User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Serial opposers

Node's votes (Archive 25)

Is anyone else bothered by User:Node_ue opposing every self nomination? It just seems wrong to me. If you don't like self nominations, then move for them to be disallowed. Self nom is "being bold". Many self nominators could ask another editor to nominate them, but why should it be necessary? --Ben Brockert 04:19, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Users are allowed to vote however they please. Enough said. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Exactly so. Someone can vote against someone because they don't like their username. And the bureaucrats are allowed to consider the reasoning behind votes in close circumstances. More than enough said? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure. It sounds like Node's votes will be given less weight because you do not find his objections substantive. Or do I misunderstand your meaning? Michael Ward 06:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what it means. To put it bluntly, if you oppose for a stupid reason (doing stupid things is Node's specialty), a bureaucrat is fully within his powers give your objection no heed. That was the result of the bureaucrat poll (which defined the position). →Raul654 06:41, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • That bit about Node doing stupid things as a specialty was particularly unhelpful. I actually think you really hurt his feelings over that one, and so it was totally unwarranted. I'm surprised at you Raul! You are usually pretty good about these things :( Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm, I distinctly recall a case in which this rule was ignored... ahem... ::looks around with blank look on face:: ugen64 06:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • This sort of thing can easily be handled. Just vote in favor to balance his vote out. I recall doing the same thing with an equally silly idea some time ago, and I haven't seen said person objecting on those grounds recently. Ambi 08:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Say, Ambizzle, you wouldn't be referring to MOI, would you? For if you are I shall inform you that I have NOT discarded my standards, I've only not been as interested in RfA lately. Psht! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 09:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Ambi's right. Opposing all self-nominations is just as silly as having arbitrary cutoffs like you have, blankfaze. Maybe it's time you realise that numbers of edits are not always a reliable indicator of suitability for adminship. - Mark 00:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure about that - I think it's a good judge of character. I have even been asked to nominate other people before, and that is fine, but I cannot in good conscience support the nomination of somebody who has nominated themselves. For me it sets off a red flag, "I might have ulterior motives for wanting to become an admin", but that alone isn't enough for me to oppose. However, it also says to me "I need this now. I cannot wait for somebody else to nominate me, possibly because nobody would anyways." Of course sometimes there are good reasons for that. But then it also says to me, "I personally believe I should be a sysop, and I'm going to shout it to the world rather than keeping it inside until somebody else says it first", which to me just says something about that person's character and I don't believe they would make a good sysop. But that's just what I think. I would, however, appreciate it if bureaucrats could respect my opinion rather than saying "Hmm, that Mark guy, his opinion sounds silly to me, so I'll just ignore it". In many cases, I am the sole person opposed to that person's RfA, and unless a very small number of people voted, that shouldn't cause a problem. --Node 23:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • To reiterate (yet again) your vote is not deprecated, ignored, reduced, discounted. But if a decision has to be made, the reasoning given behind votes pro and con for a specific candidate will be considered on their merits, while a vote without comment, or a vote pro forma can't be examined in any depth. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • No, they aren't. Not always. But in conjunction with other standards they provide a base for judging suitability. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • "Voting in favor to balance his vote out" doesn't work. The votes are more by percentage than majority; adding one useless vote against a person and one useless vote for them would change a 9:2 vote, 81.8%, to 10:3, 76.9%. But more than that, I don't want to vote for someone just because someone else voted against them. --Ben Brockert < 01:20, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
      • Node has voted oppose in Anárion's RFA without stating a reason. I have two follow-up questions based on the responses above: (a) are votes without explanations also discounted as unsubstantive, and if so does this differ by support/oppose? (b) are votes by certain users given less (or more) weight than votes by others based upon their reputations? Michael Ward 07:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, that is rather idiotic odd. People that vote "support" or "oppose" for a questionable reason without giving their reason apparently are more credible than people who vote "oppose", but actually outline their reasoning. ugen64 04:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a bureaucrat (albeit a fairly inactive one....sorry Cecropia, you're usually too efficient for me to notice a need to promote!) and someone who's been around a while, I hope my opinion will be welcome (and be warned, I feel a lengthy thought on its way). Node has the right to oppose on principle all self-nominations, but as Raul said (a bit too rudely, I agree with Ta bu), bureaucrats have the right to treat the vote as having less of an impact. The reason is related to my response to Michael Ward's questions. What is too often forgotten here is that voting is evil (see also m:Polls are evil), and we really need to avoid using it where we can. What wikis depend upon is the idea of consensus -- a mutually agreed-upon end. RFA's goal (in an ideal sense) is to find consensus -- supporters should take opposers' ideas seriously, and vice versa. Gradually, a consensus should form that yes, a person's good qualities outweigh concerns and make them a suitable admin, or no, their personal issues are too great to entrust them with these powers. So when someone doesn't give an explained objection, or gives a generally unreasonable objection, their contribution to consensus building is not so good, and their vote shouldn't weigh as heavily when a bureaucrat (ideally a trusted judge of community opinion) arrives to decide if consensus has reasonably been achieved. When I vote to support, I always try to explain why -- the only times I don't are when someone is obviously being promoted, or when I am less certain in my support (and am therefore fine with my support vote being treated as less weighty). When I vote to oppose, I always explain why because I'm opposing the consensus that was beginning to build (obviously at least one person thought there would be consensus to make the nominee an admin, if not many more) and I need to help steer that consensus. Yes, this page has become structured as a voting booth, but I still believe we need to do what we can to restrict how slavishly we follow a "count the votes" model here. As far as Node's votes, if Node believes all self-nominations are bad, I, as a bureaucrat, need a good explanation of why from Node -- otherwise, while I will certainly "count his vote", if the vote seems close, his vote won't be taken as a serious objection to the candidate in the way that someone voting "Was rude to me twice and broke the revert rule on this page" would be. I would not, however, discount a vote "simply because it was Node's" -- the only votes discounted because of their origin are anonymous votes (or obvious sock puppet votes), and honestly if an anon said something that wasn't a personal attack or sheer rudeness I'd read it and consider it. Even if I don't like a user, or I think of them as a troll, I don't think I have the right as a bureaucrat to dismiss them from consideration.

In conclusion, the ultimate rule to follow (in my opinion) is always to explain your vote and help build consensus about a candidate, in order to make this place more harmonious and less factionalized. That's my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 08:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to say that Jwrosenzweig's comment is extremely insightful, and clears up a lot of my outstanding questions and concerns about the RfA process. Andre (talk) 08:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very helpful. I think it would be very useful to provide a synopsis of this response on the project page. The current write-up under 'Rules' doesn't communicate these thoughts very well, making it sound more like a traditional vote. Michael Ward 17:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this an example of what's argued against on Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? If Node wants self-nomination to be removed, he should try to change the policy, not vote against all self-nominations blindly. -℘yrop (talk) 18:59, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Voting against an RfA isn't disrupting Wikipedia. And I don't want self-nomination to be removed, at least not actively. I think it's a bad idea, but I simply would like to register my opinion in some RfA votes that I don't think the adminship was a good idea for the reasons I explained above. At a later time, I can refer back to it and say "I voted against that person's adminship" for whatever reason. --Node 23:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that opposing every single self-nomination in order to show everybody how much you dislike the system is pretty much pointless. I'm sorry, but it's what I think. We all have the right to vote how we please (as long as the rules are being followed), but I believe common sense should be stronger sometimes.

Wait, wait, wait. This isn't to show other people anything. It's to keep a record that I opposed specific nominations for a specific reason. My vote is a vote is a vote, no matter what my justification. --Node 23:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way, in response to BLANKFAZE's first comment, that is true indeed, but if you come to think of it, every user on Wikipedia is allowed to do whatever they want. That doesn't mean we'll just sit down and let Wikipedia get engulfed into chaos.--Kaonashi 20:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Boothy443 (Archive 28)

I've noticed that this person almost always votes against, and never gives a reason. Isn't a reason important? I had thought that these pages, like vfds, were designed more to find consensus than just as ballot-in-the-slot votes. (I don't mean to be critical of Boothy443, by the way; I'm just unsure of the situation and the protocol.) --Phronima 21:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Boothy443 and direct all comments there. This has been discussed to death before. Dmcdevit·t 21:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Boothy443's votes (Archive 28)

Boothy has been identified as using multiple vandal sockpuppets and has been temporarily blocked. It's safe to say his votes no longer count. Feel free to strike them out and discount them as necessary. See also: WP:RFC/Boothy443 — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 15:55

I think striking out votes sets a bad precedent, including reinforcing the idea that this is solely a "vote". Let the bureaucrats decide how much weight to give Boothy's comments, that's why they're bureaucrats. kmccoy (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

kmccoy is right. -Splash 16:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Also concur with kmccoy. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Do not "feel free" to strike out anyone's votes except anons. As of now, only the ArbCom has the power to specify restrictions n the rights of any editor. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• He's a proven vandal. For how many other vandals do we include their votes? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 17:49

There is no need to strike out votes by Boothy443 under his "normal" username. You have no right to say that he can't vote -- even if he is a "proven vandal". Bureaucrats are quite capable of evaluating the appropriate weight to attach to any particular editor's votes. Kelly Martin 19:25, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think that only anon's votes should be able to be struck out (and even then only if properly noted and if the anon is notified and given info on how to register for an account), that being said the closing bureaucrat should be able to discount Boothy's votes or include them at his/her discretion. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 17:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• I still think there is no need to strike out any votes at all. The Bureaucrats know what they're doing, and we don't need to take inflammatory action to help them out. -Splash 17:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Once we start striking out votes where there has been no determination from ArbCom that the person has lost the voting entitlement we will have Wikipoliticians arguing to strike out others' votes based on content or the person. This is a path we should not embark on. The actual promotions are made by bureaucrats, who are putatively human, not machines, and capable of evaluating votes such as Boothy's. I must warn anyone who takes it upon themselves to strike out non-anon votes that this is vandalism, and may expose the deleter to sanctions. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism? (Archive 32)

A user went through and cast an Oppose vote without explanation for almost every candidate. Should these uncommented votes from a user on an apparent rant be counted? --hydnjo talk 17:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's just Boothy443. As far as I know bureaucrats generally do disregard his vote since he never provides any reasons for his opposition. Of course, since promotion is based on achieving consensus, a single oppose vote isn't much of a problem. If you're really interested, I'm sure you'll find more info in this page's archives. Carbonite | Talk 17:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll sleep better tonight. ;-) --hydnjo talk 18:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Do BCrats really disregard his vote? (whatever was the result of his RfC?) What about other oppose votes with no explanation? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It's less that he doesn't explain and more that he votes "oppose" on almost every single nom AND doesn't have an explanation. I don't know, if I was a B-crat I'd count it. He's entitled to a vote like anyone else, unless it can be shown that he's just doing it to be disruptive (which, as far as I know, hasn't happened). None of us HAS to explain our votes, and if his is being discounted I'd consider it to be a bad thing. --Blackcap | talk 21:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

RfA's are usually pretty clear-cut. I have yet to see one where a failure has hinged Boothy's oppose vote.  BD2412 ^talk 16:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the explanation is the most important part of the "vote". Remember, we're attempting to determine consensus here, not just counting votes. In practice, a support vote without explanation is an implicit comment of "I agree with the nominator or other support votes". Support votes without comment are very rarely challenged by anyone. An oppose vote without explanation is an implicit agreement with other oppose votes. However, since Boothy443 has shown a pattern of consistently opposing without explanation, his votes should be disregarded. Often, he's the only oppose vote. Still, as a few users have mentioned, no RfA has actually hinged on Boothy's vote. Carbonite | Talk 17:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There may have been one that hinged on boothy's opinion - from the person's talk page from the beurocrat "Your decision was a close call, and excluding Boothy's vote the support vote was a shade under 80%."Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - I stand corrected! At least the bureacrat in question chose to give little weight to Boothy's unexplained opposition.  BD2412 ^talk 19:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes by Masssiveego (Archive 45)

As I've noted on all the current RfA's, it seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy (although, in retrospect, that's unfair to Boothy, who occasionally voted support, and appeared to have some unspoken rationale for his votes). Of course, it's ego's right to vote as he pleases, but I wanted to note this pattern for what it's worth to closing 'crats. bd2412 T 03:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

They should just ignore it. Opposing everything is just disruption, opposing every arbcom nominee will create a zero sum effect so it is obviously just aimless zealotry or trolling.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of a banning for disruption...[1]--MONGO 03:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Really, it's not all that disruptive. I'd say wait and see if the behavior continues. bd2412 T 03:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Disrupted if BCrats count it, also very annoying. It has no affect on ArbCom due to the nature of the voting there, but is still annoying down there.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone's vote is "counted," but (have you heard this before?) the standard is consensus, not numbers. "Gray" nominations are ~75%-80% by and large. If a Bcrat is looking at such a gray nomination, a reasoned vote gives him/her more information toward a decision than just "Support" or "Oppose." Was the same with Boothy, and we survived.

P.S. There's nothing wrong with pointing out doubtful votes or voters within reason: i.e., someone who always opposes or is an obvious sock, not someone who you think doesn't deserve to vote or whose reasoning you disagree with. -- Cecropia 04:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I have heard of consensus before, and I advocated all the time, so the sarcasm is somewhat unhelpful. Anyway, votes are still tallied as part of the decision. I just hope that such votes are given the feather weight they deserve. Why? Admins and arbitors where made by Jimbo and then elected per policy, voting oppose for everyone is just saying "I disagree with Wiki having admins/bcrats/arbiters", OK, so someone disagrees with policy, why don't they try to get a policy vote, like semi-protection, to get rid of admin/bcrat/steward/chechuser status?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Point of privilege, Mr. Chairman -- To Voice -- I was intending no sarcasm, nor was my comment directed specifically at you, so sorry if my words were unclear. When I said "have you heard this before?" I meant "have you [all] heard this before [from me, over and over]?). I don't know how many times I've had to say this consensus, because the question of counting comes up over and over and I re-explain consensus over and over. No offense to you meant. -- Cecropia 04:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I say it's being done solely for disruption. Maybe the editor is about to vapor-locked.--MONGO 04:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If we could be certain of that, then we would remove the votes, but we cant; it could still just be some zealot anarchist or whatever.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Okay, we could dicount the vote, but what about the votes of people that simply vote support on everyone's RfA without explanation? Are they not doing the same thing? Should they be discounted? I think not. People are allowed to vote the way they please. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Their weight is also decreased, I can think of a few people who support almost everyone, and I tend wonder how much the BCrats would weight that in a grey case. Either way, the wieght goes down.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And 'crats are allowed to discount 'votes' as their discretion directs them. Panic over. -Splash^talk 04:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So discussing it here has been a waste of time since the 'crats are infallible? Okie dokie.--MONGO 04:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the 'crats are infallible; please don't invent me as saying things I didn't. Yes, discussing it here is a waste of time. If you don't trust a 'crat to work this out for themselve, then take them to ArbCom and make some kind of no-confidence move. -Splash^talk 04:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, Splash, let's speedy this discussion page since it has been a waste of time. Yeah, if there are questionable votes, us little peons need to just shut up 'cause the 'crats have got it covered...I mean, what da heck do we know, anyways.--MONGO 05:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a good bit of distance between alerting the 'crats to a voter with such a pattern, and calling for some kind of punishment for that individual. I've noted ego's pattern in every RfA in which he's voted thus far, and having done so I trust the 'crats to take that information into account (which is why we elect extremely seasoned users to that position). bd2412 T 05:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you did the right thing, and I did not, hopefully, try to suggest that you supported banning...that was my thought. The remainder of my comment was as a response to what I perceive as the usual attempts by Splash to be condescending.--MONGO 05:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa... whatever happened to civility here? Experienced users like youselves should probably exercise better caution. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Splash is often condescenting (EVProtection)(EVP template)(on sockpuppet/RfA issues) ect...I am kind of sensitive, so I though maybe it was just me. I don't think he "tries" to do it.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the 'crats have it covered. That's why we approved them. Do you think they do not have it covered? Please feel free to use your discretion to delete this discussion page if you think that the best course of action. -Splash^talk 05:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, he said it, Cecropia, I guess you are the best tasting person here :).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the 'crats have it covered. That's why we approved them. Do you think they do not have it covered? Please feel free to use your discretion to delete this discussion page if you think that the best course of action. -Splash^talk 05:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I do have to say, I don't get where Splash said that BCrats are infallable.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"No offense to you meant."

Geeeze, now you got me wanting to do one of those big Esperanza group hugs....

....GROUP HUG!!!:-).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza? I thought that was Esselen, or something like that. But that was long ago... -- Cecropia 05:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is a very new user who still does not know well what is going on. At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EurekaLott s/he opposed for "Lack of complex problem solving skills". Surely bureaucrats will discount such a silly vote, and hopefully Masssiveego will get smarter as times goes on. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Editor has been around for two years and is trolling...opposing decent candidates for the most part and supporting those that have mostly oppose votes [2]. I stick to my original comments above.--MONGO 07:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Loss of patience

I've lost my patience. Harassment of Masssiveego or any other user on an RFA will no longer be tolerated. Neither will modifying other users' comments as Gustafson has been doing. Or voting multiple times as Encyclopedist has been doing. Or advocating ignoring the votes of certain users as many have been doing. freestylefrappe 14:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:COOL. The cabal^Wbureaucrats are looking into this right now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that we are not advocating ignoring anyone's vote, even your innapropriate Spite Votes, FSF, just pointing out a voting pattern. As it is, like Alex said, its the Bureaucrats decision here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No. The Beauracrats don't need to rule in this at all unless there's going to be a policy change. Last time I checked, following users around, adding little disclaimers like BD2412 has been doing, and you mimicked, is the only inappropriate action. As to my "spite votes" - continue your behviour, and continue to nominate candidates, and you might as well get used to them. freestylefrappe 14:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe, I do hope you understand that if you're actually admitting to spite votes, then they will be ignored.. there are better avenues to voicing your concerns, such as using the talk pages as you have been doing. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not admitting to "spite" votes. I'm just pointing out his rude characterization of my votes. freestylefrappe 15:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is an accepted view that, if votes in RFAs are believed to have been cast in bad faith, it is legitimate for a user to point this out (courteously). The oppose voter is, of course, entitled to their view and to justify their vote. In any case it is usual and fair for any oppose voter to explain why it is a 'big deal' for the admin candidate. David | Talk 15:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really expect us to believe that BD2412's disclaimer on almost every current RFA was courteous? It is unfortunately usual and unfair that administrators feel they can harass any user without facing consequences. freestylefrappe 15:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse for me "shouting" but this is a tempest in a teapot. Policy on issues like Boothy or Masssiveego was established a long time and remains the same. Bureaucrats are expected in tight cases to consider the reasoning behind individual votes to try to determine whether they are contributing to, or useless to, determing consensus. Someone who always votes "no" and who seems to do little else on Wikipedia will be recognized in that context. BD2412 is doing nothing wrong in pointing out potentially problem votes, any more than a candidate asking why someone opposed or editors arguing about a voter's assertion. However, I would ask anyone who "points out" problem voters that a half-dozen or so such postings should be sufficient to "hit the bureaucratic donkey over the head" to get its attention. -- Cecropia 16:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't shout it isn't helpful. On the topic of these notes I think that it's perfectly alright for a user to point out suspect votes either by an indented comment below the vote or (preferably) a comment in the comments section, assuming that it can be done politely. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} _{this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee} ---- 17:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, my ears are burnin'. I posted a note after every instance because I do not know which bureaucrat will close which RfA, so I was notifying whoever closed that particular RfA to a relevant pattern. In retrospect, this was overkill, and in future instances I shall restrict such commentary to this page and to the talk pages of the closing 'crats. bd2412 T 14:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My take on it

First, everyone needs to chill and take a step back. Let's all stop being silly and start acting like adults; there is no need for namecalling, nor is there any need for this to blow up like it already has. So much drama. Have you people forgotten about assuming good faith and staying cool?

This is my take on this entire situation. BD2412 could have alerted the bureaucrats in a more discrete manner, but he didn't. There's nothing he or anyone else can do about it. One one hand, Masssiveego has not violated anything by blanket opposing without explaination. On the other hand, I as a bureaucrat find that oppose votes without explainations are not in any way helpful when I need to make a decision on whether or not to promote someone. Why?

The RFA page itself states: Please explain your vote, if possible, by including a short explanation of your reasoning, particularly when opposing a nomination, though this is never required. To me, this is a catch-22 for us to make an informed decision. Oppose votes that have an explaination are what I like to see. However, sometimes an oppose vote which has an explaination will have such a stupid explaination that I will be inclined to discount it. "I don't like this candidate" is not a valid oppose reason, in my book. But if I discount that vote, people will think that I'm being biased. However, oppose votes that have no basis behind them, especially if a candidate has a vote ratio that requires my discretion between promotion to admin or not, make me angry. Why did you oppose this person? Did you oppose him/her because he/she is a man/woman? This has happened in the past! If I'm going to be making a decision based upon what a person says as compared to what a person doesn't say, then I'm sorry, but I will probably rule in favor of the candidate, not the oppose vote.

Consider this: a candidate requires a 75%-80% support rate to be considered for promotion. That means that one oppose vote effectively nullifies 5 support votes. Sure, providing a reason to why you're blowing away five support votes isn't required, but it's at the very least a courtesy to not only the candidate but also those five support voters that you're nullifying. Providing an explaination is not required, but it is the civil thing to do. It is not difficult to spend an extra two minutes to provide a reason behind an oppose vote. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, BD2412, did post here, just above this thread, but perhaps email would have been best? I think he did the right thing overall IMHO.--MONGO 15:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to commit a very unorthodox act by pointing to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. This is an underused noticeboard for bureaucratic things. I invite people to use it regarding things such as this. Future reference, of course. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've doubled Gustafson's block to six hours since he unblocked himself. I'm annoyed that I was not alerted about the discussion going on on the administrator's noticeboard until several users had already commented, and Mackensen, not Gustafson was the one who notified me. Either there needs to be a policy change, or the disclaimers have to stop. It's that simple. freestylefrappe 15:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is beginning to get really ugly... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. We're all making a mountain of a molehill here, and I see no reason why we should escalate this even more. After reviewing the discussion, it seems like our bureaucrats have been providing a voice of calm and reason in otherwise un-called for panic. There's nothing serious about this situation; we trust our bureaucrats to make the right call based on consensus, and there's no need to change anything right now. If it works or isn't broke, there's no need to fix things. How things got aggravated to the point of blocking, I don't know... <sigh> Sorry, just my two cents. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure bureaucrats can figure out when to promote and when not to promote. A single oppose vote against a tide of support votes isn't going to change the outcome. Also, bureaucrats are here to judge the community consensus and *not just* a single vote. Raw numbers need not add up when the situation calls for a b'crat's judgement. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. That's all that seems to be happening with this wasted breath over Massiveego. Marskell 22:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

user:swatjester's "no big deal" supports (Archive 48)

I am concerned at the macro-esque voting by this user. We recently wholesale discounted votes by a user during the arbcom elections who was making the same vote over and over again without explanation. Is this okay to do? It's been going on for weeks now. ... aa:talk 08:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Weeks eh? Nice hyperbole Avriette. Still holding a grudge against me? Does my opinion not count here? Are you telling me that I can't vote for half a dozen or so admin candidate the way I want? Welcome to censorship at it's finest here. Administratorship is SUPPOSED to be no big deal. I point you to this [3]. Finally, Lets look at a grand total of how many times I've edited the RfA page shall we? Oh look...I made 10 edits yesterday to the page. 10 votes is hardly "macro voting" for "Weeks now" considering I've made a grand total of 20 administrator votes my entire time here, and the last one was "2006/02/07 17:02:27" and the last one before that (was only 1) was "2006/01/11 07:58:06". You know, I'm really quite a bit offended by this Avriette....⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ironically Avriette, (or should I say pot) your kettle looks in need of a paint job.....Nearly 70 votes on the Jan 2006 arbcom elections [4] and you question MY voting here? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us avoid the personal attacks, please. Both of you. bd2412 T 22:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, ya--just bewildered per BDA. Was there a criticism/suggestion about RfA in here somewhere? Or just two users having a tiff? Marskell 23:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Beats me. No September requested my input here, and I gave it. Don't need to snap at me about it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Don't need to snap at me about it." Sir, I'm no turtle. I do no snapping. But I love, respect, and accept any users who are turtles/do snap. Marskell 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh. You show me a turtle who can operate wikipedia, and we're in the money! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Swat, since you like that Jimbo quote, let me direct you to another one where he discusses admins, status, and obscene material. :o ;) NoSeptember ^talk 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice! I think I might like that quote even better: It's less ambiguous. Anyway, I hope you all can understand where I'm coming from with my reasoning behind my vote, and why I feel a bit perturbed at the accusations against me. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, folks, chill out a little bit. SJ, I am not complaining about the frequency of your votes, but rather because you say the same thing continually, and don't seem to be making a judgement on the user. I voted on every member in the arbcom elections, and generally gave reasons for my support or opposition. The same is true of the RFA's here. When I say "the user is too new," or "I like the user's edit spread," or "come back in two months," it is clear why I have cast my vote. If I were to cast an additional seventy votes, and all of those had the same message, I might be criticized for them. Let me explain.

1. User:Masssiveego votes nearly 100% oppose [5], except when everyone else is voting oppose [6].
2. This is complained about, at least by a few people (including you, BD2412)
3. Such behavior is referred to as trollish, "very strange", and violation of WP:POINT.
4. Another user refers to this behavior as disruptive.

And so, when I say above, "I am concerned..." and "Is this okay to do...", I am not attacking anyone. I am simply stating that I am concerned. I am also asking whether this sort of behavior (which is voting with a repetitive message and seemingly little attention to the discussion, for whatever reason) is okay or within policy. One of the reasons I ask is we have recently been discussing "very close" closed admin promotions. In some of these cases, one vote on one side or the other may have changed the outcome.

BD2412, I have not attacked anyone. I have no "tiff" with the user. I was polite, civil, and simply asked a question. SJ, I don't know why you'd be offended. You still haven't explained your reasoning behind this. Additionally, I am confused as to why you would suggest that my voting "requires paint". I am very careful to list the reason for each vote I cast. I view it as very important, as many people do not seem to realize that votes are important in these sorts of discussions.

Lastly, I also concerns me that I believe there has been no mention of this pattern because the user is voting for promotion rather than against. I suspect if I had voted against all the arbcom candidates (all 70 of whom I cast a vote for or against), that similar focus would have been placed on me. So please, do not divert the discussion. I would like it if somebody who knows policy better than I could explain this to me. SJ, you're of course not required to explain your votes, but it would be polite, if you are going to vote in such a mechanical fashion.

And before I forget, I don't hold a grudge against you or anyone. I rather resent your implying I do. ... aa:talk 00:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Note - my comments about User:Masssiveego were with respect to his votes with no explanation whatsoever. I over-reacted in that situation, and later apologized to Masssiveego (and to Boothy, for bringing his name up). Your comments atop this section implied that Swatjester was "making the same vote over and over again without explanation", which was not the case. Since I saw no evidence of an effort on your part to discuss this with Swatjester before bringing it here, I found that implication to be excessive. bd2412 T 02:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for assuming that then. Let me explain myself: I don't think administrator status should be a big deal. Just as Wikipedia keeps vandalism in check by other users being able to fix it, I'd say administrators are kept in check by other admins being able to fix their mistakes, and bureaucrats, and arbcom oversight. It'd be one thing, as No September's link pointed out if there were only a small number (say 30) admins. But there are (i believe) several hundred admins. It's more than enough to keep any one or two from going out of control.

What I feel was the original intention of the No Big Deal statement was that Admin should be granted on a presumption of worthiness: meaning that an individual requesting admin should be presumed worthy of it unless they can distinctively and remarkably be shown otherwise. The vast majority of admin rejections I've seen here have been "He doesn't use edit summaries" or "He's too new" or "Not enough edits in XXX namespace". I don't think I've ever seen one that was like "Has a history of blatant vandalism" or "Is a well known troll". None of those first 3 reasons to me seem to be a good enough reason to deny someone administrator access: Lack of edits in a certain namespace, or lack of 6 months to a year of editing time says nothing at ALL about whether the user will abuse his admin powers: And based on a presumption of worthiness, nearly the ONLY good reason I can see to turn someone down is a belief that they will abuse the power. None of those people that I supported, ever, have had something jump out at me that they will do so. Therefore, I'm supporting my beliefs that they'll do a good job: I'm assuming good faith. Isn't that supposed to be one of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia? Because I'm seeing a LOT of potential administrator candidates being turned down for reasons that don't show a lot of faith placed in the individual. And what if the candidate I vote for turns out to be a bad apple? As rare as that would be: there are hundreds of other admins and dozens of 'crats who are ready to fix the mistake. The community policing itself, that's what wikipedia should be about right?

I mean, a vandal gets what: Test 1-4, BV, and a half dozen other warning templates and is STILL allowed to edit wikipedia even after a couple blocks, but god forbid a promising editor who's been here for 3 months and has over 1000 constructive edits be given tools to further improve this encyclopedia? Why, cause he can't be trusted? Doesn't that strike you all as a little ironic?

Now, I'm no idiot. The policy is not going to change, and I'm far from the person to go on a rampage trying to change it. I've got far less stressful things to do with my time. But, when I do see a person on the RfA list, unless I can either think of a better reason why to support them (i.e. I have had positive dealings with them), I'll list my reason as "Because admin should be no big deal, right?" UNLESS THEY HAVE SHOWN POTENTIAL TO ABUSE THE POWER OR SOME OTHER SIGNIFICANT REASON FOR ME NOT TO, IN WHICH CASE I WILL VOTE NO. There. Bolded, and in caps. I've just explicitly stated under what circumstances I will vote no. Until then, I will maintain a presumption of worthiness.

So finally, Avriette, I apologize for reading into your comments more than I though. I was a little ticked off that I had to hear about this from someone else, but apparently your comment on my talk page got lost in the shuffle (that's what I have the inbox up at the top for). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Masssiveego and voting (Archive 49)

I understand the current policy for voting, and while I'm all for contructive criticism if it's fair, I don't believe this user has made any significant contributions to RFAs apart from simply undermining the whole system. I've checked his contributions [7] and he's voted about 20 times today, and only supported one candidate.

Now while I can't see anything he's done is actually against the rules, I do believe that adopting such an attitude as to vote Oppose to everybody could be considered informal voting. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions towards a possible resolution? mdmanser 11:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the same pattern s/he was doing a while back. I'll look for the link to the discussion on that in which my same complaint about this editor was essentially swept under the table.--MONGO 12:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Original comments...[8]--MONGO 12:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 45#Votes by Masssiveego. I figure the 'crats have this well-covered since his 'voting' pattern sticks out considerably more than a sore thumb. -Splash^talk 15:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse we do keep a tab. :) Remember Boothy? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have always been bemused at the attention the routine oppose voters get, and the lack of attention the routine support voters get, and there are quite a few who support almost 100% of the candidates they vote on. A Community standard really does include the entire spectrum of voters, including the perma-support and the perma-oppose voters. I am closer to the perma-support voters, but would not want to discount any legitimate voter. There could come a time when RfAs are treated like RfBs and a cabal decides that we have enough admins and vote consistently to block all but the most excellent candidates. One never knows... NoSeptember ^talk 17:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference though...There are thousands upon thousands of tasks available to Administrators that need doing. One could literally make administering Wikipedia their job, do nothing but Administrative tasks a hours a day all week, and that would barely be a drop in the bucket of Administrative work to be done (and a very un-lucrative career path to boot). Bureaucrats on the other hand, have only RfA, Username changes, and recently apparently bot flagging. There is simply not that much Bureaucratic work to be done, and there is simply not much clamoring on the part of Bureaucrats that they're swamped with work and need the backup. Admins however, are very needed. Wikipedia can never have enough good Admins. I don't think you'll see they day where we say we have too many Admins. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I favor judging it on a case by case basis. It seems silly to oppose every nomination or support every nomination without judging the nom based on its merits. But if Masssiveego wants to oppose every nom, I don't have a huge problem with it. I grant that it's sort of annoying, but in the long run, it's really not all that disruptive. So the RfA for candidate X turns out to be 75 to 1 instead of 75 to 0, big deal. registered wikipedians are entitled to their opinions in RfA.--Alhutch 17:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Masssiveego voted against me, and brought along another oppose vote while he was at it. Ah, the good old days (2 months ago) ;-) NoSeptember ^talk 17:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I had the luxury of going unopposed, but that was about 4 months ago. ahh, the memories :-) Alhutch 17:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason why people who always support are not criticised as much as people who always oppose because opposes are much more powerful. If only a quarter of the votes are opposes, generally it is no consensus. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this straight, here. There is no concensus anymore. Rfa has just become a vote, just like afd, mfd, etc. No more do people actually listen to a nominee's replies proceeding a vote, even if it places thier qualms at rest. What honestly needs to be looked at when a bcrat closes a vote is not the vote count proceeding a nomination but to answer the simple question of "does the problems brought by people interfere with being a good admin"...? "Does the canidate wish to improve the project..?"

Ever since the previous expansion of wikipedia's editor population, the integrity of conensus and the importance of votes has been poisoned and the culture thrown away from actual thesis and composition. If a canidate has a 110% opposition, but the only qualm brought to the table is minor cases of edit summeries or some other sillliness, then its obvious he/she should pass anyway. It's no longer about honesty. Its about people deliberately and maliciously setting out to poison the process of rfa concensus and against the culture of Wikipedia. That is absolutely unacceptable. -Zero^Talk 02:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well said. We elect these people as they'd do a good job and we trust their judgement. Give them some real power equivolent to the amount of paranoia surrounding the position. --Celestianpower ^háblame 09:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your concerns, but I think leaving the decision whether to promote or not sorely on the hands of a bureaucrat is something that would cause more controversies than we already have. Of course, I'm desperate to hear a solution to the problem and think that voting is evil. Fetofs ^Hello! 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not silly. I see them as one important indicator among many, as do a significant number of regular RfA participants. I admit I'm pretty far toward the "high standards" end of the spectrum of regular voters, but even so I support more often than oppose. We see new admins nearly every day come through this process, so I don't think this has become an insurmountable hurdle. Jonathunder 02:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Edit summaries are Very Valuable: I have tried to educate the dutch in this matter, but this was futile. I am flabbergasted however with the consistent 100% scores achieved on RfA. Which script does these measurements? Let's introduce it in holland! Zanaq 12:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I obviously made a huge mistake of not voting previously, as it's clear to me the standards before were set far too low. Either the ones coming in meet the higher standard, or they get opposed. It's that simple, it is not suggestable someone try to claim disruption as Arbcom has already set it clear, Boothy443 has not disrupting Wikipedia with his voting pattern. The previous RFA's were too easy, resulting in Wikistress. The problem is quite clear, there is need for quality control, and higher standard. For now I help set that higher standard.--Masssiveego 09:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am flabbergasted at the lengths you travel to try to defend your voting procedure. User's are not to vote selectively to conform other's to a higher standard or to intiate a coup-out simply because armcom did not find Boothy's actions disruptive. From personal experience, rfa's are not easy, and to claim such bolllocks would be a travesty. The only problem with rfa is the fact that it is no longer carried out in true concensus fashion. You don't assist the process by "helping set that higher standard", you help by giving a nominee the credit he deserves, looking at his actions, history, and actually inquiring if this person's gaining of the tools would help make wikipedia a better place. This isn't a place where you vote just because you have scant else to do, or because you relish the thought of judging other people's faults. That isn't what rfa is about at all. -Zero^Talk 10:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Zero, Masssiveego is entitled to vote in the RFA and we bureaucrats are given the power to take into account the macro sentiment of the community based on the voting patterns and comments. Please have more faith in us. :) Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh I do. :) There's no qualms there, I simply want to make it clear the rfa is not something we partake of simply as a pasttime. I have full faith in the system and take the ideal of this encyclopedia seriously. This is not a playground. -Zero^Talk 12:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet I reiterate what I said above, I can envision a day when a group of users decides that we need high standards for admins and routinely block all but the most superb candidates. Community standards can and will change. Masssiveego may not always be so unique (or Boothy, or Radiant, or ...) NoSeptember ^talk 13:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If I could throw my 2 cents in, let me point out the following fact: Massiveego's votes again mean essentially zero to me, and, I suspect, to many other contributors. And here's why:

When I decide I will vote on a given RfA, I read through everyone's comments that has voted before me. Sometimes I know an editor up for RfA, but more often I have little to no exposure to this particular editor, so I have to trust the comments of the other voters.

But here's the thing: the votes which have any possibility of changing my opinion of an editor are the ones which contain content. For example, 40 votes of "Support. This guy is teh r0x0rz" don't really make me sit up and notice. However, just a few votes like "Support. I know this guy from the CrazyUser-OtherCrazyUser affair, and he was able to calm all participants down and we actually got a good article on Fly Fishing out of the deal" can sway my opinion.

Conversely, the content of an oppose vote matter a lot in whether they will affect my opinion. An oppose vote which has content, links to edit warring or other unsavory behaviour by a candidate, etc., in short a vote with a claim and with evidence, will make me sit up and think. These are relatively rare, and when someone takes the time to make such an argument I go through the links and take their claims seriously. However, votes such as "Oppose. This guy is teh sux0rz" mean zero to me. And, in short, Massiveego's votes are so content-free that it just washes over me and does nothing.

In short, ME's oppose vote does nothing to change my opinion of a candidate, and I am sure that this same is true for most people voting in RfA's. I don't think Megaman Zero has much to worry about. If this were a democracy, users like Massiveego could conceivably game the system, but this is not what we have here. --Deville (Talk) 14:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Deville, please don't mistake my rfa concerns for me being in state of distress. I am quite calm on all subjects pertaining to the encyclopedia. I only wanted to devulge how rfa isn't concensus. That's just a smokescreen. This is nothing but a by-number voting system when the cards are laid on the table. -Zero^Talk 16:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not at all, not trying to imply that you are distressed...;) But I would say that, depending on how people decide to vote, it may or may not be a by-number voting system. Let me explain. If someone comes into an RfA knowing which way they will go, and they don't even read others explanations, then that is, in fact, a straight vote. And, admittedly, sometimes I do this: I know an editor from earlier interactions, and I have an strong opinion of that editor's contributions from personal experience, so therefore I vote based on that. If everyone does this, it is a vote.

But, on most people up for RfA, I haven't had much personal experience with that person since we edit in different spheres. Then I read through all of the comments, and way the evidence presented by the previous commenters, and also note who the previous commenters are. For example, if I don't know the user up for RfA, but I see a "Strong support" from another user I know and respect a lot, this will push me hard towards voting for the user up for RfA. And of course similarly if the comments are for Oppose. Also, if a supporter makes what I think is a strong and valid claim for the user up for RfA, this can also sway me. In short, I feel that in most cases my Support vote is not "I like this guy and I am voting for him" but "I feel that the arguments presented by the other users in favor of the user up for RfA are compelling and convincing, and I am voting for their arguments." If this is really how most contributors on RfA votes act, then this makes it no longer a "straight vote", but an "affirmation of concensus".

On the other hand, I agree, if most users are voting while ignoring others' comments, then it is a vote, or a popularity contest. But I don't think that this is true, based on everyone's claims of what criteria they use to determine how to vote. --Deville (Talk) 16:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• To me, his participation just smacks of trolling. "Needs another year", "May not be emotionally qualified for the job"... these are the kind of things you say to get a reaction out of people. It just seems too similar to the way some people troll on Usenet, figuring out language that makes people upset... and repeating a zillion times. Personally I encourage people (especially candidates) to just ignore him when he's like that, don't confront him... if he doesn't get a reaction he'll probably lose interest. --W.marsh 16:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I highly encourage users to focus on the candidates, and on the vote on hand. Persons in question could either put in more time, learn to handle wikistress, or they can drop themselves from the election at any time. As some former Admins who seem to have a nasty habit of burning out, and finding out they really find they liked being users better before. It's possible communitty members might have asked too much from certain candiates. It may be best deal with such peer pressure, and weed out candidates that are better suited for other tasks for the best results. The qualified will always garner votes. I would like to leave all confortations about my votes to this page, away from the RFA on hand. There is a time and place for everything. Dealing away from the issue topic on hand on the RFA may be considered a disruption, and could be treated as vandalism. --Masssiveego 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is indeed a solid point to be made for the fact that RfA candidates should be able to handle oppose votes - even to the point of not receiving the promotion - with grace and maturity. However, Admin burnout is something of a mystery to me, as no admin needs to do significantly more than they were doing before. bd2412 T 03:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with Zero. Any weakness, error, or mistake made by an Admin has high consequences then a user would have. It is far more diffiuclt to correct a mistake an Admin makes, then what a user would have done. To allow even the slightest uncorrected problem in an Admin will be difficult for all users. Any possible crappy power tripping admin with an agenda are users that do not deserve admin privilges. Any and all positives are nothing once an Admin loses their mind, and play Caesar on Wikipedia.

It is important those who are selected as Admin be like U.S. Marines. Dependable, trusthworthy, and loyal to Wikipedia cause. Semper Fi, Always faithful. I want troubleshooters, not troublemakers. It is best to point out their mistakes, and stop them before they become admin. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Stop the possible problem Admin before they happen.

If users have truely screwed up, users might think of getting another screen name, and a different IP address, and start all over from scratch, and rebuild with only all good edits. --Masssiveego 09:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not disagreeing with me. Becasue I did not say anything like that. I am well aware of the points of a strict rfa voting process, and endorse it. I merely raise the point of weather or not your votes are based on a merit of a canidate. From various rfa's, most of your votes are clearly outside the norm, and even at times completely off base, so much that fellow users had to correct your thesis. The point of rfa is assist the project by endowing a user with more tools for matinence. Its not about voting because you have nothing else to do. Go write some articles. -Zero^Talk 15:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I am voting as it is clear Wikipedia needs me most here, where the Adminship process. I am unable to write articles at this time as researching each canidate and evaluating their responses is taking a huge section of my time. It is fully within the merit of the canidate is it's clearly obvious each canidate that I have oppose is severily lacking in something that makes for a good neutral admin. While I am outside the norm from your perspective, I do admit to making mistakes. While the RFA process is to give the user more tools, these tools have been misused by admin in the past causing a great deal of trouble. Again the only quality control to prevent such abuses in admin priliges is to carefully pick the best admin. I like to think of it as yanking a thorn out of a lions paw. Sometimes the lion cannot hunt with a wounded paw. A pillar with a crack in it, will fail when too much pressure is exerted on it. So I must insist on working on this part of the Wikipedia process until fellow voters understand that we are all responsible for the admins actions if we do nothing to correct them when we see the problem and clearly know it is wrong. --Masssiveego 21:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I felt that, although you're one of the most frequent voters, you don't have the right temperament or control for consistent rfa voting. I'm sorry I can't pin it down closer than that. If it's any consolation, many opposers of rfas already adress your points, and I have no reason to doubt that their assessments were made in good faith.

I don't think you quite understand the deal with rfa. You don't have a golden finger in the concensus, merely a option to be included. If you use it to diverge away from building the encyclopedia and/or make misleading claims, as you did, you may find the votes ignored. If you falsely claim that you handle the quality of rfa, then that false claim will be rejected. I don't think you're in a position to lecture anyone about selecting admins when you are defeating the purpose of the encyclopedia by not contributing to it.

The environment in which we edit Wikipedia determines the quality of the project. Attacking canidates and not showing refrainment hurts Wikipedia. Comparing rfa to a weapon of war agaisnt unsuitible persons hurts Wikipedia. -Zero^Talk 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not for you to judge whether or not he has the right temperament to be voting here. As long as he's a user in good standing, it's his right to vote here, however he pleases. Consensus comes from the opinions of everyone, and his voice is one voice in the system. If he's spending time researching candidates, I applaud that. If he wants to vote oppose, let him. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, having looked at his voting statement, there's no way I could have supported him. His concensus is numming, skipping any chance for most people to question him, and fielded a couple of tame questions that revealed that he was running on a populist ticket, based on the extraordinary conclusion that he showed a lead in the process. You're probably right. I seem to recall seeing confusion stuff, and rather ugly it was too, on various rfa's and it seemed to be related to the existence of falsified claims. A minor point, perhaps, in the scheme of things, but as wikipedia space becomes more cluttered with trivial and minor gripes and trolls I do feel protective toward the brand. Finally, I did not claim to make the construment of anyone not being able to vote or make a judge on such a thing. I don't believe that anybody had ever suggested that I am--until you did just there. Thinking out of the box is a wonderful thing, I welcome more user's to it. I however, realize there is no laudible backing of fact.

As one becomes an experienced editor, one must take these facts on board. I welcome him to vote away. I only question his concensus in doing so. -Zero^Talk 03:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And in the situation of elevating a misunderstanding, Dearest Masssiveego, please accept my deepest apologies if at any time you felt that I was seriously suggesting that you were not permitted to express your opinion. I merely want to eveicerate any cause for doubt on your part as to not have others asume otherwise. -Zero^Talk 03:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well put, Evilphoenix. The point isn't to achieve a unified groupthink where everyone magically votes the same way, but to take many viewpoints into consideration. FreplySpang (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'd have a different opinion if he opposed my RfA, but I think it takes "round things" to be brave enough to be the only objection in a 100+ support RfA. I don't know how to swing my opinions on this issue. — Deckiller 02:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My time is best spent working on this Admin situation. I cannot consciously work on building the encyclopedia knowing that sometime in the future I will only be forced to deal with such Admin anyhow. Better to fix the quality problem before it gets any worse. Still, may I have a clarification on the misleading claims? I do like to learn from my mistakes, so do feel free to let me know when I'm wrong in the appropriate venue.

For qualifications, my post counts satisfies the minimum admin requirements for roughly half of the daily voters, therefore I think there are contributions may be suffiently to vote in these elections. I like to think the "weapons of war", the United States Marine Corps are the best examples of duty, service and commitment. They are an excellent standard of what doing a good job is. There is no question when the job needs to get done, send in the Marines. I cannot think of another more suitable standard to determine what a good Admin should be like. --Masssiveego 04:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been voting now for months, and you say you are trying to help us select only good admins. That is your contribution to the encyclopedia given your limited time. I have read your standards at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards, quite a laundry list of adjectives, but I wonder which are the most important in deciding your vote. Since most of your votes are oppose, does this mean that a person can't violate any of the items on your list and still be worthy of adminship? Do you watch the admins that get promoted, and have you changed your opinion positive or negative on any you have voted on? Would you vote differently today on any of these people? Are there non-admins out there that you think should be admins based on your standards (and have you told them to apply)? NoSeptember ^talk 04:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:My time is best spent working on this Admin situation. I cannot consciously work on building the encyclopedia knowing that sometime in the future I will only be forced to deal with such Admin anyhow.

Sounds like your user name is well chosen. Free clue: Nobody has died and left you responsible. Have you thought about actually doing something productive, like actually editing? --Calton | Talk 04:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As I stated before either way I will be dealing Admin in some shape or form.. better to get them early. For now my contribution is voting on the Wikipedia admin elections.

1. Since most of your votes are oppose, does this mean that a person can't violate any of the items on your list and still be worthy of adminship?

Generally speaking yes.

2 Do you watch the admins that get promoted, and have you changed your opinion positive or negative on any you have voted on?

Yes, I have seen admin get promoted. I have no change my opinion on those who I have voted on yet.

3. Would you vote differently today on any of these people?

Probably not.

4 Are there non-admins out there that you think should be admins based on your standards (and have you told them to apply)?

If I come across one, and they want to be Admin, I probably would advise them to run. --Masssiveego 06:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

One more question. When you do not vote on an RfA, is that an implicit endorsement of that candidate? Because I see you do skip some nominations that you could have voted on. NoSeptember ^talk 16:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well sometimes I do make mistakes. Other times I ran out of time, before researching the canidate in question, or unaware of the vote. I had to skip many votes and wait to see of Arbcom results for Booth443 to determine what the rules of voting were. For the most part a missed vote is just a neutral response to the canidate. --Masssiveego 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Masssiveego's Votes (Archive 51)

Any questions? --Masssiveego 23:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I will say this though - those who want to find what they want to seek will always find it. So, could I request something of you? It's just a little thing. If you have an inclination to oppose candidates, could you please accompany your oppose votes with other material which, say, highlights the strengths of the candidate? Not only would it be more palatable for the recipient, it would also come across as more constructive. In this way, your votes would come across as more meaningful, and less polarizing. Would this be okay with you? Is this something you could work towards? How do you feel about this suggestion? --HappyCamper 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, highlighting strengths would probably support the canidate and cancel out the effect of the oppose. Therefore I should

not give "compliments" about their strengths. I think bad admin canidates should clearly know without confusion they are opposed. --Masssiveego 03:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I recommend that you look back at RfAs you've opposed. Often, you may find some solid counterpoints that may negate your oppose. — Deckiller 23:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did this come up? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make sure that if he brings up a point, and someone provides a good counterpoint, perhaps he should change his position to be fair. — Deckiller 00:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless the counterpoint is clearly canceling out the reason why I opposed the canidate as wrong or false, I generally prefer not to change my position on my votes. I have not seen anything that would change my vote at this time. Otherwise if the counterpoint is merely, my voting record, or "I don't trust your judgement", I treat both as an insult that is covered WP:personal attack. --Masssiveego 03:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that makes very good sense. Thanks for the response. — Deckiller 03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask, here's a question: Do you think any or all of the candidates you have opposed that were promoted have made bad admins? Would you be willing to rethink your strategy if you reviewed those admins that you opposed and found some of them proved worthy? Dmcdevit·t 03:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely some should have never been made Admin in my opinion. I found none that I have opposed worthy yet. Masssiveego 06:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Oppose" votes should, but do not have to be, backed up by reason(s). I'm beginning to think that a plain "oppose", with no comment is best. Merecat 06:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not a democracy close votes without a reason carry much less weight when it comes down to it, and to a certain extent same with support votes with no reasoning but if your okay with the fact that your refusal (both Merecat and Massivego) to write anything else in addition to oppose on your input degrades the impact that your votes have to the process and the fact that they do nothing to convince people to vote oppose (quite the opposite in many cases since some editors will vote support just to spite oppose voters which is a fairly immature and unhelpful response) while giving people a reason why you think the candidate is not suitable as an admin can and many times will help people get a full picture and very likely even vote oppose as well due to concerns about the candidate. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Masssiveego. Personally, I think people question your opposes when your reasoning seems rather minor, possibly trivial, or possibly incorrect (e.g., "no images", "inactivity with the Wikipedia community", username is "copyright infringement"). I think clarification of your reasoning can go a long way, and could help those involved in the RfA process to determine whether they want a candidate to be an admin. — TheKMan^talk 02:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My reasons are definitently important, especially on the failiure to post images, in the light of the religious cartoon contraversy. Images are a large part of wikipedia. If the user in question requires clarification, they have the option to leave me a message asking so. Masssiveego 06:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please also see Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy Masssiveego 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Massiveego, please unless someone is for certain complaining about your voting on RFA or elsewhere, don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Moe ε 17:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are many complaints about my voting, and this is the correct forum for dealing with these disputes/explainations. WP:point

was overruled for voting purposes with Boothy443. If there is a problem with my voting habits, reasons, or otherwise about the admin election system. This is the proper forum for discussing them. --Masssiveego 05:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC) WP:point is only for editing articles.

Well, Masssiveego, I think you probally should take a deeper look at some of your statements, some of your arguments really do seem a little odd.. Whilst I agree that you do have some valid reasons for your votes, taking a look at most of your history I'd say 85% of your votes are opposes and of those 85% the majority are "as above" etc. I really don't know how long you look into information, but from your comments on my rfa, mostly regarding my bot, I think you might want to spend just a little bit more time fact checking. For example you made a quote saying that I was being unfriendly regarding the bot, and the poster themselves took a second to reply and say that there was no hostility, he was simply reporting an error that was promptly corrected. I've also noted very very few non RfA related contribs, I don't want to sound offensive but are you sure you are really getting a perspective to vote without interacting with the user or the community at large, I think some more time on articles would really help put things into perspective. Perhaps a lot of voters don't look too deeply, I mostly vote based on talk page contribs and the overall friendliness of the user, perhaps talking to the user might help bring in another perspective that you didn't realize? I'm not trying to sound critical but a large number of editors have been questioning some of your votes, I'm just trying to suggest ways that might help you get a better perspective -- Tawker 01:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion above has been well noted. The main problem with the above RFA was haste. The only time I have any discussion is when the RFA

canidate is questioned. At which point the answers, if any, from these canidates shape my response. While some of answers do appear odd, typically it's because the wikipedia at large seems to have limited experiences from which a habit has already been formed from. The differences in cultural backgrounds may account for this "oddness". Just because it's in english, does not necessarily means it's in the english culture.

As for the bot let me use my translation of the message.

Re: Tawkerbot2

This is in response to your reply on my talk page to feedback I left on the bot's talk page.

As for the message left on editors' talk pages, my personal preference leans towards something more technical and less conversational. That lead to my "thanks for experimenting, now frig off" interpretation, because that's how I imagined an innocent aggrieved editor taking the comment when the revert was wrong. FWIW, I'd lean more towards something along the lines of:

Your recent edit of some article was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If you were experimenting, know that everyone really is welcome to contribute, but tests should be done in the sandbox.If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior.

Or something like that. At least that's my 2 cents' worth and how I read your talk page post.

"The bot is a great idea in theory. "

(There is a problem with the bot.)

"Thanks for all the work you've put into it. "

(civil)

But please be careful and very conservative in practice. (something may be wrong with it.)

If you get too ambitious you'll get in trouble, because there is no way that the bot will be ever be able to reliably distinguish between all types of vandalism from good faith edits.

(ambitious as in.. too much too soon.. therefore haste, haste is bad. Proof that haste is a continued problem.)

Randomly reverting legitimate edits is another form of vandalism, after all!

(the complaint about the bot)

Going for the obvious profanity, scatology, etc., will help a lot, but keep a close eye on it, and leave the rest to us mere mortals.

(the suggestion)

"--Kbh3rdtalk 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC) [edit]"

"A tawkerbot error"

"Hi Tawker. I just thought you should know about this revert. The IP address fixed it in the previous edit and your bot reverted it back. " (the problem with the bot)

"I figured that you should know so that hopefully you can prevent this from happening again. "

(warning)

"I left a message on User talk:80.7.14.231 (the user whose edit was reverted) explaining the misunderstanding. I overall like your bot and I've seen the good that it can do, however,"

(resolution)

"I am a little concerned that mistakes like this will bite newbies and scare them away from future contributions. However, as long as the mistake is caught and is explained to the user, especially if they are a new user, I don't have a problem with it. I am just worried that this won't always be the case. Anyway, thanks for looking into this."

(Probable damage from hastily releasee error prone bot. What kind of damage can this user do on newbies with admin powers added?)

--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What stuck out the most in my mind.

"You threatened to block me for one bad edit in 24 hours which is the truth ." (the complaint)

"You are not an administrator." (something is really wrong.)

"Get a better handle on warning templates WP:RCP." (The tone of the suggestions suggests to me irate.)

"--196.40.43.218 08:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)"

The way too quick on the draw that suggests a pattern of haste. Masssiveego 05:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Opposes by User:Profundity06 (Archive 54)

Hello. What do people think of the conduct of Profundity on some of the RfAs? He has opposed candidates on the basis that they are "vandal-bashers" and also on one RfA to "rub salt into the wound". He also appears to have created a dubious page Timothean religion. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say crat's call, but personally I would ignore the user as just any other troll. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:38 UTC (2006-04-27)

He's just a troll which can be harmlessly ignored. Probably he's just angry that his "religion" got less-than-decent treatment. Kimchi.sg | talk 06:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Watch him. If he becomes an annoyance, report to an administrator. michael ^talk 07:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not my religion. I'm glad that I'm being watched. Makes me feel right at home. RegardsProfundity06 09:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Making points on RfA pages (Archive 57)

Well, its come up again, Ardenn's voting oppose everwhere because "nothing against the candidate" we just don't need more admins. Ardenn is clearly trying to make a point, and I find it a little disruptive. Do we want to adopt a policy for crats marking disruptive votes as such so hopefully the pratice can be discouraged -- Tawker 05:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's simple: Trust us. We're smart enough to know when votes are in good faith and when they're not. I can't think of a single person who was denied adminship because of a vote by Boothy443, and I highly doubt this instance will be any more sucessful. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Essjay :). It really fills the page with needless rambling, AT BEST. IMHO people should stick to disputing reasons instead of the intent of the user, because they only direction that goes is down :\. It is as it always was ^{T | @ | C} 05:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its not about final outcome and is more about a user making a point by adding his views (which no-one agrees to) everywhere. I strongly feel that its disruptive. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Then just ignore it. As long as it doesn't have any tangible effect, there's no point paying attention to it. Johnleemk | Talk 07:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

He should be able to vote for any reason he wants, provided he has a sufficient history as a constructive contributor. It's worrying when people try to dictate what reasons are valid for opposing. A person's vote is an expression of their opinion and should not be disregarded. I find it rather irritating that Essjay would say that holding such an opinion marks him as voting in "bad faith". Everyking 09:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If an opinion runs counter to policy it ought to be disregarded. Not ignored, but nevertheless, considered invalid. Otherwise we might as well discard our policies and just let mob rule take over. (Note: There's a difference between IAR and running counter to policy. Many actions taken under IAR/WP:SNOW in the correct manner as outlined on their respective pages do not run counter to policy, but fill the gap of wedge cases as I mentioned above in the discussion of renewing adminship/community deadminning.) Just because you can express your opinion doesn't mean it should be heard. It is policy currently to continue adminning people, or else we would shut down RfA. If Ardenn wants to make a real change, he should propose to change this policy, not try to make a point by abusing the existing policy/process. Johnleemk | Talk 09:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of what policy could prohibit his votes, unless it's the argument that the mere existence of RfA prohibits his votes, in which case I think that's preposterous. And quit talking about "mob rule" (you were using that same line in the previous argument)—I happen to be a big believer in "mob rule", although I don't call it that or perceive it as being at all contrary to policy. Everyking 09:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

RFA IS NOT A VOTE The whole point is reaching consensus, which is not the same as "80% support", that's just a convinient rule of thumb - that means that all votes are not equally valid. The weight of the vote depends on the validity of the reason. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, certainly, but that's irrelevant - it's the opinion of Wikipedia as a whole that matters. Prehaps we should have a single debate and reach concensus on what kind of votes are valid in one go, rather than repeating it every RfA. "Candidates need more than 2000 edits" is no more valid or invalid on one RfA than another, so why don't we determine it for all RfAs at once? --Tango 12:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me you're using the idea of consensus to dismiss a person's opinion. The fact is, RfA is a vote—it's unfair to treat it as a vote, to have it function as a vote, and then try to deprive people of their votes when they use them to express something unpopular, on the grounds that it's supposed to be about "consensus". Everyking 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely the closing 'Crat would discount Ardenn's vote. How useful in seeking consensus is his vote if he always votes no? Is he violating WP:POINT? Is there not a better way for him to address the issue? :) Dlohcierekim 14:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Were I the 'crat (I'm not), User:Ardenn and User:A ding ding ding ding ding ding ding would cancel each other out... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If RfA isn't a vote, why does the template say "vote here"? Hehe. It's not a pure vote, because sometimes people with 75-80% can pass, but 80.0% and up now essentially always succeeds, and b'crats have said this, so it is basically a vote. --W.marsh 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

why does the template say "vote here"? That's a weak point, because some nominators do change the "vote here" to "discuss here". Kimchi.sg 15:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is that we can call it consensus and discussion, but ultimately a 82% RfA will practically never fail. If you succeed by getting enough votes, then it's a vote... even if we say it's determing consensus, which it is too. --W.marsh 15:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

82% will never fail because b'crats have to essentially promise to always abide by the 80% rule and never think for themselves if they want to get through RfB. We should give the b'crats more room to use their descretion - if we didn't trust them to do that, they wouldn't have the job. How about expanding the buro descretion range from 75-80% to 65-90%? Promotions under 75% and failures over 80% would still be very rare, and would probably require some explanation from the buro, but they would have room to do it if it's needed. --Tango 16:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, this seems like a reasonable reason to oppose, although one I would disagree with. Presumably if the position has only limited support then it will have little effect on RfA outcomes. Ardenn's votes may very well be in bad faith (I know nothing about the user) but on the surface I don't see the problem, particularly. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

They're not really in bad faith (I think--see his talk page) but his summaries do leave something to be desired. I don't think this is really a WP:POINT to be made. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)