Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ktr101 5

Ktr101 - X!'s Edit Counter - X!'s tools (Follow on Twitter!)
Home · Edit counter · Page History Statistics (NEW) · Article blamer · CIDR · IP calculator · Index
X!'s Edit Counter

Username:	Ktr101
User groups:	accountcreator, autoreviewer, filemover, ipblock-exempt, reviewer, rollbacker
First edit:	Oct 09, 2007 17:07:12
Unique pages edited:	32,341
Average edits per page:	2.16
Live edits:	65,637
Deleted edits:	4,264
Total edits (including deleted):	69,901

Namespace Totals

Article	34913	53.19%
Talk	7612	11.60%
User	1604	2.44%
User talk	7668	11.68%
Wikipedia	4671	7.12%
Wikipedia talk	4834	7.36%
File	390	0.59%
File talk	167	0.25%
MediaWiki talk	5	0.01%
Template	1657	2.52%
Template talk	466	0.71%
Help talk	2	0.00%
Category	1244	1.90%
Category talk	17	0.03%
Portal	369	0.56%
Portal talk	7	0.01%
Book	8	0.01%
Book talk	3	0.00%
	
Namespace Totals Pie Chart
Month counts
2007/10	35 	
2007/11	141 	
2007/12	111 	
2008/01	961 	
2008/02	1157 	
2008/03	874 	
2008/04	941 	
2008/05	849 	
2008/06	1826 	
2008/07	892 	
2008/08	1058 	
2008/09	302 	
2008/10	274 	
2008/11	382 	
2008/12	388 	
2009/01	497 	
2009/02	1334 	
2009/03	994 	
2009/04	1033 	
2009/05	276 	
2009/06	812 	
2009/07	513 	
2009/08	261 	
2009/09	742 	
2009/10	817 	
2009/11	1791 	
2009/12	1094 	
2010/01	1118 	
2010/02	1480 	
2010/03	2946 	
2010/04	1183 	
2010/05	1117 	
2010/06	949 	
2010/07	835 	
2010/08	833 	
2010/09	478 	
2010/10	976 	
2010/11	1642 	
2010/12	1940 	
2011/01	1433 	
2011/02	931 	
2011/03	1077 	
2011/04	1444 	
2011/05	763 	
2011/06	976 	
2011/07	422 	
2011/08	427 	
2011/09	355 	
2011/10	653 	
2011/11	351 	
2011/12	3957 	
2012/01	5948 	
2012/02	1427 	
2012/03	252 	
2012/04	199 	
2012/05	1514 	
2012/06	3264 	
2012/07	745 	
2012/08	747 	
2012/09	461 	
2012/10	1450 	
2012/11	447 	
2012/12	542 	

Top edited pages
Sorry, but in order to consume my fair share of toolserver resources, Top Edited Articles are disabled for users with over 45000 edits.

Executed in 1.36 second(s).
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional AnyBrowser compliant Powered by WMF Toolserver ©2010 Soxred93 | View Source | Bugs Select a language (Translate): en | als ar ba bg bn ca ckb cs da de eo es et eu fa fi fr gl he hi hr hu id it ja lb lt mg mt ne nl no pl pt ro ru si simple sr sv tr ur vi zh
Script maintained by TParis

    Related:
    Wikimedia Foundation
    |
    Talk Page
    |
    Wiki Software
    |
    MediaWiki Software
    |
    Jimmy Wales
    |
    Founder Of Wikipedia
    |
    Wikimedia Projects
    |
    English Wikipedia
    |
    Open Source Wiki Software
    |
    All Wikimedia Projects
    |

A question removed

Discussion closed (again).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Discussion over

Sorry Sven, but I removed your second question since I believe it to be wholly inappropriate--it's gossipy and couched in weaselish language, and smells like a smear campaign. Our BLP policy applies throughout the project, if I'm not mistaken, and if it doesn't apply here I'll cite IAR. For the life of me, I don't understand how that question could possibly further an honest appreciation of Kevin's appropriateness for the position of admin. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I've put it back. Kevin is a nice guy, but his interactions with several editors over IRC have been, to borrow a term from you, wholly inappropriate. I don't want to oppose him, but I think that he needs to address this point. He, and a lot of other people who are active in IRC, know exactly what I'm talking about and which editors I'm referring to. Until the candidate is able to recognize what the problem is and come up with some sort of statement that would reassure us that it's not going to be a problem in the future, I don't think it's appropriate for us to be giving him the mop. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again, and Sven should never have re-introduced it per BRD. If you have a concern then raise it as an oppose, but please do not ask unsuitable & loaded questions. You are making strong accusations about this user's conduct without any evidence. Giant Snowman 20:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think it would be better if it were removed rather than struck. We could use a template so the numbering isn't lost. My rationale - and I cringed when I read the question - is Sven's allegation is based on things that many, including me, can't see. In other words, he can't even support it with evidence. And although I don't know if it's even technically feasible, we're not going to import IRC logs into an RfA as "evidence" subject to god knows what kind of analysis. So, even struck, it stands out as a lingering and serious accusation. It's grossly unfair to Kevin.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Literally, if that kind of bullshit happens again, there will be a block accordingly. That was an unfounded, unproven, unlinked WP:NPA in the worst possible manner (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. Thanks Bwilkins, Bbb, and Giant Snowman. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a wholly indefensible personal attack, and I would support an NPA block if anything like it is reinserted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure how I'm supposed to address concerns that happened in an (officially) unlogged IRC channel then. The fact of the matter is that his behavior towards certain users in the #wikipedia-en IRC channel was out of line. I can't cite it because it didn't happen on site. Even if I had logs, which I don't, I can't post them because there's a no public logging rule for the channel. I can't ask the other users to speak up because neither of them are active on the project anymore. I personally believe that Kevin's behavior had some part in their not being in the project anymore to begin with. Aside from that I avoided naming the users because I didn't want to involve them, I am not being told that if I go into details, I will be blocked. If someone wants to give me an out here, other than simply shutting up, I'd be happy to take it. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the community has already said that what happens on IRC is no business on RFA (or on Wikipedia), your sole opportunity is to shut it. If you can find similar behaviour here on Wikipedia, please link to it. But off-wiki is off-wiki. You basically told the community that the candidate was sexually harassing people - with no proof. Disgusting. Feel fortunate you're not blocked now. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly has the community said that? IRC based evidence has been brought into RfAs several times in the past. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed the five of you. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sven: Your question was one of the most unconstructive ones I've seen in six+ years at RfA. As Bwilkins and others have said it is very out of line. If you have a legit concern about Kevin, please introduce it through the proper channels - not through unsubstantiated innuendo at RfA. Majoreditor (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For obvious reasons, I'm not going to continue down this path. As I've already said in the main RfA page that I've backed off, I'd appreciate it if you drop it as well. I'm standing behind my initial sentiment, but acknowledge that the delivery was piss poor, and that nothing further is to be gained by continuing to press the issue. Unless you're trying to goad me into saying something that will get me blocked, there is absolutely no reason to continue this conversation. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sven, please post the dates of any IRC misconduct and then the community can easily Google the logs off-Wiki. Of course, there have been many cases of RfAs failing because of misuse of IRC, so the statements about "the community" are just bullshit.

I would agree that your question should have been rephrased, but you should not be silenced. I thought that people were concerned with the treatment of women editors, particularly young and new editors.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concern with the treatment of women editors is quite legitimate, but that concern is not a blank check. It doesn't justify the existence of serious allegations accompanied by zero evidence. If it was pervasive, and serious, then one could have logged it, not so much as direct evidence, but as a way to identify editors who could speak about it. I am not an IRC regular, but I find it difficult to believe that a serious, repeated problem was observed (other than Sven) by no editors other than those who are no longer part of the project. If true, unfortunate, but bringing it up as an unsourced allegation is not acceptable.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blank check strawman is a distraction.

Sven is obviously constrained by WP policies about posting information about off-site behavior. The community must decide whether Sven is a pathological liar or an honest (if sometimes hasty) person. For my part, I have trouble accepting the idea that Sven would fabricate such an allegation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Sven is a liar either - but one cannot make such VERY serious allegations without proof. Period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't believe Sven has *fabricated* it either, but he did present his own opinion on the issue as if it were fact, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. If we could see what happened, we might agree with Sven, but we might, for example, opine that Sven's interpretation of events was faulty. Without the ability to examine the evidence, and without the existence of any meta-evidence (eg evidence of community discussion of the allegation), we cannot allow one person's opinion to be claimed as fact, especially when it constitutes such a serious accusation. And we absolutely cannot determine the truth of a completely unsupported allegation based on our judgement of the author's honesty - plenty of honest people have been guilty of serious misjudgments. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't have to be a liar to have a recollection of events that doesn't exactly match up with another person's recollection of events. We've all seen serious allegation at ANI, that, after inspection turned out to be neutrally summarized differently than the initial post. That doesn't make the OP a liar. I know Sven (slightly) in RL, I don't think he is a liar, but I don't believe a single person's interpretation of some unidentified comments remotely constitutes evidence.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having slept on the issue, my thoughts, and statements on said thoughts, are the following:

Part of the problem here is that I don't log, and even if I did log, I wouldn't post logs because I believe rather heavily in the spirit of no public logging. That does make presenting evidence rather difficult. Making it more difficult, I made the decision going in that I wasn't going to use the names of either of the parties that I was thinking of when I wrote the question. I didn't want to have their lives in any way effected by this. Making it even more difficult, some of the conversations that I had that formed the basis of my question were conversations that people had with me, one on one, in private chat. Even if I logged, which I don't, and even if I could post things from #wikipedia-en, which I can't, there's no way that I'm going to post private conversations.
Another part of the problem is that no one saw what I was trying to do. I was really hoping that Ktr101 would take the question and say "Yes, some people have had issues with things I've said over IRC in the past, but it's been over a year since any serious complaints, and I've worked on improving that aspect of my communication.". It didn't have to go into details, and it would have placated the concerns of the dozen or so people who were active on IRC then that knew about the situation. In my own bizarre way, I was lofting a softball at the candidate over what I saw as a serious issue that could derail his campaign.
Finally, but most importantly, a major part of the problem was that the question itself was broken. I do believe that the issue itself needed to have been brought up, but everyone above and on the other page that commented on how it was a terribly worded, accusatory, leading question were absolutely correct. While I didn't intend on the question being such a mess (again, I thought I was giving him a softball on a difficult issue), the truth is that it was a bad question, and I was right to get flak for asking it in the way that I did.

I owe Ktr101 an apology. I will deliver that, over email, soon. That apology will contain an invitation to continue to discuss the issue, over email, if he wishes to. I'm not sure what to expect from him by ways of a reply, but he'd be completely justified in blowing me off. Either way, I am done talking about this on-wiki. To say that I am more than displeased that this conversation was opened back up after being closed is an understatement. I've dropped it, I've asked the people going after me to drop it, so now I'll ask the uninvolved third parties to drop it. This is an ugly affair and no amount of further pressing is going to get us anywhere near anything constructive. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was reopened after I went off-wiki last night. If I had been on-wiki when it was first reopened, I would have prevented it. Honestly, the discussion's existence during the RfA is unfair to the candidate for the same reasons the question was unfair. However, after being reopened, two admins commented, and there also seems to have been some resolution, at least on Sven's part. At the same time as I leave this comment, I'm going to reclose and recollapse the discussion. If any admin who reads this wants to completely remove the discussion, I would endorse such a removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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've stashed the vote itself here for safekeeping. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Original vote and attached discussion

Oppose Major temperament concerns. I gave the candidate a chance to answer the question, and he did not. The question removed after he had answered other questions, so I know he saw it and simply chose to avoid it. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your "question" was a blatant personal attack, and you're lucky you're not blocked for it - the fact that Ktr101 ignored it says good things about his temperament to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point of my question was to extend him an opportunity to own up to his past actions, and he didn't take that opportunity. Just because you don't like the question or how I asked it doesn't mean that there isn't an underlying concern that still needs to be addressed. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to insist that there are supposed off-wiki issues that are unproven - and are therefore massive personal attacks, I'll strike your !vote and block you to prevent further abuse of the candidate, and further abuse of the open forum that RfA provides. It's not here for you to play games with the lives of others (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of you are wrong on the matter, but I've been sufficiently threatened at this point, so I'll drop it. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "own up to his past actions" assumes guilt without providing any evidence whatsoever, and is therefore a further personal attack. If you had not followed up by saying "I'll drop it", then you would now be blocked for the remainder of this RfA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely respond to opposes, but feel compelled to do so in this case. To minimize drama I'm adding my comment to the Talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.