Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Kees08

JBH's oppose

1. There is no question that the candidate is a wonderful content creator, I simply do not subscribe to the much held belief that a good content creator will necessarily make a good admin. Participation in processes which relate to an admin's duties are, in my strong opinion, the meter for measure.
   • While avoiding conflict is admirable, admins are supposed to deescalate, manage or resolve conflict not simply avoid it. An admin who does not have some track record beyond the two exchange talk page conversation the candidate provided as a an example of how the handle conflict [1] simply has not demonstrated an aptitude I consider essential for an admin.
   • In the case of AfD I see little participation, a 60%/65% match rate and only one of seven nominations resulted in a delete. Of the rest the outcomes the bulk were redirects or merges (WP:JUSTDOIT, no need for AfD]]) with one keep.

     Beyond the raw stats I do not see solid, policy based, rationale in nominations or !votes.

   • Of their 6 requests at RfPP only two resulted in page protection. They have only two reports at AIV. This does not demonstrate to me a solid understanding or interest in these areas. They have not indicated an interest in these areas but these are fundamental administrative functions which have explicit 'tools' in the admin kit.
   • The candidate expresses a desire to work at DYK because "DYK needs more admins" but as Alex Shih points out, their experience there is limited and there is no indication they have tried to address issues that can be addressed without tools.

   In summary there is every indication that the candidate is a great editor but there is nothing that shows they would be a good admin. Jbh ^Talk 04:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   So, there’s no indication he’d be a bad administrator is what you’re saying? If you actually look at the AfD contributions instead of quote the Wikipediocracy headline on them, you’ll see that he is not active at AfD, and he usually only participates around the times when he nominates articles for deletion. He comments on the AfDs that generally have either been relisted or have debate, and all of his comments there are reasonable. For some reason unknown to me the AfD stats tool counts “merge” as a miss when it’s functionally the same as redirect. Proposing borderline articles for deletion via discussion shows someone who prefers consensus rather than rash action, which is something I think is a good quality in an administrator.

   On the disputes issue: I don’t think we ask people to list every possible dispute they have had. We ask them to show interactions that have been tense. Listing a content dispute where an editor creates a userbox criticizing you as a prose Nazi and keeping your cool is the exact type of temperament we want as an administrator. Taking articles through FAC requires giving and receiving feedback and is the heart of that question: he’s done this six times, I don’t think anyone can argue he doesn’t know how to calmly respond to that.

   Finally, on the DYK point, I don’t think that is a fair argument at all. There are users who regularly request that any administrator help out in that area. We don’t require them to go through some special course. What we require is competence and ability to understand quality content: Kees08 has more than shown that. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   @TonyBallioni: ...but, what I am looking for is evidence they will be a good administrator. The whole 'no big deal' thing is BS and has been for a long time now. The canard of "no reason to think they will not abuse the tools" is, in my very... very... very strong opinion, simply not a reason to support.

   As to the WO thread it is quoting me!! -- the original, as I remember was a bare <link> or maybe with a one-liner about poor AfD, now it is quoting stats from my !vote. I understand you nominated this editor but I am a bit miffed about the accusation of proxying for WO -- I posted my reasoning along with the stats I looked up cf my 300 word !vote vs the (now) 20 word WO post by someone called ShinkawaGirl as opposed to Jbhunley. Unless you mean to say I am acting as a proxy for myself under a fake username? Nah... that'd be both a self-referential loop and silly.

   Regardless, I stand by my !vote, my reasoning and my personal requirement that an RfA candidate must show some indication they will be a good admin not simply not a bad admin. Jbh ^Talk 06:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   I wasn’t accusing you of proxying, just that it looked like taking a bare link headline on an off-wiki forum and not looking into the details, which aren’t exactly what the number suggests. I respect you and your views, so apologies if it came off that way. My response here was not trying to discount your right to hold them, solely pointing out to anyone who might read the substantial comment you made that there’s significantly more behind the things you are citing than i think you give credit. You’re free to disagree with that, but I think it’s important to have as part of this discussion. As to no evidence of being a good administrator: that all comes down to temperament, and I think Kees08 has enough of a record for me to make a judgement on that. Anyway, thanks for the ping, and again apologies if my comment came off as implying things not intended TonyBallioni (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   I took a closer look at some of the AfD nominations; For instance AfD 1, AfD 2, AfD 3 were very short Paralympic athletes. Since he knew the notability guidelines well enough to know they had no presumed" notability, presumably failed a BEFORE but, as competitors were likely search terms a BOLD redirect would have been, in my opinion, more proper. The 'Keep' !vote in the identically situated AfD 4 is disturbing -- yes, there are numerically more sources but the situation and coverage is essentially the same as the other three. Even though the AfD resulted in a 'Merge' it was turned into a 'Redirect' [2] the same as the others. None of this is terrible or even bad and, if they had more AfDs to examine it could be ignored but they do not. So, regardless of content creation this makes me worry about their ability to judge other's creations. That the one 'Keep' was an article they had added material to while the others were not is a bit concerning when considered in conjunction.

   I point this out because it is the kind of thing, helped contribute to my uneasiness in this RfA - not enough information on how the candidate performs outside of content creation.

   Admins judge consensus; manage disputes; deal with vandals; deal with violations of behavioral guidelines and suppress "bad" edits. For this they have some extra buttons. They also get status/informal positional authority when dealing with disputes where they are UNINVOLVED -- a very different psychological place to work from as opposed to dealing with one's own content creation and the disputes related to it. This fundamental difference is why I do not see an ability to work with others in an INVOLVED situation as serving as a proxy for an ability to interact and act appropriately while being UNINVOLVED. I can write many, many words on that difference but I will spare you and the readers of this RfA from my further pontificating. (Yeah... I know... a bit late for that ) Jbh ^Talk 06:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   Comment: Often RfAs are opposed due to a lack of content work (but frequent participation in bureaucratic processes). Here we have an editor with evidently strong content ability being opposed, and I don't really understand the rationale. We're here to build an encylopedia. All the admin stuff is incidental to that aim. There's no need for admins to be experts in every admin task, and without the bit, how can they demonstrate ability? Is conjecture helpful? Content work demonstrates a level head, ability to abide by content policies, and collegiality with other editors. It is a litmus test of a good admin. 130.95.175.240 (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   That has to be one of most tenuous oppose rationales I seen put forward in a long time. More so since you've had to update it using the rationale's from another editor to support your main argument. You should withdraw it. scope_creep^Talk 09:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   Now that this is on the talk page... If we are throwing should around here you should respect my right to an opinion you do not agree with. If you have something substantive to say about my reasoning then I am willing to listen and may change my mind if I find your argument persuasive. As it stands your comment is simply rude. Jbh ^Talk 16:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   Hi @Jbhunley: Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. I've often seen your comments at Rfa in the past and valued them and been guided by them and that was reason I posted this. But this time I really don't agree with you, but you certainly you have a right to say it. You have essentially posited a editor was wasn't there' scenario on the most tenuous of evidence and because they weren't there, it is being used against them. Your three caveats results in In summary there is every indication that the candidate is a great editor but there is nothing that shows they would be a good admin could as well have been In summary there is every indication that the candidate is a great editor but there is nothing that shows they would be a bad admin as there is no evidence to support either scenario. scope_creep^Talk 18:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   In my view, the commonly held perception that people should 'learn the ropes' of adminship prior to getting the bit is deeply problematic. It is unhelpful for so many reasons. It suffices to say, for present purposes, that it leads people to participate in bureaucratic processes for the wrong reasons. Participation in those processes should be incidental to the main project goal: building an encyclopedia. Participation in those processes should not be seen as a war game or a preparatory school in adminship. People should not be there in order to build up experience to demonstrate at an RfA. Admins learn on the job after they get the bit. They can and will make mistakes. What is more foundational is understanding the project's goals, being collegiate, and demonstrating a willingness to learn and ability to adhere to policy. All of these are often fulfilled by exceptional content editors. I'm not convinced there is ever a sound basis for considering experience in 'admin areas'. It simply rises no higher than conjecture. The only time it might be relevant is where the participation in those processes is so poor as to warrant a conclusion that the editor either has a profound lack of judgement, or is not collegiate. Unsurprisingly, that is rarely the case with exceptional content editors, and it is certainly not the case here. Being an exceptionally good content editor should suffice to get adminship. No big deal and all that. It's a pity that seems to be an unpopular point of view. My $2c. 130.95.175.240 (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

   Amen. In my view, the #1 reason we don't have more RfA candidates is because we treat volunteer work as a job interview. – Levivich 03:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

   An exceptionally insightful comment, User:130.95.175.40. I’ve reproduced it to my talk page for posterity. –xeno^talk 19:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Right. The questions we should ask is how have they contributed to the encyclopedia? Will they abuse the tools? Will they make bad decisions? Are they vindictive? Do they have a demonstrated bias? Do they hide their COI? This candidate has been a volunteer for a long time. Lightburst (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion re: Kirbanzo’s neutral

1. Neutral - after reviewing the arguments put forth, it does seem they are kinda on the fence of being ready for adminship. However, the fact they mainly want to work on the main page despite having no experience edges my !vote from a weak support to being neutral. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 14:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

   '''Oppose''', wants to work on the main page but has never even edited the main page! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

   '''Oppose''', wants to work as an admin but has never been an admin. – Lourdes 02:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

   Wow! badgering bullying (the correct term) someone for having and expresding an opinion you do not agree with... that is some no-class behavior there. Shame on both of you. Jbh ^Talk 23:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC) Edit to add @Juliancolton and Lourdes:. In case they are not reading this page. Jbh ^Talk 23:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Moved discussion, the sarcasm is not warranted. I would point out as well, that one can gain experience in the main page as a non-administrator by participating in the prep areas. –xeno^talk 07:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)