Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/The Night Watch

Extended discussion of Johnnie Bob's support

Moved from the main page. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Johnnie Bob: Please strike the first portion of your comment. RfA votes are based on objective, evidential analysis of the candidate's history rather than divisive and exclusionary superstition. No politics or religion, please. ——Serial 15:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 I have seen all kinds of rationales for both supports and opposes over the years, some of which I thought were weak or even frivolous. Ultimately, it's the user's prerogative and their !vote will be weighed according to its merits by the closing crat. And of course, you are free to disagree with their rational. However, labeling someone's sincerely held religious beliefs in a community discussion as "divisive and exclusionary superstition" is rude, and IMO comes very close to a breach of NPA. I would encourage you to reconsider your comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Ad Orientam, I consider every comment I make before hitting publish. Except in some lighthearted areas, of course. But I must take issue with this. I mean no disrespect to anyone, personally. But as you say, this is a community discussion, and I don't think personal philosophies have a role to play in evaluating a candidate, particularly if it's a particular philosophy of no relevance to our work of building an encyclopedia. I take no issue with what people profess on their user pages, or in 'private' talk page chat. However, there are over 100 contributors to this discussion. Only one feels the need—or believes they have the right—to call upon deities to do so. And that is notwithstanding those whose belief systems are governed or influenced by another God, other Gods,. or none at all, all of whom have also not felt the need to raise these beliefs or lack thereof. I agree with your implication that such non-evidence-based votes will likely be weighted against. In the event of a crat chat, anyway. But at the moment, their vote is being given parity and equal weight with many other well-honed, cogently argued and evidenced-based comments on both sides of the discussion—all of which I recognise and respect whether I agree with them or not. Personally, I feel it is offensive to those editors that this vote should stand alongside. Now. You are an admin to be respected, so you don't need me to iterate that if you feel a comment should be refactored or removed, you should feel free to do so. Likewise, if I (indeed, or anyone else), makes a comment you feel is blockable, then you should block. I would not or do not consider you biased or involved to any degree. Sequere conscientiam tuam; you must do what you consider necessary and most beneficial to the project, whether in furtherance of its long-term goals or in protecting its short-term requirements. To close, what better than wise words I recall from a previous discussion, and how they might apply more generally to Wikipedia discussions, whether or not they pertain to belief or unbelief:

The bottom line is that we all need to aware that Wikipedia is a highly diverse environment with different people, different value systems and sensitivities. With that in mind we should be careful in the language we use when talking to and with one another.

——Serial 17:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

A few quick points. If you had simply said that you believe that support (or presumably opposes) based on religious belief are suboptimal and don't meet your understanding of the kind of arguments that the community finds persuasive, that would have been fine. Point in fact, I'd probably agree with you. My concern is not that you found their argument to be inconsistent with what we normally look for in these discussions, but that you chose to make a comment that belittles their belief system and values. Something I find all the more puzzling given the bottom line you very eloquently expressed in the last two sentences above. Secondly, as an admin I try not to jump right into refactoring/revdeling other users' comments unless they are blatantly trollish or so egregious that commonsense demands immediate action. I prefer to start by assuming good faith insofar as possible with the realization that we all have moments when we sometimes post too quickly or make ill-considered remarks in the heat of the moment. Caritas est prima regula legis. Beyond that, my comments here are those of an experienced editor, not an admin. I already commented in the discussion and so would be INVOLVED even if I did feel that a comment in this RfA was nakedly disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "divisive and exclusionary superstition" is where you crossed over into belittling territory. It's disappointing you haven't used this opportunity to reflect on that and remove it. If you do come around please feel free to strike my comment. Nemov (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing, that kind of talk to another editor is absolutely not acceptable. Good on Mr rnddude for moving it off the main RfA page – I would've gone further and request that a bureaucrat just {{rpa}} it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Was going to mention it earlier but it got moved. It's arguably worse than what everyone is opposing over. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Dude cited WP:JESUSCHRIST Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I am earnestly trying to come up with a good-faith interpretation of this comment, and not succeeding. It's an open question whether explicitly theological reasoning is a valid rationale for an opinion the suitability of administrator candidates. On the other hand, referring to said theology as "divisive and exclusionary superstition" is absurdly uncollegial, unnecessary, and reddit. What on Earth was the point of saying that? jp×g🗯️ 16:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Johnnie Bob: I hope you'll read this thread if you haven't already because it should be enough to convince you to unstrike the text you crossed out from your vote. Also, you should feel free to use rationales like that anywhere you feel it's appropriate. City of Silver 04:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: Let's not get carried away here. That kind of rationale wouldn't be okay everywhere on this project, so blanket statements aren't going to be helpful. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@MJL: Terrific! I can't imagine any fallout coming from a guy getting in some sort of trouble for harmlessly invoking his religious beliefs on here. City of Silver 03:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: I'm not sure I understand the tone of your response..? I was just pointing out that WP:NOTFORUM is a thing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Ad Orientem here for the most part, but the "exclusionary superstition" comment was clearly a personal attack, Serial Number 54129, and should be struck. For the record, I'm not a Christian, I have no dog in this hunt, but I fail to see why it bothers people that other people use the teachings of the bible, or the torah, or the Quran, or whatever text they want to base their decisions of who they trust to hold the bit. There is a threshold where it become overly evangelical, which I could agree is a problem because enwp isn't a platform to convert heathens like myself, but I fail to see how this crossed that line. Raising this much hell over it shows an embarrassing amount of intolerance from otherwise "enlightened" people. Dennis Brown 2¢ 06:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Classic WP:CLEARLY. It's rude, but not a PA. Is somebody wants to vote at RfA because their supper noodles formed into a shape suggesting approval from the flying spaghetti monster, they surely can and will. I wouldn't expect rational people to be very impressed though. Bon courage (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It is clearly a personal attack because he is demeaning someone and saying they are using a belief in "exclusionary superstition" (two elements to the insult here, not one) as an attack. He is saying all Christians/beliefs are de facto exclusionary, and their beliefs are superstition. It is no different if the editor was Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, Jewish, etc. Mocking another person for their faith is a personal attack. Dennis Brown 2¢ 06:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Well it's a view, but a wrong one. Criticising a religion and/or religion-based argumentation is not mocking a person. You'd be all for extending faux respect to Scientology-based reasoning, I take it. Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say he criticized the religion, he criticized another persons belief. There is a difference between criticizing a religion, and criticizing a person for believing in it, by using the supplied adjectives. Dennis Brown 2¢ 07:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me also add, that asking to exclude someone's rationale because you think their religion is exclusionary is ironically hypocritical. Dennis Brown 2¢ 07:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the beliefs of those who think religion 'exclusionary' be respected? (People who like homosexual sex, maybe?). All this hand wringing about privileging (Christian) religious expression is just unconscious cultural bias, in my view. Invoking religious argumentation in a RfA was daft. Being rude about it was unnecessary. Trouts all round. Bon courage (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You speak of cultural bias, yet if someone was saying the same about someone's Muslim or Jewish beliefs, the reaction would have been different. People are blocked for repeated instances of that with regularity, so lets not treat one group differently. While it is probably a good idea to leave your religion at home when you are online, it is also reasonable to expect to not be attacked at the world's largest encyclopedia, which has no established religion or lack thereof, and is supposed to be a tent large enough for all cultures. Anyway, I think we've said enough. I stand by my statements, you stand by yours, they just aren't the same. Dennis Brown 2¢ 07:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

leave your religion at home when you are online ← I think we can agree this is wise! Bon courage (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown ...yet if someone was saying the same about someone's Muslim or Jewish beliefs, the reaction would have been different. People are blocked for repeated instances of that with regularity... Rem acu tetigisti. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Voting in this RFA

"The beatings will continue until moral improves." You can keep asking a question until you illicit the response that makes you feel good, but that does not make the response true. Again, if the vote was private we would not have editors creating drama and witnessing for Christ etc. I liked the candidate but when I saw that they were willing to tell people what they wanted to hear, I moved to oppose. This latest drama goes back to the TIG oppose on the Leeky RFA and all the handwringing over that oppose (see Leeky RFA talk page for context). And then the block of TIG and follow up drama. If only RFA votes were private... Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Until RFA votes become private, avoid causing fallout from you saying cruel things by not saying cruel things. You could have voted to oppose for the reason you stated without being nasty about it. That you could have been decent but chose otherwise is why you're now getting hounded. You're right to compare this to the Therapyisgood thing because the same was true there: had TIG cast their vote without being so nasty about it, it would have counted just the same and the ensuing drama would never have happened. City of Silver 04:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I am always honest at RFA and in 2024 that means cruel? You can see by my edit history that I am here for the long haul and I am contributing to the project. I am surprised that my rationale reads as cruel to you. You brought up Therapyisgood. They were wrongly blocked and had their vote struck (I reinstated it). At the time I thought Leeky was ready to be an administrator but I was ready to replace the Therapyisgood vote if it remained struck. For the record I do not feel hounded and I do not think it is wrong of you to mention me in your rationale. I do however think voting while invoking another editor is an extremely juvenile thing to do - (especially for an administrator). I gave an honest assessment of the candidate's answer to part two of question nine. I have watched people F with oppose voters at RFA for a long time - struck votes, blocked editors, comments moved. If we voted privately I would have cast my vote and you yours, and we would not be airing grievances like we were at a Festivus. This is a sideshow and it is too bad for the candidate. They were always going to pass this RFA and did not need to beg forgiveness for calling out sarcasm. hope to see you around - hopefully writing articles. Lightburst (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Consider

Oppose based on the cringy groveling in 9. Let's recap, Tamzin was sarcastic. TNW rightly called them on it. Then when faced with this landslide of Gretta-like "how dare you" opposes in the RFA, TNW does an about face. I expect admins to do better and that applies to Tamzin and TNW. But for the purpose of this RFA I expect the candidate to be honest; groveling to get the bit shows that they are not right for the job. Shame.

Every point you made in your rationale also gets across in this version of it. Well, other than the mean stuff, of course. City of Silver 19:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It is wonderful when an Admin knows to stick their grounds and possibly against the popular tide, but is even more important for any editor here to be willing to express humbleness and recognize when someone says they were hurt. My reading of this interaction whether minor or not, was not about some grand clash of principals, but very different approaches to conflicts. I disagreed with TNW's take but appreciate their willingness to read the room and reflect. If that is being weak, we should aspire to be weak. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Believe it or not, my first reaction to that second answer at Q9 was the as Lightburst's. That is, "Whoa, what on earth is this person's problem that they'd respond to what people are saying by beating the Christ out of themself like that?" But I mulled it a bit more and it feels really obvious. TNW believes their behavior last August was a lot more offensive to Tamzin and others than maybe it actually was and thanks to the pile-ons that resulted both per Tamzin and per the first attempt at an answer to Q9, they came to think they'd majorly hurt Tamzin's feelings last year then made it far worse by botching that answer. Anyone who comes to a conclusion like that had better beat themself up for it. So yeah, this RFA would have a lot more support but Lightburst and everyone else up in arms about that addition to the Q9 won't consider the human element in play. (The nastier rationales give the game away: can you imagine a decent human being speaking like Lightburst did to someone's face?) City of Silver 22:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I kindly request not every opposes be painted in the same colour as Lightburst's unnecessarily cruel specials. Some of us had to actually reconsider their !vote out of "Is Lightburst's terrible Oppose sufficiently convincing that I Support?" balance to the universe.

I sympathise and completely get the core point though. This is a stressful RFA even considering the stressfulness of RFAs, so I do not envy TNW. I just want to believe only a few !votes are giving in to that kneejerk feeling. And most of them are just well meaning but just 'landing on the opposite side'. At least I hope I am. Soni (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, to me it does appear that other opposes are ultimately based on the same assumption that Lightburst has. The requirement for a candidate is no longer their experience, hard work, merit, impressive record. Instead, the candidate is thrown into a stage as the community "plays notes", through questions and comments. And the candidate ends up being opposed just because they did not dance the way one wanted them to. TNW is put in a situation they can't win - first their responses are too generic, and then appending to A9 is also wrong because it's a drastic tone shift.

What Tamzin said as a comment to their oppose is something I find quite important too, that as much as it's a meme that "RfA is a taste of the pressure you'll be under as an admin", nothing I've done as an admin, including trips to ArbCom on both sides of the equation, has come close to the stress of a few hundred of my peers sitting in judgment over me and dissecting things I'd never given much thought to.

I do not want RfAs to be an attempt to break the candidate, to put as much pressure and stress them out as much as possible, and then berate them over "temperament issues" if stress gets to them at some point. I see a lot of positives in an administrator that can recognize their mistakes, a possible overreaction notwithstanding, rather than one that will stand their ground in the delusion of rightfulness. Brat Forelli🦊 07:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

We can avoid the extremes of "such shows a serious problem" and "such is confirmed to be not an issue". My own post was that with a barely 2 year editor, we don't have enough to know either way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Tone policing

This term has been thrown around in this process (like a spiked dryer ball) but there's no Wikipedia-space discussion. There's Tone policing. Certainly nothing at the appropriate locations (WP:Tone police, WP:Tone policing). If we're going to make such an undiscussed term powerful enough to derail an otherwise successful administrator candidate, shouldn't we at least have an outline of the subject in wiki-speak? Until this week, I wouldn't have thought it an essential topic, but now I kinda do. I'm inclined to hand it off to Tamzin. BusterD (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. "Tone policing" to me is a very minor thing. It typically means agreeing with (or at leat taking no position on) the content of what someone said, but only commenting on the way it was said. Yet here a single incident of it supposedly happening was enough to derail an entire RFA. FOARP (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)