Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Rosguill

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.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Discussion of GregJackP’s position[edit]

Oppose, per criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 02:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of this is that your own criteria states you endorse the position of Ritchie333, but Ritchie333 is co-nomming this RFA.--WaltCip (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
agree w/ WaltCip--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a criterion, not criteria.--~T P W 19:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected this error in the body of the linked essay. --JBL (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To each their own, but I disagree with the criterion because while it's true that We don't ask non-pilots to supervise the Air Force, it's also true that we don't ask admin to supervise Wikipedia. – Levivich 20:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might suggest you word this oppose as, "Per my criteria" or "Per my essay". Saying "per criteria" implies that you are opposing on the grounds it violates a consensus opinion held by the community. Angryapathy (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I disagree with GregJackP but he's been clear as to why he's opposing and this is just nit-picking his opinion. Can't folk just leave him be? FOARP (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, because WaltCip, Ozzie10aaaa, JBL, and the rest would rather badger those who don't agree with them. BTW Joel B. Lewis, stay the hell away from my essay, which is supposed to explain my position on supporting admin noms. GregJackP Boomer! 03:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I make one comment and you call it badgering? Give me a break. WaltCip (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's badgering. How many of the supporters have comments under their !vote? It happens to me every time, and it's wrong. GregJackP Boomer! 00:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then, I'll come out and say it. Your criteria/criterion is ridiculous. It's ridiculous to expect every prospective admin to create FA/GA. And yes, I will call out how ridiculous and absurd it is. The fact you are the only opposition vote to this RFA speaks volumes.--WaltCip (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't use it as your criteria. And since you now understand that I will continue to use it as my criteria, I would hope that you'll not comment on my !votes on future RfAs, at least when I announce that it's based on my criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 00:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'll continue to call it out, especially when you're the sole opposition, because it's a nonsensical stance.--WaltCip (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that is why it is badgering. Why not worry about your crap and leave mine alone? GregJackP Boomer! 02:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with WaltCip. RFAs are supposed to be judged on their own merits, and your rigid criteria ignores the fact that this candidate does in fact have a decent level of content creation. If he didn’t, Ritchie wouldn’t have nominated him. And you should expect opposes to have a much greater level of scrutiny than supports, which are essentially endorsements of the nominator’s position and rarely require follow-up. P-K3 (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am judging this RfA on the merits, based on my criteria, and based on the fact that he's got very limited content creation experience. I get that you don't like my position. Too bad, I'm not here to make you or anyone else feel good about themselves. GregJackP Boomer! 00:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFA gets 101 comments, but the only one people really care about is the sole response in opposition. Happens every time, lol. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I never comment at these things because I have no desire to be an admin, no in-depth knowledge of what an admin really does, and really don't feel qualified to render a fully informed decision on the matter. I prefer to work on quality and content creation, which requires an entirely different set of skills. But I can see why this one gets a lot of discussion, because the logic of the criteria is a bit strange. The idea that non-pilots can't be in supervisory roles in the Air Force is ludicrous ... no offense.

Flying a plane has little in common with running an air force. While it's true that in the US Air Force of today there is a "fighter-jock culture", that may be changing. Back in WWII it was a bomber-jock culture, and in the future it may be a cyber-jock culture. Pilots are not the only ones to advance into command positions. Really, that often depends upon what kind of activity they are commanding (silos), be it cyber, space, fighter, bomber, attack, fuel tanker, spreading leaflets, etc. A lot of the reason pilots advance to command roles is due to their experience, combat credibility, technical knowledge, multitasking abilities, group management skills, etc.; things inherent in being a pilot that are also needed in command. But an active pilot cannot assume a command role. Once they give up their wings they have to rotate through several different positions before they end up in a command role. And even then, it's not for every pilot, and there is no requirement that says pilots only.

In general, those with natural leadership abilities and good ideas will rise to the top regardless of whether they strap on an F-22, a garbage scow, or a kitchen apron, and in the future drone pilots, cyber warriors, space fighters, etc., may begin to outnumber the fighter jocks in command roles as the needs of combat change. Zaereth (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that being a rated officer does not make one a better leader. That's not relevant however, as one must be a rated officer (pilot, etc) in order to command a flying unit. The USAF as a whole is considered a "flying unit" so it can only be commanded by a pilot. See AFI 51-509, and one should also note that from Spaatz on, every Chief of Staff of the Air Force has been a pilot. GregJackP Boomer! 04:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it happens to you every time GregJackP, maybe there is sufficient reason to start wondering why. Armed forces, as I know well from my own experience, are known for relentless, unbending, discipline and officiousness - with rules that leave even some of the most intelligent and qualified personnel confused. Having or having had senior rank does not automatically mean one has leadership qualities, indeed, not only do many senior NCOs and officers have poor leadership attributes, many don't have any at all. Being , or having been, an NCO or officer in an armed force does not accord any special rights on Wikipedia where a non-hierarchial collegial approach to collaboration is required. Let's bear that in mind when voting or commenting at RfA, otherwise it just serves to put off even more potential candidates from running for 'office;. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was a reply to the statement that being a pilot doesn't impart leadership skills, and I pointed out that the Air Force doesn't allow non-pilots to run the Air Force, because non-pilots don't understand aerial combat in the same way. Perhaps you should concentrate on creating content (which you have shown that you can do), instead of showing up every time to badger me at any RfA I choose to participate in. If you haven't figured it out by now, I'm not very interested in your input, and would prefer you not to continue to offer it. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My criteria is definitly broader than the single criterion put forward by Jack. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Badgering a single opposer who has explained their position does not exactly contribute to a good climate at RfA, either. Really, I have seen a lot of criteria that make no sense at all. Greg's is not one of them, even if I disagree. --Pgallert (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I personally don't agree with the criterion, but it doesn't matter what we all think in this case. If GregJackP wants to vote like this, no one should stop them. They are not doing anything against WP guidelines, they are simply expressing their opinion on this candidate. Please, stop badgering them at every RfA they oppose. I also note that when they vote support with their criterion, no one jumps on them... Does that say something to y'all? maybe think about that. Thanks. Puddleglum ^2.0 16:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question about "why aren't support votes criticized" goes out the window with a candidate who receives unanimous and universal support such as this one has. When one makes an opinion on such an RFA, they should be prepared to withstand rebuttal. I stand by my comments, particularly in context to Ritchie333 supporting this RFA. No one jumps on the support votes because the support votes aren't questionable in this context.--WaltCip (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulls**t. No one jumps on the support votes because when someone questions the support votes, they get threatened with ANI for "disrupting" an RFA. But it's OK to badger the oppose votes. GregJackP Boomer! 06:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]