthadox. Dennis - 2¢ 19:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, I think my analogy got missed (they often do): I was really pointing out that some people are magnetically attracted to spotless things and they think it's cool to make them less clean. Another example are the vandals who delight in deliberately scratching (usually with a key) the paintwork of a nice new car parked in the development. The need here at RfA to take action is more importantly for sending a clear message to the community that we won't tolerate stupidity on RfA any more. For years we used to, and we've seen where that got us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I get the point, I'm just saying "spotless" isn't that big a deal to me. In a perfect world perhaps, but we live in an imperfect world, where people write "wash me" in the dust on your car windows and stick chewing gum in the coin return of pay phones. But is that were we want to spend our energy? The solution is recruit one Crat to police RFA, another to close it. We have plenty of Crats. Whatever they decide, I will gladly live with. It is what we pay them for ;) I do not think that random useless opposing is why we have fewer candidates for admin. We can't even fill the slots for Arb, even after dropping the threshold from 70% to 50%+1, and that is a secret vote. The problem is larger than random acts of stupidity. ADDED: Put another way, while it might be A problem, it isn't THE problem. Dennis - 2¢ 15:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, I think my analogy got missed (they often do): I was really pointing out that some people are magnetically attracted to spotless things and they think it's cool to make them less clean. Another example are the vandals who delight in deliberately scratching (usually with a key) the paintwork of a nice new car parked in the development. The need here at RfA to take action is more importantly for sending a clear message to the community that we won't tolerate stupidity on RfA any more. For years we used to, and we've seen where that got us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Now Kudpung, I agree that sometimes a stick IS the right tool, particularly with unruly children. Sometimes ignoring, thus depriving of the reward of attention, is the right tool. There are other tools. When one has failed, as confronting voters surely has, then perhaps it is time to try another tool. While you have years of studying RfA, and are perhaps biased by your own well-founded but primarily insider experiences, I'm blessed with the gift of blissful ignorance, which frees my mind to consider other ideas, perhaps less orthadox. Dennis - 2¢ 19:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm... Dennis, children, perhaps you're right. I lived on a development years ago on the edge of a village in Germany. Some kids on the block regularly delighted in throwing mud at the clean washing hung out in the neighbours' yards. There was this really old man - must have been about the age I am now - who used to chase them with a stick. He actually hit one of them once. Stopped them doing it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm getting more practical in my old age. Whether an RfA is "immaculate" or "barely good enough", it still ends with the person getting tools, so the difference is academic. We tolerate people starting threads on Opposers more than when they do with Supporters, so if I'm speaking in general and about the community as a whole, there are some questions regarding neutrality. An ignored vote (support or oppose) that isn't disruptive, obscene in itself causes no drama, even if it has no value. If my vote was "Support - He likes the color red", it would have been just as useless as a vote, yet it wouldn't have had anyone trying to get me to change my vote or explain it. Indenting a vote you don't like but is not socking or inherently disruptive is a very bad idea. Firstly, the Crats are smart enough to discount votes. Secondly, if I wouldn't do that to similar Support vote, then I wouldn't do it to an Oppose. I empathize with your frustration. I'm just saying that, like with children, sometimes the best way to prevent tantrums is to ignore them. We make the problem worse by engaging people when that is exactly what they are hoping for, attention. And you are just asking for their friends to join in as you reward that behavior so handsomely. Dennis - 2¢ 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- WADR Dennis (and you know me well enough to know that I really mean that), the problem isn't the vote, it's the voter. I think it's low form for someone to breeze in and break an otherwise immaculate RfA just for the apparent sheer hell of it. Franky, if I had not already wanted to vote, I would have indented it myself. A cop does not let a speeding driver off just because it was the only fast car for hours on a lonely stretch of road (well not in the UK or Germany they don't). I call it disruptive editing, but in my mind I have a worse word for it. I fought hard for years to get RfA cleaned up and I ain't givin' up yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The problem isn't the vote, however, it is that we collectively surrender control of the process by asking for an explanation. If we simply ignored useless votes, it would be better. Questioning them causes drama and turns the event into a discussion about opposing. So essentially, you have voluntarily given them control of the discussion. More importantly, in a case like the current RFA, the vote has no power, zero, zilch, it is a blow out. WE give it power by addressing it instead of simply ignoring it. We gladly ignore Support votes without reasons, perhaps we should offer Opposers the same courtesy, and let the Crats do the math. Dennis - 2¢ 23:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Brad for being a voice of reason (as always). However, on this current RfA there have certainly been some highly dubious oppose votes for which it is exceptionally difficult to AGF in any shape or form. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
My comment was about support !votes that used the word "oppose" paired with a trivial reason to make the point that if that was the worst nit that could be picked about the candidate, his qualifications must be strong. I wasn't commenting on the isolated actual oppose !vote, which I agree should probably be stricken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- As above, while it is arguable that your judgement of the vote might be correct, it begs the questions: 1. Who gets to be the judge, and 2. Will it cause more problems than it solves. Unless it is obviously in bad faith or breaks policy, I lean towards letting the Crats be the judges at the end. Perhaps a Crat should start clerking RFA, and let another Crat close. We do have more Crats than duties. When you start striking votes that aren't blindingly obvious, you seriously risk drama, which is more detrimental to the candidate and the process than one silly vote. And if we aren't striking "silly" support votes as well, it clearly indicates a bias towards the candidate, particularly when it is (improperly) done by an admin who has already voted to support. Dennis - 2¢ 14:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Bureaucrats have, in past, indented votes on closure. I would agree with Dennis that the current case is probably best left to bureaucrats. I've moved the discussion regarding the oppose below; please continue there as this thread is for the 'Opposes in the support section' - on that topic, it would be best - if you wish to submit a "joke oppose" - to include a hidden comment in confirming that the edit is a support if it is not otherwise obvious as well-meaning users have in the past been confused, moved comments, etc. –xenotalk 15:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Everything about that was done right. Thank you. I would encourage other Crats to please serve us by doing similar at each RfA, if it is needed, so non-Crats won't have to. Dennis - 2¢ 16:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- It would also be helpful for confused editors to check edit summaries. The 'joke oppose' that was moved to the Oppose section had been cast with an edit summary expliciting stating that the intent was to Support the candidate. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The first joke oppose (of two in this RfA which have been moved and moved back) went so far as to make the edit summary contain the oppose section header. benmoore 17:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was not aware of that. My reference was to the second one that got moved, which had been cast with the following edit summary: "Support (to be explicit)". As a general rule, it probably is best to ask before moving someone's !vote. The 'joke opposes' are generally harmless. Sometimes, the RFA environment needs a little humor. Any exasperation should be saved for truly disruptive !votes such Rotten regard's oppose that was cast for no apparent reason. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- And seeing how some of the joke opposes got moved around, you might as well get Poe's law involved with all the uncertainty. GamerPro64 17:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The first joke oppose (of two in this RfA which have been moved and moved back) went so far as to make the edit summary contain the oppose section header. benmoore 17:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- It would also be helpful for confused editors to check edit summaries. The 'joke oppose' that was moved to the Oppose section had been cast with an edit summary expliciting stating that the intent was to Support the candidate. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Rotten regard's oppose
[edit]- No thank you. --Rotten regard 21:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why? Secret account 21:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Some supporters have just as weak a reason, maybe we shouldn't start threads when it doesn't really matter. Dennis - 2¢ 22:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter to us because no 'crat in his right mind will take a blind bit of notice of it and the RfA will pass with flying colours anyway. It matters on this RfA however, because rightly or wrongly I suspect another motive, and it's the kind of thing that gets the RfA process its rotten reputation. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why so hostile to a simple oppose? My oppose rationale is no more or less detailed than most of the supports. --Rotten regard 23:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why such a hostile !vote? What we cannot overlook is why a 100+ supported candidacy needs such a totally unqualified comment as yours, or was it simply to break the empty section? (even AGF has its limits). That said, unqualified supports are generally assumed to be in support of the nomination statement and as such are qualified. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why so hostile to a simple oppose? My oppose rationale is no more or less detailed than most of the supports. --Rotten regard 23:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter to us because no 'crat in his right mind will take a blind bit of notice of it and the RfA will pass with flying colours anyway. It matters on this RfA however, because rightly or wrongly I suspect another motive, and it's the kind of thing that gets the RfA process its rotten reputation. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Some supporters have just as weak a reason, maybe we shouldn't start threads when it doesn't really matter. Dennis - 2¢ 22:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why? Secret account 21:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support !votes presented without rationale are viewed as supporting per the nominator's rationale. Oppose !votes require an explanation as to why one opposes a candidacy. You should provide one, or your !vote should be stricken as nothing but an example of WP:POINT. LHMask me a question 01:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Rotten regard's !vote stretches the limits of AGF. If he really has a good reason to oppose the candidate, he should be presenting his rationale to the community so that our votes are equally informed, instead of giving a useless three-word "comment" from which we can infer very little motivation. He is likely either just trying to stir the pot, he's opposed to any further RFA passing before the process is reformed (that position could be forgivable, but not if he won't state it), or he has a vendetta against IJethroBT. I can't get the Edit Interaction Analyzer to work, but maybe it would shed some light on the situation. EDIT: Also, a quick glance at Rotten regard's recent editing shows him creating drama by placing notability tags on a bunch of articles created by one of our most prolific content creators. Yet another reason to not assume Rotten regard is acting in good faith. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- A look at the other interaction tool shows no history of interaction between the two. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest that you all refrain from badgering and/or witch-hunting. Always. Please never forget: The candidate is under scrutiny at RfA, the voters are not. Could somebody move this whole out-of-scope thread to the talk page, please. Kraxler (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Witch-hunting? Seriously? If someone posts a frivolous oppose, they ought to expect some blowback. If disruptive votes aren't questioned – and hopefully struck – what's to stop them from becoming more common? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest that you all refrain from badgering and/or witch-hunting. Always. Please never forget: The candidate is under scrutiny at RfA, the voters are not. Could somebody move this whole out-of-scope thread to the talk page, please. Kraxler (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- A look at the other interaction tool shows no history of interaction between the two. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Rotten regard's !vote stretches the limits of AGF. If he really has a good reason to oppose the candidate, he should be presenting his rationale to the community so that our votes are equally informed, instead of giving a useless three-word "comment" from which we can infer very little motivation. He is likely either just trying to stir the pot, he's opposed to any further RFA passing before the process is reformed (that position could be forgivable, but not if he won't state it), or he has a vendetta against IJethroBT. I can't get the Edit Interaction Analyzer to work, but maybe it would shed some light on the situation. EDIT: Also, a quick glance at Rotten regard's recent editing shows him creating drama by placing notability tags on a bunch of articles created by one of our most prolific content creators. Yet another reason to not assume Rotten regard is acting in good faith. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion moved from main page. –xenotalk 15:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The vote needs struck. Period. Until and unless an explanation is provided, it's utterly invalid, and should either be struck or removed altogether. LHMask me a question 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
+1 on striking the vote. It's invalid until he provides an explanation better than "no thank you".Nevermind, let him say what he wants. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- The vote shouldn't be struck, that's reserved for sockpuppets of banned users and the like. What it should (and will) be is disregarded by the closing bureaucrat, as if it would have made a difference anyways. ansh666 07:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think there should be so much uproar about votes like this. It is a harmless oppose vote, made without advertising a pseudo-reason to oppose the candidate that others then use to base their opposition on. I can't remember a single RfA in the last 5 years that has failed because of oppose votes: all of them have failed because of the comments attached to those votes that attracted other oppose votes. So all supporters of a candidate should be happy about oppose votes that don't come with a "justification", as they are harmless. (As an aside, I much prefer a pure oppose vote to a silly reason like "less than 2000 mainspace edits" or "no contribution to images" or "only participated in 10 AfDs", all of which I can understand as reasons not to support, but not as reasons to oppose). —Kusma (t·c) 11:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Seconded. Rotten is entitled to vote how they please, rationale or not. At least they were polite about it. The 'crats are smart enough to give this its due weight. And it's clearly not going to make a difference here anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Quite correct. That's why the esteemed 'crats would do well to throw that absolutely stupid oppose !vote into the stricken shredder, where it fuckin' belongs. 184.75.79.243 (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- FYI Except in cases of socks of banned/blocked users, or IPs (which have not the right to vote at RfA), votes are never struck. Those are the rules. I beg the newbies to accept the rules as they are, and try to avoid controversy when it leads nowhere. One contrary vote does not make any difference. To abolish the right to have one's own opinion, and the right of free speech would make a big difference. So we won't strike this discussion either. But it may become disruptive if some users insist in wanting something done that is just not feasible. Thanks for your comprehension, and I suggest we finish this here. Kraxler (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you are so concerned about the right of free speech, I suggest you stop trying to end discussions. Those of us who want the !vote struck are also entitled to our opinions, even if you don't agree with us. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Let's not turn this into a first amendment war, eh guys? You can voice your opinion about it all you like (you are indeed so entitled) but if striking votes is against the rules (which I didn't know) then we don't do it, your opinion notwithstanding. Ivanvector (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- If it is indeed against the rules, then it shouldn't be struck. However, I am not aware of any such rule and Kraxler has yet to support his statement. It isn't against the rules just because he says it is. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Let's not turn this into a first amendment war, eh guys? You can voice your opinion about it all you like (you are indeed so entitled) but if striking votes is against the rules (which I didn't know) then we don't do it, your opinion notwithstanding. Ivanvector (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you are so concerned about the right of free speech, I suggest you stop trying to end discussions. Those of us who want the !vote struck are also entitled to our opinions, even if you don't agree with us. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- FYI Except in cases of socks of banned/blocked users, or IPs (which have not the right to vote at RfA), votes are never struck. Those are the rules. I beg the newbies to accept the rules as they are, and try to avoid controversy when it leads nowhere. One contrary vote does not make any difference. To abolish the right to have one's own opinion, and the right of free speech would make a big difference. So we won't strike this discussion either. But it may become disruptive if some users insist in wanting something done that is just not feasible. Thanks for your comprehension, and I suggest we finish this here. Kraxler (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Quite correct. That's why the esteemed 'crats would do well to throw that absolutely stupid oppose !vote into the stricken shredder, where it fuckin' belongs. 184.75.79.243 (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Seconded. Rotten is entitled to vote how they please, rationale or not. At least they were polite about it. The 'crats are smart enough to give this its due weight. And it's clearly not going to make a difference here anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Once again, those making more of things than is needed. Please get it through your thought process that a) people can express their opinion when and how they want; and b) they don't owe you an explanation for it. Step away, lest you prove yourself what many consider already true about ones admin style and approach. Vertium When all is said and done 16:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- No. You don't have total freedom of speech here. Unless you disagree with Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree . . . and disagree. Any editor in good standing is free to express a reasoned "oppose" opinion in an RfA. No one should be free, however, to make baseless accusations with no credible evidence -- in an RfA or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Baseless accusations are a violation of WP:NPA. There is a difference between between the two, and no one should be in doubt that they may express a reasoned "oppose" !vote, with evidence (i.e. diffs) if necessary to substantiate any such claims. We should not tolerate obvious attempts to hijack any RfA. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure what the "disagree" part was, because you summed up my opinions perfectly. But anyway, yes. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)