Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide

Edit count statistics: as of Sat Sep 22 03:23:17 2007 GMT, using the "WannabeKate" tool.

Category talk: 6 Category: 65 Image talk: 5 Image: 128 Mainspace 1514 MediaWiki talk: 1 Portal talk: 7 Portal: 146 Talk: 661 Template talk: 19 Template: 155 User talk: 2502 User: 245 Wikipedia talk: 343 Wikipedia: 1791 avg edits per page 1.93 earliest 07:58, 15 August 2006 number of unique pages 3940 total 7588 2006/8 14 2006/9 0 2006/10 0 2006/11 1 2006/12 0 2007/1 0 2007/2 0 2007/3 6 2007/4 358 2007/5 1326 2007/6 1471 2007/7 1930 2007/8 1555 2007/9 927 Mainspace 67 Age of Mythology 50 Powderfinger 32 Dream Days at the Hotel Existence 30 Call of Duty 2 28 Queensland Academy for Science, Mathematics and Technology 23 Starlight (song) 18 Age of Empires (video game) 17 I Don't Remember 16 Pick Up the Pace 16 Age of Empires (series) 15 List of units in the Age of Mythology series 15 Ross McLennan (drummer) 14 List of Powderfinger awards 14 Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties 12 Windows Live Spaces Talk: 38 Age of Mythology 27 Powderfinger 19 Dream Days at the Hotel Existence 19 Call of Duty 2 11 Lewis Mumford 10 Queensland Academy for Science, Mathematics and Technology 9 PlayStation 3 6 Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties 5 Adam Clayton 5 Starlight (song) 5 Powderfinger discography 5 List of Powderfinger awards 5 Elvis Presley 5 Renewable energy commercialisation in Australia 5 List of units in the Age of Mythology series Category talk: 2 Drag songs Category: 4 WikiProject Powderfinger 2 Top-importance Powderfinger articles 2 WikiProject Powderfinger articles 2 Australian musical group stubs 2 Start-Class Powderfinger articles 2 Powderfinger songs 2 Uncategorized good articles 2 Unknown-importance Powderfinger articles 2 B-Class Powderfinger articles 2 Far Out Corporation albums 2 FA-Class Powderfinger articles 2 WikiProject Powderfinger templates 2 Stub-Class Powderfinger articles 2 Unassessed Powderfinger articles 2 Low-importance Powderfinger articles Image: 3 D.A.F..jpg 3 Bel canto.jpg 3 Powderfinger-LoveYourWay-20seconds.ogg 3 AoMTournament.jpg 3 Internationalist powderfinger.jpg 2 Age of Mythology - The Titans Liner.jpg 2 Parablewoodenears.jpg 2 Powderfinger-OnMyMind-25seconds.ogg 2 Powderfinger-DAF-20seconds.ogg 2 PowderfingerVultureStreet.jpg 2 Powderfinger-Sunsets-20seconds.ogg 2 Dream Days at the Hotel Existence.PNG 2 Powderfinger-Passenger-20seconds.ogg 2 Bernard Fanning-Songbird-13s.ogg 2 I Don't Remember.jpg Image talk: 2 D.A.F..jpg Portal: 25 Music of Australia 7 Music of Australia/Selected article 5 Music of Australia/Intro 5 Music of Australia/Australian music news 4 Music of Australia/Selected article/9 4 Music of Australia/Selected image/2 4 Music of Australia/Selected image 4 Music of Australia/Selected article/10 3 Music of Australia/Music of Australia topics 3 Music of Australia/WikiProjects 3 Music of Australia/Selected article/3 3 Music of Australia/Selected article/1 3 Music of Australia/Selected image/1 3 Australian music 3 Music of Australia/Selected article/6 Portal talk: 4 Music of Australia 2 Roman Empire Template: 32 GA number 20 Powderfinger Banner 13 Powderfinger 11 User Powderfinger 6 Powderfinger Collab 5 Afc talk 5 Australianmusic 4 Make table 4 Age of Empires series 3 Adoptsuggest 3 GAR 3 Brisbane tasks 2 User Featured lists 2 User Featured List 2 The Australian Barnstar of National Merit Template talk: 8 WP Australia 5 Did you know 2 Australianmusic 2 Trivia/Archive 1 2 Powderfinger User: 36 R/EFD 17 Dihydrogen Monoxide 7 Giggabot 7 Dihydrogen Monoxide/monobook.js 6 Dihydrogen Monoxide/Coach 5 Nehrams2020/GA reviews 4 RazorICE 4 Diydrogen Monoxide/Awards Userbox 3 HAL 3 Diydrogen Monoxide/Articles Userbox 3 Ral315 3 AmiDaniel/VP/Approval 3 DESiegel/Template the regulars 3 SuggestBot/Requests 2 And-Rew User talk: 97 Dihydrogen Monoxide 46 Husond 44 HAL 43 Jmlk17 38 Pedro 33 Agüeybaná 33 Spebi 28 Dfrg.msc 24 DarkFalls/History Dump 1 23 Dihydrogen Monoxide/Archive 23 Hirohisat 22 Lincalinca 21 The Random Editor 21 TomasBat 21 E Wikipedia: 100 Good article candidates 49 WikiProject Powderfinger 47 Administrator intervention against vandalism 42 Good articles 28 WikiProject Good articles/GA nominees task force/GAC backlog elimination drive 26 Good article reassessment 25 Requests for adminship/Giggy 21 Bots/Requests for approval/Giggabot 18 Requests for adminship 17 WikiProject Age of Empires 17 WikiProject Australian music 15 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-10 Podilsko-Voskresenska Line 13 Australian Wikipedians' notice board 12 User categories for discussion 11 WikiProject Powderfinger/Fanclub Wikipedia talk: 75 Requests for adminship 39 WikiProject Powderfinger 30 WikiProject Video games 23 Good article candidates 18 WikiProject Powderfinger/to do 17 WikiProject Australia 11 WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Archive1 10 WikiProject Australian music 10 WikiProject Strategy games 8 WikiProject Good articles 7 Good article reassessment 7 Requests for adminship/Reform 6 Adopt-a-User 5 WikiProject Good articles/GA nominees task force/GAC backlog elimination drive 4 AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

My views on adminship

Walton tried to raise this issue throughout this Rfa, with varying levels of response, so I figure I may as well try and explain this apparent "hypocrisy."

I have nothing against granting adminship to editors who partake maintenance and article tasks.

I will only oppose a candidate who has such a balance for other reasons (incivility, etc.) - I am not in any way opposed to a candidate who writes articles and fights vandalism, comments in XfDs, patrols newpages, etc. Of the three broad categories of editors I'm outlining in this thread, this is the category that I believe I fit in too.

I have nothing against granting adminship to editors who spend the majority of their time completing maintenance tasks.

I refer here to the Ryulongs, the CSCWEMs, etc. - the editors whose #1 focus is not article work, but instead whose focus is on maintaining the project for others to improve the articles within it. It is my belief, as one who has never had the possession of admin tools, that extensive article work isn't required to be an effective admin, but practice in the maintienance area is. Others may disagree with me on this; it is my personal opinion.

I am opposed to granting adminship to editors who only work on articles.

If an editor has never tagged a page for speedy deletion before, what's going to happen when someone comes to their talk page requesting deletion of an article that's been tagged with a CSD template? Chances are, they'll blindly delete it - because they don't have the experience of people who have new page patrolled before, who can tell if an article meets criteria, etc. It's all about practice.

If there was an equivalent to adminship that benefited article writing (I can't think exactly how this would work, but you get my drift), I would be opposed to granting it to editors who only vandalfight. It's not because I dislike article writers, I just don't want someone's first encounter with an AfD to be when their incorrect closure is taken to DRV. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a straw man. If you really meant that editors who have made precisely zero meta-edits shouldn't be admins, you wouldn't find people arguing with you. But you use your position on article writing as an argument against adminship for people who simply spend too much of their time researching and not enough time gnoming, and when you're arguing that edit counting is a good basis for votes. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange how there are people arguing with me, considering that IS what I think (0 meta edits, 10% meta edits, same region). Oh, and I'm curious to see my apparant case of editcountitis, cos I can't recall opposing an RfA for it (yes, there was the WT:RFA thread, but I even there I didn't oppose for low edit count). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

10% is very, very importantly different from zero, and that is what people are trying to tell you. Wikipedia is not about percentages. It's not about edit counts. It's about building a good encyclopedia, however you are able, and that may involve editing patterns that are different from yours. And now I'll satisfy your curiosity by pointing to the RfA you snowballed citing edit count as the only reason. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, if we're going to measure experience in terms of edit count, it surely must be measured on raw count not percentage points... unless you think that someone with a 1000 article edits and 1000 meta edits (50%) has more experience than someone with 100000 article edits and 10000 meta edits (10%). The fact that you're talking in percentage points is further (unnecessary) confirmation of what you baldly stated 2½ months ago: what matters (or mattered, at least) to you is meta activity levels, not meta experience. And that is why LaraLove and others are way off the mark in comparing your statement of 2½ months ago to "more Xfd!". Hesperian 04:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps his statement is being taken too literally? I can't see him calculating a candidates edits to determine exact percentages. Perhaps I'm wrong. But it seemed reasonable to assume that his comments were to say that anyone who had the majority (around 90%) of their edits devoted to article writing, may be overwhelmed when they received the tools, as they have little experience in those areas. I'm pretty sure that if someone applied with 110,000 edits, he wouldn't oppose based on "only 100,000 edits in admin areas". But, hey, like I said, perhaps I'm interpreting it wrong. But it still reads to me like an expanded "more XfD" because I don't think he'd tell it to someone who he felt had enough experience in it, whether it be 1500 edits out of 5,000 or 3,000 edits out of 25,000. LaraLove 04:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Experience is not measured in edits, no matter what kind of measuring stick you use. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is just semantics. How many opposes say, 'Get more XfD experience and I'll be your best friend at your next RfA!' Tons. Nobody objects. DM words it differently (those who solely edit articles) and he gets kicked in the teeth for it? People are looking to oppose based on his assertions, which is very discouraging. Who cares about his criteria for adminship? It is simply not relevant to how he would use the delete button, the protect button, or the block button. the_undertow ^talk 05:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since we're picking apart what he said, it seems only fair to put his exact words on the record here.

In response to my statement, which included "I absolutely reject the notion that administrators should be drawn only from the pool of editors that work in these areas; on the contrary, I think we need more administrators that are genuinely active in building the encyclopedia.", he responded

"My opinion is the opposite. I believe that administrator tools should not be granted to editors who don't work in those areas, because they may be overwhelmed by the work when the receive them. Better for everyone to let them not have the tools, and continue building the 'pedia."

He didn't say anything about inexperience; he gave an entirely different rationale, and a profounding patronising one at that.

Back then, everybody understood H2O to be arguing that adminship should be granted only to those editors who spend most of their time in vandal-fighting, AN/I, etc. H2O is very welcome to hold a different opinion now to the one he held then, or to hold the same opinion for different reasons. But he should be honest enough to present himself as having changed his mind, rather than claiming to hold the same opinion, and then presenting a sugar-coated revisionist opinion that doesn't match what he actually said.

Hesperian 06:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. When did he change his mind? the_undertow ^talk 07:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Some time in the (I think it was) 4 months between now and then. I've not said I hold the *exact* same opinion - but the essence is similar. Your interpretation of my initial comments, and what I meant by them, is yours only - I can't be held fully responsible if you took it the wrong way. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

2½ months. Hesperian 00:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it profounding (sic) patronising? This seems totally ridiculous to me. I can respect people opposing for various reasons, but for this and for his one weak break with name change, it's just totally ridiculous. How many times have people opposed with the argument of "More XfD?" He's getting his ass chewed for elaborating on that. He gives a reason for saying it, and that's bad? Better to just say "More XfD!" Personally, I disagree with his view, but I'm not going to oppose based on that. It's also very discouraging to see so many people blindly oppose based on his break. It's not as if there hasn't been multiple instances of explanations for this, but they're being completely overlooked to the point that he had to reveal the full reason behind it. That shouldn't have been necessary.

This is the kind of BS that keeps qualified candidates from applying. Who wants to repeat themselves until they're blue in the face because voters can't be bothered to read responses before voting? Who wants to have to defend generally accepted opinions to voters who disagree with them? Who wants to have to reveal personal, real life issues that are totally irrelevant to adminship just to boar it into peoples heads that "HEY! As has been stated a dozen times already, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia!" Don't get me wrong. I have plenty of respect for most of the voters in this RfA, and I could see this RfA going either way when it started as there are valid reasons to oppose, but I am completely disappointed with some. It just snowballs. One person makes a blind, uninformed oppose and suddenly there's a bandwagon plowing through.

There was an RfA a couple months ago (that I won't name out of respect of the now-admin) but his character was totally shot to Hell for a point in time from a complete moron making baseless accusations and some others jumping on for the ride. His adminship was successful regardless, and the libelous comments were removed per WP:BLP after, but it was the ugliest RfA I've ever seen. While that was to a greater extreme than this case, it's the same sort of instance of people opposing based on other oppose votes without getting any information from the candidate. That should be considered unacceptable. For the sake of the encyclopedia, I hope everyone knocks this crap off soon. Otherwise, more qualified candidates are just not going to apply. LaraLove 02:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lara, there may be a time and place for such a rant, but I don't think this was it. The opposition here is not based on a snowballing, baseless accusation, like the other situations you compare it to. I and many others have looked at the situation carefully and found that he seems to respect edit counts too much, and article editing not enough, to believe that he will reasonably apply Wikipedia policy, and we've seen this backed up by his non-admin actions so far. I have read and considered his responses, and I do not believe them.

So I don't know if your rant was aimed at Hesperian or me or who, but I don't think anyone deserved it. We are not complete morons making baseless accusations. We simply disagree with you. Disagreements are hardly unexpected on RfA. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rants are justifiable almost anywhere they are invoked. Regarding the disagreement with his admin criteria, I've not before seen so many opposes based on a candidates history of opposing with the argument of "More XfD", but for him there is an issue. That doesn't sit well with me.

As far as who the rant was aimed at, it was no one person. No two people. It's about everyone who made an oppose vote based on someone else's oppose vote without doing any other research themselves, including so much as even reading DM's responses to previous opposes. I'm more annoyed by the opposes based on his "break" which have, in many instances, been unnecessarily hyperbolized. I find it completely unacceptable. It sways votes of those people for whom I am ranting about. They do zero research, read an exaggerated oppose, and jump on the bandwagon.

And the moron comment referred to exactly one person (who I will not name) and that person is not participating in this RfA, so far as I've noticed.

As I noted above, I'm not pissy with those who disagree with me. I knew when this RfA opened that it had a good chance of failing. And I'm not disappointed with the editors who have opposed for sound reasons. I can appreciate opposes based on the lack of time between RfAs, the questionable XfD closes, etc. But those based off of his RfA criteria and his "break" have either been (for the most part) twisted or exaggerated. And while this RfA would probably still fail, even if those votes were retracted or discounted, it's still something that people need to stop doing. There are too many blind voters for editors to exaggerate and twist contributions of candidates. LaraLove 04:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet, ironically, it is the oppose voters who have been subjected to scrutiny here. I wonder how many "blind voters" there are amongst the supporters. Hesperian 04:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As do I. Another example of kinks in the process. The difference is that blind support votes don't put candidates through unnecessary Hell. My point, which is being incorrectly taken as a passionate fight for DM, is that good editors avoid RfA because of these harsh, exaggerated opposes. How many explanations for his "break" have been posted to his RfA by him and others? Compare that to how many times it should have had to been posted, which is once. How many different variations of his RfA criteria are listed on the page? And how many of those opposes came before he even commented on it? LaraLove 05:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I see by this RfA (which does hold valid oppose votes). DM cannot be trusted with the tools because: He did not take the advice on his editorial review. His opinions on adminship somehow relate to his ability to administrate. Changed his username. Took a break. Socialized too much. Is my overview correct, or am I just misinterpreting certain comments? And I am honestly not being snarky here (<---first time I've ever used that word), but I would appreciate an opposers validating some of this. the_undertow ^talk 05:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, very funny. You missed: Created an essay advocating the use of warning templates against established users. Published private chat logs on-wiki. Has an unhealthy lust for adminship. Opinions on suitability of other candidates indicate he has no understanding of the role. Repeatedly mischaracterises good faith opposition as bad faith vengeance votes. Makes errors in closing AfDs. Makes egregiously wrong AfD nominations. Makes erroneous AIV reports. Creates pages advocating tagging other peoples user pages with undesired templates. Hesperian 05:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dood. I specifically said that I was being serious. I already noted that there were valid opposes, I just wanted an opposer to validate the ones I had listed because I didn't quite understand the connection between the oppose and adminship. the_undertow ^talk 06:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I get it. Well, I'm quite happy to validate "His opinions on adminship somehow relate to his ability to administrate." Think about it. Hesperian 06:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have. If he feels that an admin should posses X quality, it has no affect on DH's ability to use the tools. Voting for an admin and protecting pages are entirely different concepts. the_undertow ^talk 06:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And if X=a willingness to block people who piss him off? Preparedness to speedily delete pages that bore him? Protect pages on his preferred version? The fact is, H2Os expectation of the qualities and behaviour necessary to being a good administrator are abolutely core to whether he would make a good one himself. I'm struggling to see why this isn't obvious to you. Hesperian 06:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about two different things. Simply put - If DH believes an administrator needs 10K edits, it doesn't have anything to do with what he will do with a delete button. Thus - criteria for admin, and acting as one are not the same. I'm not a big fan of people who disagree with my views telling me I am missing the 'obvious' but maybe that's your thing. Could it be that we simply disagree and leave it at that? the_undertow ^talk 06:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is pretty easy to mock peoples' reasons for opposing if you choose the most trivial possible interpretation of them, and permit only that interpretation to be validated. Hesperian 06:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. I can only name, like, 10 other admins off the top of my head who've had renames, and I'm sure at least half of our 1000+ admins have taken a break at some stage. The project is screwed! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) Though this is probably tangential to the point of this nomination or it's discussion I did want to say that, as a frequent RfA reader but an infrequent contributor, I agree with Lara's last comment to the extent that RfA does sometimes seem forbidding. Whether that's a good or a bad thing, I cannot say. But if WP:NOBIGDEAL is true, it probably isn't a good thing. Into The Fray ^T/C 05:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that RfA is too forbidding. That's why I'm upset by demands for candidates to have ever higher edit counts and the "right" percentages of edits in each namespace. RfA is forbidding for mostly pointless reasons. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) I want to make a clarification for anyone who may be misunderstanding. I mean no disrespect the the mass of opposers. I appreciate the arguments from many of them. I'd be inclined to change my vote to neutral if it'd make a difference in light of some of the things I've read. My problem is specifically with those arguments I've listed above and for what that says to me about RfA as a whole, not this particular one.

For example, there are a variety of reasons I have not applied for admin despite being offered a nom multiple times. One of those reasons is that I'm not a masochist. And I'm sure there are plenty of other editors that would be great admins that share this view. Personally, I don't agree with a lot of the requirements of RfA voters. "More XfD" being one of them. But I can respect that some people think that should be required. What I can't respect is people misinterpreting a diff, opposing with a hyperbolized summary of the diff, then sitting back while a group of blind opposers jump on the bandwagon without any further explanation. These diffs get posted with a spin, subsequent voters then read it with an unintended tone implied by the oppose voter, not the original author.

I also don't agree with holding things from a user's past against them forever. People make mistakes, particularly when they're new, and they learn from them. It's assuming bad faith to think otherwise. And to, for example, call DM a hypocrite for opposing candidates with less than X number of votes after he applied with only 700 also seems unnecessary to me. He was new and, like many RfAs closed per SNOW, didn't understand it all. So to say that he can never oppose based on low edit count; that's not fair. My criteria for admin have changed since I first started participating because I've learned from each RfA. I've adapted my beliefs from arguments of others, like I hope my arguments will affect others.

Make RfA difficult for the people who deserve a difficult RfA. For the people that have questionable edits. But when such questions are raised in oppose votes, don't assume what you're reading is an accurate interpretation of the edit(s) or the action(s). Look at it yourself with unbiased eyes, make your own determination on that matter, and take into account what the candidate has to say without bad faith assumptions. And read the candidates responses to votes before making yours, because it makes voters look stupid (pardon the bluntness), in my opinion, when they oppose per issue X raised by oppose voter 2 (random number not in reference to this RfA), when it's already been clarified as nothing to worry about. And that's not directed to any one person; that's directed at everyone that participates in RfA. LaraLove 14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)