Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Balloonman
Statistics for Balloonman
[edit]Edit count
[edit]Category talk: 8 Category: 4 Mainspace 2623 Portal: 2 Talk: 907 Template talk: 229 Template: 58 User talk: 3220 User: 1442 Wikipedia talk: 1108 Wikipedia: 3530 avg edits per page 5.07 earliest 23:15, 1 April 2006 number of unique pages 2589 total 13131 2006/4 44 2006/5 5 2006/6 6 2006/7 2 2006/8 8 2006/9 0 2006/10 100 2006/11 519 2006/12 482 2007/1 328 2007/2 23 2007/3 98 2007/4 217 2007/5 219 2007/6 386 2007/7 1187 2007/8 650 2007/9 271 2007/10 144 2007/11 568 2007/12 264 2008/1 158 2008/2 295 2008/3 929 2008/4 445 2008/5 982 2008/6 112 2008/7 348 2008/8 633 2008/9 423 2008/10 393 2008/11 664 2008/12 1280 2009/1 948 Mainspace 124 First Command Financial Planning, Inc. 95 List of World Series of Poker Main Event Champions 84 2007 World Series of Poker 78 World Series of Poker bracelet 73 List of military brats 71 Spastic 71 Society of St. Pius X 67 Third Culture Kids 67 The Wiggles 43 Wasilla Assembly of God 39 Summorum Pontificum 38 Mime artist 34 Holocaust denial 31 List of fictional military brats 31 Body painting Talk: 66 Ohio Wesleyan University 59 Society of St. Pius X 57 Wasilla Assembly of God 48 Holocaust denial 41 Third Culture Kids 37 Mother Teresa 25 Jeremiah Wright 24 Iraq Resolution 24 Summorum Pontificum 23 The Wiggles 22 Joe the Plumber 20 Military brat/Archive 1 20 Shaolin-Do 18 Missionary Kids 16 David Coderre Category talk: 4 Military brats 3 Indian religions Category: 2 Military brats 2 WikiProject notability essays Template: 39 Did you know/Next update 9 Did you know 4 Major Poker Tournaments 2 Magic secrets Template talk: 223 Did you know 2 MethodistColleges 2 Underconstruction 2 Ohio Wesleyan University User: 251 Balloonman 86 Balloonman/coaching 68 StephenBuxton/Admin coaching 67 Balloonman/Draft1 61 Giggy/admin coaching 53 Balloonman/RfA Criteria 52 Scott5114/Admin coaching 49 Balloonman/Why I hate Speedy Deleters 41 Tanthalas39/AC 30 Balloonman/Admin coaching 25 Seresin/Admin coaching 23 Balloonman/CSD G1 survey 22 Balloonman/CSD A1 survey 21 Happyme22/admin coaching 19 Balloonman/Draft2 User talk: 886 Balloonman 103 SandyGeorgia 60 Keeper76 44 Pedro 43 Malleus Fatuorum 42 Rlevse 39 Iridescent 36 Jennavecia 34 Giggy 34 Moni3 28 Spinningspark/coaching/Archive 1 27 Tanthalas39 26 Everyme 26 Wisdom89 26 Deskana Wikipedia: 142 Good article reassessment 87 Bureaucrats' noticeboard 78 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 53 Requests for comment/Majorly 51 Administrators' noticeboard 49 Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3 44 Requests for adminship/CapitalR 43 WikiProject Poker 43 Requests for adminship/Aervanath 42 Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1 38 Requests for adminship/Balloonman 37 How to pass an RfA 37 Requests for adminship/Seresin 37 Requests for adminship/StephenBuxton 37 Requests for adminship/Scott5114 2 Wikipedia talk: 507 Requests for adminship 130 WikiProject Poker 69 Criteria for speedy deletion 55 Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching 32 Good article reassessment 30 Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2 29 Requests for adminship/JamieS93 22 Good article nominations 21 Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2 17 Requests for comment/Majorly 15 Did you know 13 Requests for comment/Law Lord 12 Requests for adminship/Gwynand 11 WikiProject Magic 11 Notability
- Retrieved from this link at 21:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Admin statistics
[edit]User groups: sysop Edits (including deleted edits): 14628 Edits: 14559 Deleted edits: 69 Action Counts Rollbacks: 176 Users blocked: 33 Accounts created: 1 Pages deleted: 51 Pages moved: 40 Pages patrolled: 116 Pages protected: 9 Pages restored: 9 User rights modified: 2 Users unblocked: 4 Pages unprotected: 2 Files uploaded: 27
- Retrieved from this link at 21:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA Statistics
[edit]RFA Stats for: User:Balloonman Supported: 1. CapitalR 2. Aervanath 3. StephenBuxton 4. Scott5114_2 5. Seresin 6. Dank55 7. Jclemens 8. BirgitteSB 9. Moni3 10. Slp1 11. PeterSymonds 12. Euryalus 13. Enigmaman 14. Risker 15. Undead_warrior_3 16. Realist2 17. Realist2 18. Jbmurray 19. Philosopher 20. JPG-GR 21. Cirt 22. Cobaltbluetony 23. Enigmaman_2 24. VanTucky_2 25. Synergy 26. Protonk 27. TenPoundHammer_5 28. SoWhy 29. Ynhockey_2 30. CWY2190 31. KnightLago 32. Kakofonous 33. Wisdom89_4 34. Efe 35. 52_Pickup 36. Dendodge_3 37. Milk's_Favorite_Cookie_2 38. SheffieldSteel 39. Daniel_J._Leivick 40. Tanthalas39_2 41. DeadEyeArrow 42. xDanielx 43. Aleta 44. Useight_3 45. Bedford 46. Werdna_3 47. TomStar81_3 48. Gimmetrow 49. Paul_Erik 50. Stwalkerster_2 51. Hurricanehink_2 52. Smashville 53. EyeSerene 54. MilborneOne 55. The-G-Unit-Boss 56. Nev1 57. Ecoleetage_3 58. Davidgothberg 59. Thehelpfulone 60. Okiefromokla 61. Steven_Fruitsmaak 62. KieferSkunk 63. TenPoundHammer_4 64. Ice_Cold_Beer 65. Seraphim_Whipp 66. Jonny-mt 67. Ev 68. Jayron32 69. J_Greb 70. Gazimoff 71. JGHowes 72. SB_Johnny_2 73. Doczilla 74. DO11.10 75. WarthogDemon 76. Lradrama_2 77. Nousernamesleft 78. Dlohcierekim 79. PeterSymonds_2 80. Geometry_guy 81. Epbr123 82. Juliancolton_3 83. A._B. 84. LaraLove 85. Bigtimepeace 86. Anonymous_Dissident_2 87. Rifleman_82 88. Gadget850 Neutral: 1. lustiger_seth 2. Malleus_Fatuarum_2 3. Gwynand 4. Magioladitis_2 5. Adolphus79 6. Wisdom89_3 7. CastAStone 8. Geni_2 9. Fordmadoxfraud 10. Davnel03_4 11. R_2 12. Dppowell 13. Nwwaew_2 14. Biruitorul_2 15. Martijn_Hoekstra 16. Darth_Mike 17. Dalekusa Opposed: 1. JamieS93 2. Tanthalas39 3. Ironholds_2 4. Gtstricky 5. Scott5114 6. Redfarmer 7. Plasticup 8. Fritzpoll 9. CWii 10. CRGreathouse 11. Peteforsyth 12. Finalnight 13. Nja247 14. Suntag 15. Milk's_Favorite_Cookie 16. Choess 17. BQZip01_3 18. Ctjf83 19. Lady_Aleena 20. Vivio_Testarossa 21. Addshore 22. Natl1_3 23. MrFish 24. Addshore_2 25. Izzy007_2 26. Naerii 27. Sgeureka 28. SatyrTN 29. Ecoleetage_2 30. MrKIA11 31. ThinkBlue 32. Eastlaw 33. Berig_2 34. Mr._IP 35. TenPoundHammer_6 36. Slgrandson_2 37. Sharkface217 38. George_The_Dragon 39. VanTucky 40. Icewedge 41. Wenli 42. Mastrchf91 43. Poeloq_2 44. Justin_Eiler 45. Aitias_2 46. Kwsn_2 47. SchfiftyThree 48. PeeJay2K3_(2) 49. Kww 50. Thingg 51. Guest9999 52. Kaiser_matias 53. Autocracy 54. Mr_Tan 55. Sceptre_3 56. Ilyushka88_2 57. O_Keyes 58. MisterWiki 59. NonvocalScream 60. Zedla 61. Qaddosh 62. Chrishomingtang 63. thedemonhog 64. Carter_2 65. Bluegoblin7 66. Headbomb_2 67. Tkgd2007 68. Krm500 69. Benjah-bmm27 70. Snowolf 71. Cobi_3 72. It_Is_Me_Here 73. EclipseSSD 74. NorthernThunder 75. shoeofdeath_2 76. No1lakersfan_3 77. Treelo Did not comment / Could not parse: 1. Dihydrogen_Monoxide_3 2. Xenocidic 3. Scetoaux_3 4. Paste 5. Clpo13 6. Susanlesch 7. Happyme22 8. NuclearWarfare 9. Nburden 10. Rkitko 11. RyRy 12. Gary_King 13. Foxy_Loxy_2 14. Fatal!ty 15. Climie.ca 16. Kumioko 17. Jerry 18. Mister_Alcohol 19. ZooFari 20. Travellingcari 21. K50_Dude 22. The_Transhumanist_5 23. MHLU 24. Malleus_Fatuorum_202 25. Tharnton345_2 26. AdirondackMan 27. Brianga 28. Hersfold_3 29. Shalom_Yechiel 30. HappyCat12 31. Gatoclass_2 32. Huntster 33. G.A.S 34. Tivedshambo 35. Davidwr 36. Red_Thunder 37. Billy_2 38. happyme22 39. Soxred93_2 40. Desalvionjr_2 41. Soleil 42. Discospinster 43. HK22 44. NitrogenTSRH 45. Icewedge_2 46. Morhange 47. Jza84 48. Maverick_Leonhart 49. Scetoaux_2 50. GrahamColm 51. Redmarkviolinist_3 52. Ed_Poor_2 53. SynergeticMaggot_2 Balloonman has edited 234 RFA's! (Supported: 88 [48.4%], Neutral: 17 [9.3%], Opposed: 77 [42.3%], Unknown 53)
Retrieved from this link at 21:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Continuation of discussion on oppose comment by Mattinbgn
[edit]We are unlikely to come to any agreement as we see adminship in two very different ways. Your description of adminship as a trade or a job seems to be more than just a metaphor for you; you see adminship as a set of knowledge and skills that you undergo training to acquire and that RfA is an application for a licence to practice, similar to a bar exam. I see adminship as something that any moderately proficient and active editor can do—with little prior learning—provided he/she has the trust of the community to act civilly and to use the tools responsibly and maturely. Any reasonably clueful editor can find and read a policy if needed.
The problem I have with your point of view of the role is that encourages admins (and other editors) to think that admins have greater knowledge and skills about policy and procedure (and even article content) than other editors. This is a dangerous point of view to have, mainly because it just isn't true and it leads to the attitude of "I'm an admin, I am the law!" and administrators as a separate caste. I am under no illusions that there are plenty of editors with greater knowledge of policy etc. than me. The only difference between me and the average editor is that I am trusted by the community to use the tools wisely and willing to perform what is basically drudgery while tolerating complaints when my use of the tools upsets someone.
No doubt you see my POV as allowing well meaning amateurs to create havoc across the encyclopedia, deleting perfectly fine articles and blocking on a whim. Perhaps you are right, but I see little evidence of it. No doubt new admins who have not immersed themselves in the traditional admin apprenticeships make mistakes, but most are easily fixed. Admins with a sense of "Respect my authoritah" I see as more likely to cause needless wikidramaz. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- So, you see adminship as no big deal? Yet you see Cratship as a big deal? What separates the two, besides that one would promote based on an idea that is contrary to your own ethical system? And the "law" attitude comes to those who don't spend time with others and train for the position. It comes from those who think that its "no big deal" and then they start using powers left and right because they think its a spot that they earned simply for being an editor. Adminship is about trust and knowledge. Simply put, your ethics would enable some of the most corrupt members to become admin. We have enough of those already. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Admins can't do anything that another admin can't undo. 'crats do stuff that only a steward via arbcom can undo. This is a significant increase in responsibility and why bureaucratship IS a big deal and adminship isn't. I can gain enough info on an admin candidate by looking at how he behaved as an established editor. I look for how he learned to be an established editor and am most interested in finding deliberate trustworthy mature individuals that are extremely likely to carefully learn what they need to do before jumping in and doing stuff. I find an overemphasis on easily taught admin skills, particularly via coaching, as being too easy to game the system. I don't want to encourage this and oppose a crat candidate that both coaches and finds that important. --NrDg 18:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree, admins have been recalled in much easier fashions than through ArbCom, and current discussions are promoting a quicker process to recall admins now. And if the skills are easily taught, why not have everyone do it before joining? Would you rather someone pick up CPR while you are choking? Or would you prefer them to have it before then? The promotion of a lack of understanding and education before taking up a position is rather troubling, but quite common as it appears. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we have a strong philosophical disagreement about what adminship is and what it takes to be a good administrator. I see it solely as a matter of trust - will this person cause harm. The understanding and education can come easily IF the person knows enough not to do stuff he hasn't the knowledge to do. This is not like a life critical situation where pre-knowledge and skill is mandatory. I find the overemphasis on adminship as being a tested for certification as causing us to lose a lot of potentially good admins that might need/want to do minor admin related tasks in their interest area which will in aggregate do more to help the project than looking for a few admin experts. We specifically point new admins to Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and Wikipedia:New admin school - I want admins I can trust to read these articles before using their new tools and as a refresher when expanding into new admin areas.
- I disagree, admins have been recalled in much easier fashions than through ArbCom, and current discussions are promoting a quicker process to recall admins now. And if the skills are easily taught, why not have everyone do it before joining? Would you rather someone pick up CPR while you are choking? Or would you prefer them to have it before then? The promotion of a lack of understanding and education before taking up a position is rather troubling, but quite common as it appears. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Admins can't do anything that another admin can't undo. 'crats do stuff that only a steward via arbcom can undo. This is a significant increase in responsibility and why bureaucratship IS a big deal and adminship isn't. I can gain enough info on an admin candidate by looking at how he behaved as an established editor. I look for how he learned to be an established editor and am most interested in finding deliberate trustworthy mature individuals that are extremely likely to carefully learn what they need to do before jumping in and doing stuff. I find an overemphasis on easily taught admin skills, particularly via coaching, as being too easy to game the system. I don't want to encourage this and oppose a crat candidate that both coaches and finds that important. --NrDg 18:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right now, given the tools, the only way to remove the sysop flag is via a plea to a steward. They listen to arbcom and the admin in question volunteering to give it up. Most will if there is strong consensus by others for them to do so - who wants to do a job where you are not trusted. The only other technical change that would give some power against admin vandals is to remove admin privs from blocked admins making community bans effective. Right now all admin have sufficient tools to repair any damage or poor decisions made by any other admin - I see the overemphasis on preventing potential admin mistakes via pre-training as warping our processes for gaining the sysop flag and not working anyway. --NrDg 20:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- "good administrator", by qualifying administrator, you have proven that there is a distinction between what someone is able to accomplish and act as during their time in such a position. As such, you undermine any claims that administration is "no big deal" or that people can easily pick up the experience. The only logical way to bridge the gap is to claim that some people have a natural ability. Since such a thing cannot be determined except through chance, then there is no grounds for your view. As such, I believe that any closing crat who would look at your lack of support would instantly disqualify it for having no actual grounds of support, logical or experiential. Sorry, this is a process that requires an individual to weigh the merits of determining factors. If your view was promoted, then it would be the equivalent to WikiAnarchy. We all know that WikiAnarchism is not appreciated and has no purpose. We are in the business of preventing problems, not "repairing" problems. That is the heart of Wikipedia philosophy, and I am saddened that there are those with such an opposing view. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep and that is why I want to discourage a 'crat who would discount my opinion such as you would. A lot of this is definitional as to what "good" means. I see it as causing no harm. I don't really care if an admin does nothing as long as he does nothing harmful to the project. I make no claim of relying on a natural ability - I am looking more at character than ability and prefer character over ability. I don't like fixing messes other editors make either and would rather not have to do so. I do find important the knowledge that admins can't do anything that can't be undone by any other admin. This eases my fear of misjudging. I strongly doubt my views would lead to WikiAnarchy. I do think it would lead to more and better admins. --NrDg 01:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- "why I want to discourage a 'crat" So willfully violating Point? Is this all under some faulty notion of IAR by chance? You do realize that IAR only applies when its for the best interest of the encyclopedia, not what you think is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Promoting inexperienced admin with no sense of guidelines and policies is in the worse interest of the encyclopedia. If anything, IAR would suggest that your stance should be ignored at all costs, since it would be the worse possible thing if it was held as a legitimate view. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The only rule we are concerned with is trying to form a consensus. I have no intention of violating that. I do understand you disagree with my evaluation criteria as is your right. Unlikely either of us will find a convincing argument to bridge our widely divergent philosophies of what is best for the project with respect to admin and bureaucrat quals. I am a firm adherent to NOBIGDEAL. I think we have moved away from that to the detriment of the project. You disagree - I understand that. --NrDg 01:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- "The only rule we are concerned with is trying to form a consensus" Sorry, but this goes against what Wikipedia is. If you are unwilling to respect previous consensus, then your attempts to form a new consensus become meaningless. Your lack of accepting of people who wish to inform people on the current policies seems to go against what WP:CONSENSUS actually is and is scary to say the least. The fact that you adhere to corrupted version of "no big deal" only verifies that your position is troubling to say the least. It is no more about disagreeing or not. It is clear that you are putting forth a position in order to undermine traditional consensus, to promote people without a clear understanding of guidelines, seek to promote what is new rather than what is experienced, and other such actions that would only destroy this community as a whole. I will remember this conversation and I will be sure to link to it any time your actions come under question. You have given a lot of reason to not trust your position in the future as one that is in the best interest of the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- That is your right. Link as you wish. I expect you will oppose any RfB I might be in for similar reasons as to why I am opposing this one. I am comfortable with my position and don't believe I am even close ever advocating a position that goes against existing wiki policies and guidelines. The fact that you believe portions of an existing policy WP:ADMIN is different than what is written in the policy itself and I don't does explain the wide gulf in our positions. --NrDg 03:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you referring to No Big Deal? No big deal, if you read what Jimbo wrote, is saying that admin should not act as if they are superior to others. Instead, it is currently used to mean that there should be no standards or expectations for admin, which pushes anyone through and allows those who treat it as their justification to be incivil, to pretend to follow IAR to ruin the lives of others, and the rest of the abuses that are widespread, to become admin to begin with. This is why the NBG meme needs to be stamped out. It is resulting in actions 100% opposite of what Jimbo intended and is a severe misinterpretation. Adminship is a big deal, that is why Jimbo stated that admin should not be treated as something special or above rules. This is why they must have a strong understanding of policies. This is why they should be kept to the policies. This is why people are tired of the NBD crowd and are creating a system of forced recall. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- That is your right. Link as you wish. I expect you will oppose any RfB I might be in for similar reasons as to why I am opposing this one. I am comfortable with my position and don't believe I am even close ever advocating a position that goes against existing wiki policies and guidelines. The fact that you believe portions of an existing policy WP:ADMIN is different than what is written in the policy itself and I don't does explain the wide gulf in our positions. --NrDg 03:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- "The only rule we are concerned with is trying to form a consensus" Sorry, but this goes against what Wikipedia is. If you are unwilling to respect previous consensus, then your attempts to form a new consensus become meaningless. Your lack of accepting of people who wish to inform people on the current policies seems to go against what WP:CONSENSUS actually is and is scary to say the least. The fact that you adhere to corrupted version of "no big deal" only verifies that your position is troubling to say the least. It is no more about disagreeing or not. It is clear that you are putting forth a position in order to undermine traditional consensus, to promote people without a clear understanding of guidelines, seek to promote what is new rather than what is experienced, and other such actions that would only destroy this community as a whole. I will remember this conversation and I will be sure to link to it any time your actions come under question. You have given a lot of reason to not trust your position in the future as one that is in the best interest of the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The only rule we are concerned with is trying to form a consensus. I have no intention of violating that. I do understand you disagree with my evaluation criteria as is your right. Unlikely either of us will find a convincing argument to bridge our widely divergent philosophies of what is best for the project with respect to admin and bureaucrat quals. I am a firm adherent to NOBIGDEAL. I think we have moved away from that to the detriment of the project. You disagree - I understand that. --NrDg 01:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- "why I want to discourage a 'crat" So willfully violating Point? Is this all under some faulty notion of IAR by chance? You do realize that IAR only applies when its for the best interest of the encyclopedia, not what you think is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Promoting inexperienced admin with no sense of guidelines and policies is in the worse interest of the encyclopedia. If anything, IAR would suggest that your stance should be ignored at all costs, since it would be the worse possible thing if it was held as a legitimate view. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep and that is why I want to discourage a 'crat who would discount my opinion such as you would. A lot of this is definitional as to what "good" means. I see it as causing no harm. I don't really care if an admin does nothing as long as he does nothing harmful to the project. I make no claim of relying on a natural ability - I am looking more at character than ability and prefer character over ability. I don't like fixing messes other editors make either and would rather not have to do so. I do find important the knowledge that admins can't do anything that can't be undone by any other admin. This eases my fear of misjudging. I strongly doubt my views would lead to WikiAnarchy. I do think it would lead to more and better admins. --NrDg 01:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- "good administrator", by qualifying administrator, you have proven that there is a distinction between what someone is able to accomplish and act as during their time in such a position. As such, you undermine any claims that administration is "no big deal" or that people can easily pick up the experience. The only logical way to bridge the gap is to claim that some people have a natural ability. Since such a thing cannot be determined except through chance, then there is no grounds for your view. As such, I believe that any closing crat who would look at your lack of support would instantly disqualify it for having no actual grounds of support, logical or experiential. Sorry, this is a process that requires an individual to weigh the merits of determining factors. If your view was promoted, then it would be the equivalent to WikiAnarchy. We all know that WikiAnarchism is not appreciated and has no purpose. We are in the business of preventing problems, not "repairing" problems. That is the heart of Wikipedia philosophy, and I am saddened that there are those with such an opposing view. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right now, given the tools, the only way to remove the sysop flag is via a plea to a steward. They listen to arbcom and the admin in question volunteering to give it up. Most will if there is strong consensus by others for them to do so - who wants to do a job where you are not trusted. The only other technical change that would give some power against admin vandals is to remove admin privs from blocked admins making community bans effective. Right now all admin have sufficient tools to repair any damage or poor decisions made by any other admin - I see the overemphasis on preventing potential admin mistakes via pre-training as warping our processes for gaining the sysop flag and not working anyway. --NrDg 20:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
<- Much as you are misinterpreting what I am arguing for the purposes of winning an argument as opposed to coming to any sort of agreement, you are significantly misrepresenting the policy as written and twisting it to try to make it say things that are simply not there. You, and it looks like many others, seem to be on a crusade to make a pretty fundamental change in the way wiki operates. (You also seem to be taking this whole thing rather personally.) I assume I will be one of the "first against the wall" as one of the goals of the new forced recall system will be to get rid of the tiresome NBD crowd. I see now that this discussion is just about scoring points towards a larger goal and I am just a representative of the opposition. Your argument are more about my presumed position set based on induced group membership. Interesting. Wikipolitics - never thought I would be drawn into that. Oh well. --NrDg 05:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just to add, I do agree with your stated desired end goals of having civil, helpful and competent admins. I would be more then happy to work with anyone to achieve this desired end goal. --NrDg 05:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Odd how you would claim that -I- am misrepresenting the policy when it is clear: "I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing." This means that it does not create an elite group. However, Jimbo has desysopped many people for abuse. Therefore, you cannot claim that Jimbo would think that everyone deserves the right to use tools. So, with that in mind, you have no logical grounds to stand on. I will ignore your personalization of the matter and your claims to my future actions since neither deal with this topic nor are anything but an avoiding of the logical contradictions within your own stance. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, definitely misrepresenting policy. He meant exactly - "I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing" - what he said. Paraphrase "being granted sysop status is not a really special thing" or NBD. The fact that abusers lose rights does not imply anything other than abusers lose rights - this is universal for every single editor on the projects - admins are not exempt. It illogical to induce anything further from that then abusers don't deserve the right to use the tools they abuse. How rights are obtained and who gets them is not defined by how rights are lost. These are separable issues. Jimbo's position, if anything, appears to be basically presume trust until trust betrayed. WP:AGF and all that. --NrDg 06:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you not understand that the use of the term "granted" is focusing on those who are picked? Not those who are selecting? That is the source of your problem. I believe that once this is pointed out, you cannot help but have to reconsider your whole mistaken theory. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, definitely misrepresenting policy. He meant exactly - "I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing" - what he said. Paraphrase "being granted sysop status is not a really special thing" or NBD. The fact that abusers lose rights does not imply anything other than abusers lose rights - this is universal for every single editor on the projects - admins are not exempt. It illogical to induce anything further from that then abusers don't deserve the right to use the tools they abuse. How rights are obtained and who gets them is not defined by how rights are lost. These are separable issues. Jimbo's position, if anything, appears to be basically presume trust until trust betrayed. WP:AGF and all that. --NrDg 06:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Odd how you would claim that -I- am misrepresenting the policy when it is clear: "I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing." This means that it does not create an elite group. However, Jimbo has desysopped many people for abuse. Therefore, you cannot claim that Jimbo would think that everyone deserves the right to use tools. So, with that in mind, you have no logical grounds to stand on. I will ignore your personalization of the matter and your claims to my future actions since neither deal with this topic nor are anything but an avoiding of the logical contradictions within your own stance. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Fake Vote by User:SantinpanTease
[edit]OMG ! Have anybody noticed ? SantinpanTease (talk · contribs · count) also voted as Ryan Postlethwaite. Anyways Ryan has removed it. It will be interesting to see who SantinpanTease (with just 4 edits) really is if a CU is done :) -- Tinu Cherian - 11:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- That would be an abuse of the CU tools[1] unless you have specific proof that I'm using multiple accounts :D SantinpanTease (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it wouldn't - only the release of your IP or other identifying data would be against the privacy policy. If there's suspicion that you are operating a second account then this one can be CU'd. As it happens, it seems fairly obvious that this is a sock account. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
CheckUser is not for fishing. General trawling of users in a debate for possible sockpuppets – is not supported and requests for such checks are unlikely to be agreed to. SantinpanTease (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it wouldn't - only the release of your IP or other identifying data would be against the privacy policy. If there's suspicion that you are operating a second account then this one can be CU'd. As it happens, it seems fairly obvious that this is a sock account. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I am sorry Ryan. The RfB just didn't feel right without a !vote from you so I added one. It was wrong and I won't do it again. SantinpanTease (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Lol. Ryan, I hope you feel very special now :P Majorly talk 13:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- SantinpanTease, Huh, But how did you infer Ryan will oppose ? :) Btw you have a 'good'awareness of WP policies altough less than 10 edits. Way to go ! :P -- Tinu Cherian - 15:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)