Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for adminship/Wbm1058 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HighInBC (talk | contribs) at 01:06, 26 August 2015 (→Discussion of GregJackP's oppose !vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:06, 26 August 2015 by HighInBC (talk | contribs) (→Discussion of GregJackP's oppose !vote)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Responding to the content creators

C'mon, guys. Give me a break. I spent the better part of my first year here working on one single article, which I pointed you to: Timeline of DOS operating systems. OK, technically I didn't "create" the article – someone else started it – and I don't want to get into which specific IP addresses I edited under before I signed up, but that article looked something like this when I started working on it. I spent months focused on this one single article; it is my showcase work here. So, why don't you review it, and tell me whether it's a "good" article, or maybe even one that merits being "featured".

You're picking on some pretty trivial stuff:

  • Special-purpose page name maintenance templates was a mistake. I intended to create Category:Special-purpose page name maintenance templates, and neglected to specify the namespace. An easy thing for a relative beginner to do. I requested the deletion of my own mistake.
  • R from foreign name – I don't remember my mistake there, but likely I intended Template:R from foreign name.
  • Brand New (prefix) was specifically created for some sort of page-views analysis for the one of the requested moves discussed at Talk:Brand New. It was only intended to be temporary, for analysis purposes.
  • Regarding my WP:RS/N edit asking whether "FamousWiki.com" was a reliable source: I was asking a question to which I knew the answer. A persistent editor kept reinserting a birth date sourced to that, and I wanted to get some backup to reinforce what I was telling them.
  • SMC Corporation, I created that, per my edit summary, because it was one of only three category:TOPIX 100 companies not to have an article yet on Misplaced Pages. I was just starting a stub to fill in a coverage gap.
  • "Lujanbio was simply a redirect to a page that did exist, created by a different editor, that was later deleted. Same story for MOGAS Oil, which incidentally was later recreated. Same story for Westland United F.C., IMDRF, K.Hari Kumar, and EHMC." Exactly. I patrol Category:Missing redirects. Someone starts a marginal article on an African oil company. They put a hatnote on their article {{Redirect|MOGAS Oil}} that says, "MOGAS Oil" redirects here. For other uses, see... Well, no it doesn't redirect here. Not until I do them a favor, and create the redirect to clear the maintenance category. Don't blame me if their article later gets deleted.

— Wbm1058 (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Wbm1058. I'm sorry, I like you and I like that you ran for ArbCom as a non-admin. But you don't create content. Even granting a pass on all of the above, you still have not taken an article to GA or FA status. We already have plenty of admins who are not content creators, way too many in fact. Once someone becomes an admin, it is basically an appointment for life. So I don't support RfAs for those that do not have content creation experience, and part of that experience is taking the article to GA/FA and dealing with the process. In your article's case, all of your prose is in a table format, which would normally cause a fail. You would need to convert most of the article to prose. You may be able to get it to a featured list status, see Timeline of chemistry as an example, but you need to be the one to take it through the process. You need the experience of that to understand what content creation is all about. GregJackP Boomer! 06:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wbm1058, if you think never having created even a halfway decent article is "pretty trivial stuff", then you clearly do not have the mindset to be an admin, in my opinion. Likewise, if you are going to whine (in my opinion) at length like this over every well-thought-out oppose, then I don't think you understand RfA very well. Your work on the Timeline article was admirable, but the article already existed, and it's just a timeline article, and it's one single article. You need to allow editors to use what criteria they use for assessing your qualifications for adminship. The tools are not handed out piecemeal, and candidates are expected to have shown the broad range of administrative skills before being given lifetime access to the entire set of tools. Please see Misplaced Pages:Advice for RfA candidates, if you need to. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    It doesn't look like whining to me, but a list of bona fide explanations. Wbm1058 has also not responded in this manner to any of the opposes specifically. The post above is, in fact, their only contribution to this RfA after accepting and transcluding. To me, it reads liks a collective response to those who have not (or are unable to) consider each deleted mainspace page (not all of which were articles) on its own merits.
    Making my own independent assessment, I see that there were fifteen mainspace pages created by Wbm1058 which were later deleted; most of these were redirects, but the report cannot distinguish between deleted redirs and deleted "normal" pages. The deletion log for all of them is linked from that report, and is public; it shows why the deletion took place. Eleven of these do not reflect badly on the candidate:-
    This leaves four which might be considered problems. Two of these were redirects: ''唐山'' was deleted following Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 20#Several redirects that have wiki markup in their titles; and Kitchen collection was deleted following Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 30#Kitchen collection. Of the other two, one (Brand New (prefix)) was an attempt to create an index page using Special:PrefixIndex; the other (Wbm1058/sandbox1.php) was apparently intended to be in user space, but mistakenly created in mainspace instead, it was deleted as G2 (Test page). So to my mind, there are few actual problems here, and the most recent of these occurred one year ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Redrose. I created ''唐山'' because an editor was quite persistent in insisting that Chinese characters should not be italicized in hatnotes. I would have been happy to have simply removed that foreign-language "redirects here" hatnote, but they insisted on keeping it. So, my compromise kludge was to create that redirect to keep the page out of the "flagged for maintenance" category. I was quite happy to see the redirect finally come off that page, which in turn made my work-around unnecessary. And no, I never said that creating even a halfway decent article was trivial. I meant that focusing on pages I created and which were subsequently deleted was focusing on a trivial aspect of my overall contribution history. The content contributions you should focus on are substantial improvements I've made to articles which were started by others. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@GregJackP: Re your comment "But you don't create content." It's one thing to oppose per idiosyncratic criteria; As a something of an inclusionist myself I find your only works on existing articles - never creates new ones opposes go somewhat further than I would, I oppose people who have made multiple recent deletion mistakes, but I don't agree that creating new articles is an essential skill for someone to make a good administrator. When you oppose a candidate because they "have not taken an article to GA or FA status" again I find your comments accurate, though I think your criteria unhelpfully harsh. However we have plenty of content contributors who have never taken an article through the GA or FA processes, the test of whether someone has created content is whether their edits include adding content to articles, not whether they have audited content contributions. So can I suggest that you strike your words "But you don't create content." as incorrect? ϢereSpielChequers 13:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@WereSpielChequers:, only works on existing articles - never creates new ones is not and has never been my position, nor will you find that statement by me anywhere. I don't care if he created the article or not, I'm perfectly happy with a content creator who takes an existing stub to GA or FA status. Adding a word here or there is not, IMO, content creation. In this case, Wbm1058 does not create content, he does other stuff for WP. I don't support non-content creators for lifetime appointments as admins. So can I suggest that you strike your statement as incorrect? Or should you be allowed to have your own opinion about who should or should not be an administrator? GregJackP Boomer! 15:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If you read the rest of the Oppose section you will find several examples being debated where the candidate has added rather more than a word or two. We may have to debate at another time whether someone who only adds a word here or there is creating content, this candidate clearly goes beyond that. As for creating new articles, I'm happy to accept your reassurance that you are "perfectly happy with a content creator who takes an existing stub to GA or FA status." I'd genuinely prefer that we disagreed on one issue rather than two, but this very recent oppose of yours "Has only created 2 articles", left me with the opposite impression. ϢereSpielChequers 15:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Had you gone further down the page, you would have seen: The whole point is that the editor needed to have some background in content creation and in working with others to bring articles up to a certain level. That review process, whether at FAC or GAN, gives the editor an experience that no amount of time on the drama boards can replace. I'm sorry, but Wbm does not have that experience. In Liz's case, most of her time was not dedicated to content creation and never had been. It's a moot point, she got the mop and I wish her well, but I did not believe that she had sufficient content creation experience. GregJackP Boomer! 16:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with WereSpeilChequers; the number of articles one has taken to FA, FL, or GA is not in itself an indicator of whether one should be an admin. Users are not required to have any of those to be good admins. I hope nobody gets discouraged for running for adminship simply due to not having FA's, FL's, or GA's. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely hope that non-admins look at this, and if they are not content creators, I hope that they reconsider an RfA until they have created content. They should be discouraged from running until they have created GA, FL, or FAs. GregJackP Boomer! 15:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Remember that there is a difference though between creating content and getting articles to FA, FL, or GA. Having articles promoted doesn't by itself mean someone is going to be a good admin. There are many great users (both admins and non-admins) who have no such articles, but nonetheless frequently build and expand upon pages. I highly doubt a proposal for being discouraged from running for adminship without such articles would be accepted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no policy about those with extensive block logs from running either, but they are de facto discouraged from running. I'm not talking about a policy, I'm talking about what passes an RfA and what does not. I also disagree with you on what is content creation. I have no problems with the gnomes who build and expand pages, but this is an encyclopedia. We should be focused on content creators, not the support staff. GregJackP Boomer! 15:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It used to be that those with a block in the last twelve months needed a pretty good explanation, and after a certain time most blocks were considered moot. But that isn't a relevant topic for the RFA of an editor with a clean block log. As for those who build and expand pages, in my book they are the content creators, and some but not all content creators have contributed FAs or GAs. I'm primarily a gnome, most of my mainspace edits are fixing typos. Adding the missing l in public typically only adds one byte per edit. I suppose that makes me "support staff" in your book, but on that basis admins are support staff - the FAC coordinators certainly need to have written FAs, but admins don't. ϢereSpielChequers 13:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
We both know that no block in twelve months hasn't been the standard for a while. Many look for clean block logs now. Look, if we could be sure that the new crop of admins were going to be more like you, it would truly be no big deal, but that's not what happens. You have some admins whose sole purpose in life seems to be to nitpick and hound content creators. Some who believe that they should be SJW and "fix" what we should believe, allowing for no dissent at all. Those who don't understand the real concept of WP:IAR. So I look for candidates who I believe will not do that, and for the most part that means content creators. It is, after all, the primary goal of WP, to create content. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 15:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Break

It's entirely possible to be a dedicated content creator without being keen on the GA and FA processes. There's nothing special about having successfully nominated an FA; you write a decent article, then entertain periodical and hollow MoS checks until enough people in your WikiProject type up a two-line "support" rationale—usually on the order of 8 or 10 weeks. It's admirable to be a serial recognized-content creator, but on the same token I can easily understand why someone might not like the idea of being bound to FAC for the entire summer. Wbm1058 is not a content creator—on that, you'll get no argument from me—but generally speaking it would be a darn shame for a qualified candidate to be "discouraged from running" because they don't have as many tacky GA icons as you or I. – Juliancolton |  16:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Fully agreed. You can think content creation is important but the important part stems from the actual writing of encyclopedic material, not the process of GA/FA/FL/FT/ITN/DYK itself. Someone could well have written an FA standard article but never felt confident enough to nominate it for FA, or didn't want to go through the hassle, heard the process took too long, didn't want to add to the backlog etc. And in my opinion at least, lots of C class articles is about the same as a few GA class articles (and the former is probably worth more to the encyclopedia), so people who create them are just as valuable as those with hat-collection-esque topicons on their user page (me included). — Bilorv(talk) 16:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I remember being at RFA and 60% article space contributions used to be considered a good ratio for article to project edits. Mkdw 16:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to be able to say that the experience of peer review is an important component of content creation, but I can't. If we had a process that said "experienced Wikipedians knowledgeable about the topic area have reviewed this article and believe it to be thorough and accurate, but nobody has bothered with the niceties of prose, or checked that the dashes are all the right length, or made sure that the footnote formatting is consistent" then I'd use it, but as it is I can't justify spending my limited amount of hobby time on that stuff. I certainly can't expect it as a prerequisite for things like performing history merges. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm with you, Julian and Opabinia. Personally when I passed RfA last January, I had four GAs and no FAs. In fact I don't ever intend to submit anything for FA. Writing good articles is one thing; submitting yourself to a months-long meat grinder where every punctuation mark is quibbled over is not why I am here at Misplaced Pages. There are many ways to be an excellent "content contributor" here; FAs are not the only measure (and in many ways not even a good measure). For that matter I don't require admin candidates to be "content contributors" at all, but that's another story. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree completely. An editor need not have created a single FA IMO to be a content creator, but if not, should have taken at least two articles to GA. I personally hate the FA process, but believe that it is needed to provide high-quality content to our readers. GA serves the same purpose, albeit on a lesser level. In any event it is my view that editors who are content creators prior to becoming admins have an entirely different perspective than those who don't create content. I want admins who have the content creation perspective. The rest are pretty much useless, IMO, so I don't support non-content creators.
I understand that admins who do not have a content creation background don't like my position. I don't much care what they think. Until they manage to get a policy where admins aren't appointed for life, I'll continue to hold that position. It's based solely on the perspective of the individual, and content creators have the perspective I want. GregJackP Boomer! 21:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
There's no doubt that FAC produces a polished product, but it's more fuss over trivialities than you get for a real publication. GA just takes too long and is too variable in review quality to feel like a good use of time. You've written admins who do not have a content creation background don't like my position as if it's just some kind of sour-grapes thing, but some admins who do have a content creation background disagree with (not "dislike") your position.
I don't see the connection between the "appointment for life" argument and the desire for pre-adminship content creation. While it's widely believed that admins who don't create much content are worse at their jobs in some way, I haven't seen any evidence of it. (Pointing to a specific individual does not count as evidence; you need to define what you mean by "bad admins" and then apply the definition to the group as a whole.) How would a different model for adminship (term limits, reconfirmations, etc.) actually address your problem? Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sure, a different model would dramatically alter my position. But that's not going to happen. An RfC is going on about whether there needs to be a better way to recall or desyop admins. Only one groups supports the idea—editors, at over 75% support. Admins, crats, and Arbcom members all oppose the idea. Overall you have 60-65% support for change, but it won't happen, because those currently in power don't want to change. As an example, recently an admin who had an open for recall sign up was asked about recall—and immediately removed the open for recall statement, telling the editor to take it to ArbCom. You can't trust them to follow up on what they say if it looks like they may lose the bit.
So what I look for in an admin is someone who creates content, who does not look at this as a big social media exercise, and who doesn't have a grudge against content creators. I want someone with the perspective that content creation is why we are here, and who protects content creators from the riff-raff. In my view, those who have created content are the most apt to hold that view. And while some admins disagree with my position, other admins have denigrated the position, so I will stand by my comments on that.
Finally, I'm not trying to convert anyone. This is solely my criteria, and if no one else agrees with me, that's fine. I know it is not the majority position, most of the time when I oppose the candidate still gets the bit, and that's fine. It's what the community wants. But my position will be the same on the next RfA and the next, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 02:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, but the question was how any of that would change under an alternative model. You say you'll demand content creation until admins aren't appointed for life. Below you suggest two-year reconfirmation. So you'd vote in a non-content-creator because their coming reign of terror is term-limited? Because a reconfirmation two years from now will be a meaningful constraint on behavior two days from now? Not likely. These two things just don't go together.
What's more, you don't seem to have any evidence that people who have written content are any better at keeping the riff-raff away. The fact that it 'sounds right' isn't good enough. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The offer's open to you also. It's not a proposal at the Village Pump, it is an offer to admins who do not like my position on content creation. On the second part, I don't need any evidence, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. You are free to vote however you want, and I'm good with it. I would only need evidence if I were trying to convince someone to change to my way of thinking.
No, what I'm doing is saying what I look for, what I believe. You have to find your own path. Unless of course, you want to make the deal with me on resigning the bit and all. GregJackP Boomer! 07:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I try not to believe things without evidence to substantiate them. And if I do, I don't expect other people not to challenge question express doubts "badger" me about my poorly substantiated beliefs. Your "offer" is specious: nobody is disagreeing with you just out of general dislike. I don't want you to change your position; I want you to be amenable to changing it based on actual evidence. Otherwise you might as well post on every RfA "Oppose, I like pie" for all the use it is. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I could oppose on the basis of pie, but then I doubt that three-quarters of the other opposers would agree with me, at least to some extent, as they have here. Even some of the supports have cited the lack of content creation as a concern. You know, a content creator just got blocked for incivility because he protested that another editor was f'ing up the citations in violation of WP:CITEVAR - and the blocking admin, having no content experience over a single B-class (the rest were stubs/start), couldn't recognize the actual problem, but became the civility police. And we lose the use of a valuable content creator because the admin doesn't have a clue.

I'm not going to go out and look for evidence, anecdotal observations are good enough for me. Hounding me isn't going to change that. GregJackP Boomer! 23:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Right. I've probably done 250 FAs, FLs, GAs, etc., and I could not disagree more with the assertion that you need recognized content to be a good admin. Oppose votes to that effect often (but not always) seem like tremendous exercises in ego-stroking. I'm a big fan of the recognized content institutions and will continue to support them as long as I edit here, but it's simply not true that they're "needed to provide high-quality content to our readers". Our readers aren't idiots; they don't need stickers to tell them whether an article is worth studying.

I think you have to be awfully naive to think that counter-abuse specialists and the like are "pretty much useless". Spam, simple typos, malformed pages, subtle vandalism, BLP violations, misnamed articles, link rot, plagiarism, and disruptive editing disputes are all so rampant on Misplaced Pages that so-called gnomes can play a much, much larger role in improving the site than someone who writes a handful of 1,100-word GAs that struggle to hit 400 views per month. – Juliancolton |  01:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that it sometimes does seem like ego stroking. We get content contributors are great, we get that you wish everyone was like you. That is not the end all be all of contributing to the encyclopedia though. If you are a great content contributor and think admins should be great content contributors then run for RfA and pick up a mop and help. There are other forms of contributions and being an admin is one of them. Chillum 02:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You going to nominate me? You and I both know that I don't stand a snowball's chance of being an admin, nor do I want to be an admin. Don't make facetious comments. It's not becoming.
What this is actually about is that you don't like my position and want me to change it. I'll make a deal with you, resign the bit and agree that to regain it you have to stand an RfA every two-years, and I'll no longer oppose based on content creation. After all, the bit is no big deal, right? GregJackP Boomer! 06:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Bad deal @GregJackP:. I have no intention of resigning, I have have no wish for you to stop expressing your opinion. You seem to be confusing me disagreeing with you wish me thinking your opinion should not be expressed. You are welcome to express dubious claims all you want, just don't cry foul when people disagree with them or think your judgement is flawed. You need to be more able to handle people telling you they don't agree with you if you are going to support unpopular ideas. This "don't disagree with me it is badgering" nonsense only discredits your position. If you don't want to support your position then you may want to reconsider it. Chillum 13:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised that you wouldn't take the deal... As far as badgering, one of the support !votes dropped out because of the badgering he observed, and I believe that he didn't like your comments to him telling him how he should !vote either. GregJackP Boomer! 14:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I though you were an admin, albeit a slightly cranky one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
LOL, only "slightly" cranky? I've gotta up my game. GregJackP Boomer! 07:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Second break

I don't know why expecting an admin to have GA or FA experience is whined about. I'd support a guy or gal who had two decent sized GAs if they were solid articles. Successfully getting through FAC is an achievement, but even that isn't as hard as it used to be. It isn't that hard to do and expecting it isn't demanding. It should be a no-brainer. JackTheVicar (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, GAs are sufficient. What I want to see is how the admin candidate dealt with critiques of his work, for one thing. And I want him to be able to point to some portion of the encyclopedia that he contributed to in major part, and that he has had to justify to a reviewer. If he's averse to processes where his work is reviewed, why is he submitting himself to RfA?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, a couple of GAs are sufficient, and it is how the candidate handles the process that's important. GregJackP Boomer! 20:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Question to "supporting editors" not Wbm1058

Please explain the notability of Pygments according to the latest edit right now.

Why the page Stern Stewart & Co has only company website, with no third party/independent review at this time? Aero Slicer 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Which administrative duties is this related to? Chillum 16:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
To comprehend WP:COMPANY and respecting the principles of WP:PROMOTION for WP:AFD. Aero Slicer 17:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Deletion policy, basically. Lack of notability is a major reason why the deletion button is pressed, so to speak. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Deletion policy says that administrators do not determine notability. That is to be decided by the community at AfD. We look for a mere assertion of importance to determine if CSD is viable, but we don't delete based on our perception of notability. I point this out because this is a content issue not an administrative issue, a very intentional separation by the comminity. It is determined by everyday editors not by admins. Determining consensus is an administrative duty, determining notability is not.
I agree it is important to know deletion policy off by heart. I also think it is important to know all relevant content policies and guidelines related to an AfD, though I generally read up on those as I am closing the AfD as there are just so many of them. Chillum 17:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Stern Stewart & Co

This was the original title of Stern Value Management, created by User:Boris Barowski. In 2013 Wbm1058 made the move (see the page histories). Stern Stewart & Co was then expanded from the redirect by others. So in short Wbm1058 is not responsible for the creation of this weak-notability page. BethNaught (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Frankly a lot of the examples being given are poor. For example Special-purpose page name maintenance templates was given as an example of a page created that got deleted, except the deletion log shows it was deleted at the authors request per WP:CSD#G7. I think there is a lack of homework being done resulting in these poor examples. I sincerely hope that people do their on homework before taking these claims at face value. Chillum 18:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep. This. Pygments is the only even arguably problematic example offered so far, and our approach to notability and sourcing for open-source software is (ironically) so broken that I can't hold that against someone. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This is why I cannot abide by the philosophy that we are not supposed to debate people's point of view. Those who think that people commenting on your oppose !vote is badgering should take into account that debate allows us to see when people are just plain incorrect. Chillum 19:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of GregJackP's General comment

  • It's really inappropriate for those who oppose an RfA to have to face a gauntlet of comments, criticism, and calls for explanations. If those in opposition did the same to every lame reason for supporting a candidate, we would be accused of disrupting the RfA. If it's not disruption, just let me know, and we can ask the same sort of questions to the supporters. GregJackP Boomer! 06:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree, it is utterly inappropriate. As that has not happened here, this comment seems a little disingenuous. Of the three current Opposes, one (#2) has been questioned because it appeared to be based on something outside the candidate's request, that was then more clearly stated; the other two, brought explanations or clarifications from admins who have extra information that the !voters are unable to see, thus giving them the opportunity, should they want it, to rethink their oppose in light of the clarification/new information. That neither chose to do so does not make the attempted help comments following the opposes inappropriate. I, for one, am glad to know what has been deleted, as i cannot see it, and to learn that much is not anything to concern us. Cheers, Lindsay 07:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Nobody's stopping you from asking questions of supporters. There's a couple of reasons for the questions asked of opposers. Since you need at least 75-80% support to pass an RfA it follows that opposes are 3 or 4 times as powerful as supports. It's only natural to scrutinise influential vetos more closely. Another reason is that opposes are, by their nature, expressions of disapproval towards the candidate. If someone is going to disrespect a candidate's character and contributions, they should expect objections if that derision is not well-founded. Another reason is that sometimes you just can't win. For example, we have one RfA regular who opposes anyone who doesn't write articles, and another who opposes anyone who works on articles in the "wrong" subject areas (ie. every subject area), so the deck is really stacked against all candidates. Reyk YO! 07:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Greg, I usually agree that you get too much badgering for your !votes (even if I personally disagree with your criteria), but I'm not sure that's true here, especially if you're referring to responses to your oppose in particular. "Could you expand..." is a perfectly valid question and if you want, you can ask it to as many supporters as you want. Juliancolton's "Trolling?" was unhelpful, but everything else seemed to be constructive. (I know this general comments section has been moved already but I'm still going to complain; I think this discussion belongs on the talk because it's not directly related to Wbm1058.) — Bilorv(talk) 09:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
While I think calling out unhelpful RfA rationales like GregJackP's (which has nothing to do with the question whether the candidate can be trusted with the tools) is necessary in the current RfA structure: shouldn't we rather have this discussion at WT:RFA? It is not at all related to the candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 09:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Unhelpful comments such as yours are the exact reason that this discussion should be here. Harassing and belittling those who take the time to participate is not appropriate behavior. GregJackP Boomer! 15:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@GregJackP, We've already seen some of the Oppose examples stricken by the people who made them because of the comments that others have raised. I'm sure if there were an equivalent in the support section then it would be challenged. Taking a hypothetical example, if there was a support for writing a particular article, and all the candidate had done was rename that article, then I would hope that there would be a challenge from someone else pointing that out and the person who had done that would amend or even remove their support. But whilst there were clear mistakes in the oppose section, so far there don't seem to be among the supporters. ϢereSpielChequers 14:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure is an equivalent in the support section, yet it has been unchallenged. Are you saying it should be challenged? GregJackP Boomer! 15:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure is the equivalent of per nom, it is not in any way the equivalent of the example I gave. The equivalent in the Oppose section would be an oppose that was per one or more of the earlier opposes, such are common in RFAs once the Oppose section gets into double figures. The only challenge I have made to such !votes in the past is when someone opposes per an earlier Oppose, and the original opposer later strikes that oppose. ϢereSpielChequers 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Odd that this is brought up by the first person in this RFA to "call for an answer". And now they've asked a number of supporters to explain their rationales despite clearly stating this shouldn't be done for the opposes. It seems particularly WP:POINTY. Mkdw 15:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you make an opinion here you can expect it to be challenged, questioned and commented on. Just like on the rest of Misplaced Pages. I don't know where the idea came from that someone questioning your opinion is some sort of inappropriate act. This is how things get done here. If you don't feel like you can defend your position then perhaps you need to reconsider it.

Question the opposes, question the supports. It is the only way to filter out when people are basing their opinion on sensible or stupid things. Chillum 16:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why it is important to question people's opinions: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Wbm1058#Explanation_of_Stern_Stewart_.26_Co.
Sometimes people are wrong and debate allows us to find that out. If we are just to let people put down their opinion without the opportunity for rebuttal then we are going to miss it when they are incorrect. Chillum 19:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Moved from RFA page.
  • GregJackP RFA is, at base, a discussion, so this must be kept in mind when expressing your opinion (even if done in the form of a numbered list). Asking someone to expand their position is a completely legitimate exercise in this context and if the position is well-founded, the elucidation of same may in fact sway participants to opine similarly if they are able to fully understand the position. Of course there is a line to be drawn between "questioning" and "hectoring", but I do not think that line has been crossed here. –xeno 10:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree. It happens on every single RfA. Comments such as "trolling," "non-reasonable," "unhelpful," and other pointed comments are badgering, especially when numerous editors are also pointing out the same thing about content creation. GregJackP Boomer! 14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll agree, but in less polite terms: it's extremely childish to post an admittedly controversial vote and start barking about "badgering" when somebody tries to engage you in discussion. "I'm sorry that he did the same to you as he did to us"? Really? RfA becomes a round of "us vs. them" as soon as a conversation emerges? Well, apparently so, seeing as people have begun voting to align with the victims of this rampant badgering. I'm not often this blunt, and I hold no animosity toward anybody involved in this discussion, but some of the ideas submitted here have been absolutely outrageous. – Juliancolton |  14:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Your comments, coming from one whose first comment to me was to ask if I were "trolling," are hypocritical and disingenuous. It is outrageous and you should be ashamed of yourself. GregJackP Boomer! 14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I was genuinely wondering the same thing. I held my tongue though. It seems now that you are serious. Really it is a bit much that you complain that people have challenged your position when several of the examples you have given are shown to be flawed. If we did not challenge your claims we would not have figured that out. Chillum 14:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of GregJackP's oppose !vote

  1. Oppose per this. Almost all of the articles created are dab pages or lists, no B class or above, no GA/FA, way too many of the created articles have been subsequently deleted. GregJackP Boomer! 21:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    Could you expand on "too many of the created articles have been subsequently deleted"? Looking through Wbm's edit history, I only see a single mainspace page he created in the last year and a half that's been deleted since. I also see no pages moved to mainspace from AFC that have been deleted in that same time period. Sure, If I look back to 2012 I can find a bunch of categories he created that have since been deleted - is that what you were referring to? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Lujanbio, MOGAS Oil, Westland United F.C., https://en.wikipedia.org/''%E5%94%90%E5%B1%B1''?redirect=no ''唐山'', IMDRF, K.Hari Kumar, EHMC, Brand New (prefix), Special-purpose page name maintenance templates, Kitchen collection, and R from foreign name. In addition, MS-Net was deleted and recreated by another editor. The Bitter melon tea redirect was deleted to make room for a real article. Land to the tiller was deleted to create a dab page. He's created 47 mainspace pages. Of those, 15 have been deleted according to this. That's 32% of the articles that he's created being deleted. To me, that is a problem. GregJackP Boomer! 00:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Trolling? – Juliancolton |  00:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    No, Juliancolton, I do not believe that you are trolling. But thanks for your input. GregJackP Boomer! 01:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    No, Juliancolton, he's not trolling. In fact, he raises a legitimate concern. While this particular user seems like a fine candidate, I also think that admins should be able to create good and/or featured content, even it's just ITN or DYK. We have too many admins that don't contribute to content at all, even though content is the most vital part of Misplaced Pages. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    I don't disagree on that point, but it's monumentally silly to hold procedural deletions of single-revision redirects against a candidate. – Juliancolton |  02:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Exactly how are non-admins supposed to know that it is a single-revision redirect? We cannot look at the contents of the deleted page and the information is not posted on the deletion log. GregJackP Boomer! 05:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    You're not, but that's why a reasonable non-admin might first inquire as to the contents of the deleted pages instead of opposing straight-off. That said, you could have probably pieced together what was going on from the helpful deletion rationales, which overwhelmingly cite G7 or G8 and not something more indicative of wrongdoing. I'd be happy to describe each of the candidate's deleted pages, and the events leading to their deletions, if anybody's interested. – Juliancolton |  14:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    I'm soo glad that you distinguish between reasonable and non-reasonable mere editors inquire about. That way, those who might otherwise be seen as trolls know how to properly act so that admins are satisfied. GregJackP Boomer! 15:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Ah, I see you fall solidly into the "non-reasonable" camp. Thanks for making that so clear. My offer stands, in any case. – Juliancolton |  15:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you for your input. I will give it all the consideration it is due. GregJackP Boomer! 21:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    That seems unfair, greg. Lujanbio was simply a redirect to a page that did exist, created by a different editor, that was later deleted. Same story for MOGAS Oil, which incidentally was later recreated. Same story for Westland United F.C., IMDRF, K.Hari Kumar, and EHMC. I won't defend the rest, but most were years ago. I get your point, but six of your examples are just instances of Wmb doing gnomish work related to an article, created by someone else, that was later deleted. I'm not trying to change your mind, by the way, just clarifying what you found. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    I'm basing it on the x-tools articles created page, linked above in the hatted RfA/RfB toolbox section, or directly above in my response to your question. Even if you discount all of those, you still have no article creation to speak of, and in the questions above he speaks of hoping that someone else will take the article he is most proud of to a GA status. If he wants it to be a GA, read the instructions and do it. GregJackP Boomer! 01:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Gah, its almost a cliché for you to auto-vote oppose because of no GA/FA and I know that opinions will not change, but currently, I do find things like GA and FA extremely backlogged and slow. It simply isn't a good marker for content creation at this time. I nommed an article for GA back in June and it still hasn't been touched, like many articles. not (talk/contribs) 10:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    And I'll continue to oppose RfAs where there is no content creation. I actually agree with your position on the backlog, and would take that into consideration were it a factor. Thus far, none of the candidates I have opposed have even had an article in the GA/FA pipeline. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 15:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    I don't agree with GregJackP about much -- and, in fact, I don't agree with the extremely tight focus of his content creation requirements -- but he has as much right as every other editor on Misplaced Pages to set up standards which are his standards, and to follow them where they take him. The badgering of him in this RfA is unseemly, and counterproductive. More editors should do what he has done and come up with a set of standards they follow. (I certainly haven't, my standards are more ad hoc, although there are generally things I look for.) Now, can we stop this sideshow, leave GregJackP alone and get on with it? I'm not sure why supporters are being so aggressive, considering that it looks more than likely that the candidate will pass the bar. BMK (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, we all understand that he's entitled to his opinion, and Greg knows full well that his singular RfA criterion stirs up a lot of controversy and he seems to be at peace with that fact. Whatever. His own behavior has become increasingly unseemly and counterproductive though and I suspect that has something to do with the ensuing flame war getting worse. Condescension, passive-aggressiveness and now badgering supporters for not offering a support rationale (something that's quite literally never been demanded from anyone at RfA), he seems to be hellbent on getting increasingly unreasonable and POINTy at RfA and I expect the sideshows he provokes will continue to grow with his own unproductive commentary. Swarm ♠ 20:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    Why don't you go harass some little kids somewhere? If you want to know why I'm questioning supporters, talk to Chillum, he's the one that told me to do so. GregJackP Boomer! 23:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    You asked me to leave you alone GregJackP and I did, why are you pinging me? If you want to talk about this you can come to my talk page but I have no intention of engaging you further here. Clearly this is a drama fest and not everyone is into that. Chillum 01:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    There seems to be a danger that this discussion will soon turn into a mud-slinging festival if it doesn't end shortly. Can't everyone just drop it and move forward with the RfA? I'm also moving this to the talk page; it's become much too long and messy for the main page. --Biblioworm (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    I ask for a cessation of hostilities, and you come back with that? Not the kind of good judgment I expect to see from an admin. If you've got problems with GregJackP, bring it to the noticeboards. Let's allow this whole thing to drop, please. BMK (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Wbm1058 Add topic