Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ragesoss
Edit summary[edit]
Edit summary from http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Ragesoss&site=en.wikipedia.org
User:Ragesoss run at Fri Apr 20 04:32:41 2007 GMT Category talk: 24 Category: 126 Image talk: 3 Image: 32 Mainspace 2821 Portal talk: 124 Portal: 734 Talk: 801 Template talk: 36 Template: 97 User talk: 617 User: 573 Wikipedia talk: 263 Wikipedia: 1112 avg edits per page 2.31 earliest 22:20, 4 July 2005 number of unique pages 3185 total 7363 2005/7 5 2005/8 2 2005/9 0 2005/10 5 2005/11 0 2005/12 176 2006/1 1126 2006/2 832 2006/3 477 2006/4 244 2006/5 956 2006/6 345 2006/7 314 2006/8 98 2006/9 227 2006/10 253 2006/11 166 2006/12 468 2007/1 536 2007/2 193 2007/3 601 2007/4 339 (green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary) Mainspace 178 Johannes Kepler 168 History of biology 38 List of people known as father or mother of something 27 Epaminondas 24 History of science 24 19th century 21 Military funding of science 21 Thomas Hunt Morgan 20 Frank Macfarlane Burnet 19 Science wars 18 History of model organisms 18 History of geology 17 Scientific Revolution 16 Galileo Galilei 15 Dmitri Mendeleev Talk: 41 Intelligent design 33 Scientific Revolution 26 Johannes Kepler 16 19th century 14 Relationship between religion and science 12 History of biology 10 Cold War 8 G. Ledyard Stebbins 8 Women in science 8 Nuclear weapon 8 Science wars 8 List of people known as father or mother of something 7 Noah's Ark 7 CIA leak scandal (2003) 6 Galileo affair Category talk: 12 History of science 3 Manhattan Project 2 Science in society 2 Historical geology Category: 5 Science writing 3 Science in society 3 Science bloggers 3 Sociology of science 3 History of science 3 Tree of life 3 History of science stubs 2 Science blogs 2 Obsolete scientific theories 2 American naturalists 2 Science experiments 2 Hybrid organisms 2 Historiography of science 2 Science books 2 Science and culture Image: 4 Wright Alchemist.jpg 3 Haeckel Chiroptera.jpg 3 Tate Modern irony.png 3 Tate Modern irony.jpg 2 Inherit-the-Wind-poster.jpg 2 Tesla, tuxedo cat.jpg Portal: 58 History of science/Picture 54 History of science/Previous pictures 46 History of science 32 History of science/Opentask 28 History of science/Topics 24 History of science/Article/2006 archive 21 History/Subportals 19 History of science/Article 19 History of science/Did you know 12 History of science/Intro 12 List of portals 11 History of Science/Article 10 History of science/Categories 10 Science/Subportals 9 History of science/Portals Portal talk: 61 History of science/Picture 13 History of science 12 Science 7 Biology 6 History of science/Did you know 4 Technology 3 List of portals 3 Music 3 History of science/Article 2 Biology/Archive 3 2 Box-header Template: 15 HistSciAnnounce 8 History of science 7 Announcements/Community bulletin board 7 HistSci 5 HOSCOTMprev 5 Browsebar graphic 5 Nuclear weapons 3 In-universe 3 HOSCOTMcur 3 Browsebar 2 Science Fiction Project 2 Copyvio 2 FPCnom/init 2 Wikiportal:History of Science/Picture 2 Progressivism Template talk: 16 Infobox Scientist 8 Copyvio 2 Pnc User: 157 Ragesoss 130 Ragesoss/sandbox 43 Ragesoss/template 40 Ragesoss/Haeckel 36 Ragesoss/monobook.js 25 Ragesoss/template/box-header 20 Ragesoss/history of science 11 Ragesoss/Manifesto 9 Ragesoss/HIST 236 9 Ragesoss/Quotes 8 Utestudent/Survey 8 Ragesoss/History of biotechnology 7 Ragesoss/Embryo drawings 6 Ragesoss/Assignments 6 Linuxbeak/Wikimania 2006/Wikipedian Survey User talk: 18 Ragesoss 12 SteveMcCluskey 11 Linas 9 Fastfission 9 Samsara 7 Logicus 7 Ddp224 6 PDH 6 NCurse 6 LinaMishima/Experts Problem 5 Nunh-huh 5 Cyberjunkie 5 Pengo/archive 4 4 Rusty Cashman 4 DonSiano Wikipedia: 190 WikiProject History of Science 29 WikiProject History of Science/scientists 26 Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions 25 WikiProject History of Science/Collaboration of the Month 14 BJAODN:The Next Page Title 14 Article Creation and Improvement Drive 13 Wikipedia Signpost/2006-07-31/Listserv 12 Featured article candidates/Johannes Kepler 11 WikiProject History of Science/Collaboration of the Month/History 11 Featured picture candidates 11 WikiProject History of Science/Collaboration of the Month/current 10 Sandbox/Wikistory (Sentence) 9 WikiProject Science Fiction 8 Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-26/Wikipedia and academia 8 Admin accountability poll Wikipedia talk: 60 WikiProject History of Science 35 Manual of Style (writing about fiction) 12 Stable versions now 11 WikiProject Pseudoscience 10 WikiProject Tree of Life 9 Portal 7 Neutral point of view 6 WikiProject Portals 6 WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft 6 Notability 5 Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew 5 WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Header poll 4 Articles about fictional concepts 4 Featured picture candidates 4 Article Creation and Improvement Drive
- Alison☺ 04:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion[edit]
I suggest that the bureaucrats may wish to ignore opinions opposing promotion on the sole stated grounds that this candidate has failed to answer optional questions. --Tony Sidaway 02:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wow ... just, wow. First of all, you misrepresent the opposing opinions. The candidate has not only refused to answer the 3 standard questions (which alone is not a big deal for me), but has also refused to answer particular questions posed by editors. Secondly, your comment is incredibly insulting. The fact that the candidate currently has 89% support makes it seem plain spiteful. It's not something I would have expected from an editor like you. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I suggest that the 'crats always ignore people that try to claim the right to tell them which opinons to ignore. In this case, this is also a perfectly valid basis for opposition. It takes a certain attitude to refuse to answer any questions, and it is quite reasonable for someone to conclude that an editor demonstrating such an attidute is totally unsuited to be an administrator, where they will be called on to explain their actions, and by virtue of being an administrator be perceived as an exemplar for proper behavior and/or a representative of the community/encyclopedia. GRBerry 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- To Black Falcon, I'm sorry that my suggestion seems spiteful. In my opinion failing to respond to optional questions is, well, an option. In response to GRBerry, I give no orders to bureaucrats, merely a suggestion. I disagree with your suggestion that it's ever reasonable to decide that a person who chooses not to respond to optional questions is "totally unsuited to be an administrator".
- However, the question of whether the bureaucrats heed my suggestion is beside the point, really. It's clear that, whilst this editor has had quite a bit of opposition from editors who raise this objection, he's had a much less grueling time of it than those who get dragged into the silly mess that the question-and-answer format has become. Thus failing to answer the questions is established as a viable proposition, and perhaps a preferable one. --Tony Sidaway 02:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, ignoring questions (even those posed by editors) is an option, but I cannot see why you would argue that opposing a candidate who has ignored inquiries by you and others is not a valid option. For the most part, bureaucrats ignore comments by sockpuppets. Your suggestions seems to indicate that those opposing Ragesoss' candidacy essentially belong in the same class. Also, although I am sure that you did not write your comment out of spite, it certainly "seems" that way because it is completely unnecessary ... the candidate has >90% support. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't claim that it isn't a valid option, and I don't claim that those chosing to oppose for that reason are sock puppets or anything akin to them. I do suggest that their opposition should be ignored. The degree of support is immaterial; the question is what to do with trivial reasons for opposing. --Tony Sidaway 03:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- What you consider a trivial reason, I may consider a capital sin. I believe that ignoring other editors is unacceptable behaviour for an admin (it's your prerogative to disagree). It's more than slightly disrespectful to call for certain opinions to be ignored just because you disagree with them. It's even worse to assume that you know under what conditions other editors should trust a candidate and to try to impose your standards on everyone else. I don't know which of the two is the case here, but either way, I find the situation rather distateful. Also, your comment that Ragesoss has "shown great initiative in ignoring the stupid questions", made at 03:50 21 April 2007, also appears less than civil considering that three editors had posted non-standard questions before then. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I find Tony's suggestion unnecessary, unhelpful & disruptive; this debate will not end with the conclusion of this matter, no matter which way this request is closed. As I write, there are enough support votes to allow any bureaucrat closing this nomination to approve this request & ignore this issue; the answers people most want about Ragesoss are surfacing due to the efforts of the people who support his nomination. If the bureaucrats decline it, then I hope that a statement is made whether they have accepted the custom of answering some -- or all -- of the questions asked is now part of the RfAr process. In any case, I doubt everyone will be happy with the outcome. -- llywrch 19:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm kinda hoping that this candidate will continue to coast this nomination, but that doesn't stop me continuing to examine his history of edits. If I find a trend of abuse, you can be assured that I'll be very quick to switch my opinion. Refusal to pander to the stupid brawl that most requests for adminship have become is absolutely not a reason to oppose, unless you think that a disgusting rabble that repels good candidates is a good thing. Let this institutionalised bullying die a quiet death, miserable, unloved and unmarked. --Tony Sidaway 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- The answers people most want about Ragesoss are surfacing due to the efforts of the people who support his nomination. Yes, precisely. Here's your free clue: we do not deny adminship for stupid reasons because that would harm Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that you believe that IAR can be used as an excuse for incivility and personal attacks, in conjunction with your expressed view that a significant number of editors as nothing more than a "disgusting rabble", lead to me conclude that there is no use in continuing this discussion, if it can be called that amongst your calls for ignoring other editors. But, then again, why wouldn't one want to ignore a disgusting rabble, right? You must forgive me if I'm not particularly convinced by your claim that you wish to avoid harm to Wikipedia or, at the least, by the methods you use toward that end. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please stop this? I'm not attacking anyone and I'm not being uncivil. I'm defending a person who has decided not to pander to the stupid brawl that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship has become. If you think I've attacked anyone, you're imagining it. If you think it's uncivil to oppose an institutionalized cockpit in as many words, you're wrong. --Tony Sidaway 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- How is it not uncivil or an attack to call a group of editors a "disgusting rabble"? Please explain that. In addition, the person you're defending has not just chosen to "not ... pander to the stupid brawl" that you claim RfA has become, but has also ignored repeated questions by multiple editors. Is it civil to ingore other people when they ask you questions? If you think the answer is yes, then we have a monumentally different understanding of civility. If I have somehow fundamentally misunderstood the intent of your statements, then please clarify what you meant. If I have interpreted them correctly, and you cannot believe that people can genuinely disagree without one side or the other necessarily being "right" or "wrong", then we really have nothing to talk about here anymore. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Tony, free clue: Black Falcon has you there. I understood your response to me as a personal attack, & I'm offended. So offended I "Saved" my previous response before calming down -- which I rolled back. -- llywrch 22:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Disgusting rabble" is perhaps an ambiguous description of the process. "Cockpit" is better. I apologise if the earlier term was misunderstood as describing personal characteristics rather than grossly unsuitable behavior. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Tony, free clue: Black Falcon has you there. I understood your response to me as a personal attack, & I'm offended. So offended I "Saved" my previous response before calming down -- which I rolled back. -- llywrch 22:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Some historical perspective[edit]
All this "question" business is nothing new—nor is the fact that some people don't like being questioned. Candidates are not applying for a job, they are offering us something (their time, and the willingness to help with housekeeping). I still stand by my comments from 2004 made here and here, in the context of my own admin nomination.[1] Don't forget that we all are volunteers. Cheers, Lupo 08:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Tally[edit]
I've taken the liberty of removing the tally, which I think misleads a lot of editors into believing that RFA is a vote. --Tony Sidaway 10:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is a vote and it requires a certain percentage to pass (75% give or take a bit according to concessions I believe). Removing anything which facilitates participation is a grave error I feel as it inhibits participation. Did the nominee request this? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Casliber, your reply reveals the problem: that you incorrectly believe it to be a vote and you even go so far as to cite a required percentage. --Tony Sidaway 10:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The bureaucrats have been working very hard to make people believe that RfA is a vote (by the way they close most RfAs). If you want to change that, please change the behaviour of the bureaucrats instead of claiming that RfA is not a vote when it behaves like one. Kusma (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The bureaucrats don't determine whether Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (RFA) is a vote of not, although on numerous occasions they have indicated clearly that they believe that it is not. It is a tool for deciding the consensus of the community on the suitability of an administrator candidate. --Tony Sidaway 10:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The bureaucrats have been working very hard to make people believe that RfA is a vote (by the way they close most RfAs). If you want to change that, please change the behaviour of the bureaucrats instead of claiming that RfA is not a vote when it behaves like one. Kusma (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Casliber, your reply reveals the problem: that you incorrectly believe it to be a vote and you even go so far as to cite a required percentage. --Tony Sidaway 10:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)