Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/QEDK
 | 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.
|
Oppose by GregJackP
[edit]- Oppose, per criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 19:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I understand your personal preferences but plenty of administrators got the role despite not helping with the improvement of an article to Good Article or Featured Article. Furthermore, admin tools are mainly meant for those with expertise in countering vandalism, judging consensus, among other responsibilities. I'd be more concerned if he rarely ever edited the Article namespace for the purpose of improving or adding content - while outstanding contributions definitely would be a good case for them having the competency they need to use the tools, its not required. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm well aware that many admins are not content creators, which is the problem. "Do you think anyone who visits, say, St. Peter's, while admiring, say, the stonework, would think the authorities in the 12th century should have suspended the chief stone mason from work for saying something nasty, or think the person who judges between the stone mason and the guy carting away the rubble should be someone who has expressed a hostile attitude towards skilled workers?" (Wehwalt, from a long time ago). We need stone masons evaluating the work, not the janitors. GregJackP Boomer! 20:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lmao ah yes, the "mop", a symbol commonly associated with masonry. Also I never actually thought an editor would unironically compare themselves to a gothic master stone mason but now I've seen it all. Protonk (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly think that someone who is an admin, an attorney, who has created over 50 featured articles, and is the first Wikipedia Visiting Scholar at George Mason University could be compared to a master stone mason. I don't think that is what Wehwalt was doing, but I certainly would not hesitate to compare him to the master mason responsible for such artistry. Personally, in my opinion, he should be the model for all aspiring admins, and current admins would do well to see how he operates. GregJackP Boomer! 18:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations on being an attorney, though I’m not sure what relevance that has here. I’m not unaware that there is a specific skill set to being an encyclopedist, but I find the comparison lacking and the insinuation that someone who does not work in what is frankly a vanishingly small portion of the encyclopedia incapable of cleaning up after those who do galling. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly think that someone who is an admin, an attorney, who has created over 50 featured articles, and is the first Wikipedia Visiting Scholar at George Mason University could be compared to a master stone mason. I don't think that is what Wehwalt was doing, but I certainly would not hesitate to compare him to the master mason responsible for such artistry. Personally, in my opinion, he should be the model for all aspiring admins, and current admins would do well to see how he operates. GregJackP Boomer! 18:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lmao ah yes, the "mop", a symbol commonly associated with masonry. Also I never actually thought an editor would unironically compare themselves to a gothic master stone mason but now I've seen it all. Protonk (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm well aware that many admins are not content creators, which is the problem. "Do you think anyone who visits, say, St. Peter's, while admiring, say, the stonework, would think the authorities in the 12th century should have suspended the chief stone mason from work for saying something nasty, or think the person who judges between the stone mason and the guy carting away the rubble should be someone who has expressed a hostile attitude towards skilled workers?" (Wehwalt, from a long time ago). We need stone masons evaluating the work, not the janitors. GregJackP Boomer! 20:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- You do realize I am talking about Wehwalt, not myself, don't you? Is there a reason that you are bothered by pointing to his accomplishments and comparing him to that stone mason that bothers you? GregJackP Boomer! 00:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- While I don't agree with Greg here, I find it unnecessary to badger his good-faith !vote when he's clearly already in the minority. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think people should be free to express their opinions respectfully, just as you have done here, without being accused of badgering when they have only left one comment. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that any user should be free to express their opinions without being badgered, accused of bludgeoning or whatever. I may not agree with GregJackP but WP's open platform affords him the opportunity to express it. Our job is to read and evaluate the input, and act accordingly. We don't have to agree with it, but we should at least extend the courtesy to all editors to express it. Atsme Talk 📧 21:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- I understand your personal preferences but plenty of administrators got the role despite not helping with the improvement of an article to Good Article or Featured Article. Furthermore, admin tools are mainly meant for those with expertise in countering vandalism, judging consensus, among other responsibilities. I'd be more concerned if he rarely ever edited the Article namespace for the purpose of improving or adding content - while outstanding contributions definitely would be a good case for them having the competency they need to use the tools, its not required. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)