Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit stats

Neutral section

There seems to be a support vote at the bottom of the neutral section. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been copy and pasted into support vote # 142. See here for why the duplicate is still down there. bstone just deleted the dupe as well. xenocidic (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The person actually meant to support: the support is still down there, but at this time of writing, it has been indented, and isn't counted in the tally. The said user has supported too. Acalamari 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, my comment is out of date as well. :) Acalamari 23:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, thought id just letcha know. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

This is currently being investigated by the bureaucrats. Apportioning blame without evidence tends to only poison the well. Please wait for solid conclusions to be made by bureaucrat(s) and possibly developers before discussing this further. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: That being said, if you were the recipient of one of these emails, sent via the Wikipedia interface or not, please contact a bureaucrat and direct them to this discussion. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just got an e-mail saying the following:

Have you seen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dihydrogen_Monoxide_3#Oppose

Anyone else getting canvassed? · AndonicO Engage. 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I suspect a great many users in the oppose section were. See my comment on the main RfA talk page, to Filll. Al Tally talk 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not, did it come thru the wikipedia e-mail system? If so, whom did it come from? SQLQuery me! 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not me, but if its occuring it should be urgently delt with. Culprets must be exposed. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racism and off-wiki blogging

This has got to be the worst oppose rationale I've ever seen. I think its time this is addressed. White pride does not always mean supremacy and to oppose someone for "a complete lack of understanding of racist code words" (Orangemarlin) is outright preposterous. Not to mention: When did we start opposing candidates because of off wiki blog's? Who cares what Alex does when hes not editing wikipedia. I am asking that this oppose be withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say, nothing on Wikipedia has indicated that he is a racist. He has not POV pushed, he has not supported the block of a user because he or she is not white or not Australian or etc., he has never indicated race or anything as a reason to support or deny anything. And it is fairly obvious that he never will. The whole conflict started with one user indicating another as a White Supremecist at Arb Comm, and it just seems to me that several of the people who opposed the people who were offended or opposed of that statement, made it their personal mission to oppose him based on that. I hope this makes sense because I didn't get much sleep last night.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 12:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt makes sense that a person cant express an opinion in this community without fear, or recrimination. Gnangarra 12:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think it's semantics to prove a point - the candidate is Australian and fairly young, and is unlikely to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the micro details of what describes what in some parts of the United States (nor do I, and I'm nearly twice his age). I go from behaviour and I have never seen him treat a contributor or subject differently because of their race at any time, nor do I think I am likely to. Orderinchaos 15:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
White pride is closely connected to racist movements, if you don't get why that might be offensive then there is a problem on some level.
—Apis (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "close connection" is not an absolute. How has alex's contributions to wikipedia been offensive? This is, in essence, the problem. There has been no proof outside of claims. This should not even be an issue in this RfA. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, there are many cultural differences that may explain why misunderstandings can creep in. In the United Kingdom, for example, the concept of White Pride is virtually nonexistant while the concept of pride in one's heritage, history and upbringing is actively encouraged by educational institutions and government agencies. I would not be surprised if this is shared elsewhere. To expect the same terminology to be used in the same fashion throughout different geographical and geopolitical areas is, at best, optimistic. Gazimoff WriteRead 14:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're throwing white supremacy, KKK and neo-nazi around pretty liberally (See Orangemarlin's edit summmary). I already detailed my beliefs on-wiki (which is much as Gazimoff has stated above) and the editor who originally called me a white supremacist has since told me that he knows I'm not a racist, yet the comments from this clique continue and I remain labeled a racist. Alex's support of me and information in his blog is based on the fact that he knows me, knows my beliefs, and knows that there is a difference for some people. AFAIK, he's not made any claims on his own beliefs and there is nothing in his editing, much as there is none in my own, that would make any such beliefs relevant on wiki in any regard anyway. Lara❤Love 14:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One's beliefs should not be a basis for an oppose unless they have been shown to compromise one's ability to edit Wikipedia neutrally and constructively. I was under the impression that accusing someone of racism was, shall we say, greatly to be discouraged. I don't know DHMO on a personal level. Haven't read his off-wiki stuff. (I think it would be nice if he curbed his blogging about Wikipedia. Perhaps the need to do that will decrease with time and greater maturity.) If he is a racist, then I'm sorry for him. (Not going to get into an irrelevant and potentially explosive discussion of my beliefs vs those of others here.) I have not seen it show up in his editing or decision making. Whatever one's beliefs or nature of one's off-wiki activities, it's the user's abilities on wiki that matter, and he clearly has the ability to wield a mop and bucket. Dlohcierekim 14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't think anyone would have an issue with a well thought out oppose based on demonstrated behaviour or comments. This is not the case here. Orderinchaos 15:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. DHMO basically edits video game article extensively, and I haven't seen him writing "and then the damn black guy died, thank god" in plot summaries, so I think we're fine. Even if he was the biggest bigot ever, no one has been able to demonstrate ways this has compromised his contribs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Music articles too, but same deal. Not being racist in real life (at least, in my biased opinion), I find it difficult to get opinions I don't hold across onwiki. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can see my response on the main RFA page---and can anybody understand the response that was made to it? I can't respond to it because I think it is merely jibberish trying to sound intelligent. But no, while white pride is OFTEN associated with white supremacy, it is no more racist than Black Pride or Asian Pride---both of which I consider to be racist notions, but area accepted in American Culture. As for his off wiki blogs, while I am a nom, it is an area that I warned him about. Since they are off wiki blogs ABOUT wikipedia and he does bring specifics about wikipedia on his blog---and he knows that his blog does get quoted on wikipedia he runs the risk of people citing it. It would be a different story if it was a private blog where he had the presumption of privacy or distinct separation for wikipedia, but here he doesn't.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's moments like these that make me glad that I have no intention of gaining the mop. How candidates manage to survive the ordeal of an RfA continues to amaze me. Gazimoff WriteRead 19:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think a straw-man has been set up here. OrangeMarlin wasn't accusing DHMO of being a racist, and I doubt that anyone seriously believes that DHMO is racist. Rather, OM was pointing out that based on his blog posting, DHMO seems to have some trouble recognizing racism. And that is a big problem. Admins on en.wiki ought to be able to easily spot racism and intervene accordingly, and if they cannot or will not, then they shouldn't be admins. Yilloslime (t) 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he was, he even asked others to support him in it. I asked slrubenstein and Jayjg, both of whom are fellow members of the tribe as to whether or not I was out of bounds on considering DHMO a racist, anti-semitic enabling pig. [1]. So let's not let's mince words here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment REMOVED per this discussion. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Since when? Admins are there to help build an encyclopedia with a few extra tools, not act like police officers. Al Tally talk 20:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This diff is very concerning. There is an assumption here that by expressing dissatisfaction with the implementation of a process, you yourself are siding with the opinions of those passing through the process. These are two different things, which require careful judgement in their own right. If the diffs and blog posting are examined carefully, DHMO is essentially expressing his displeasure about how the community handled an incident involving an administrator. He does not at any point endorse that administrator's stance or viewpoint, or identify himself as a racist, pride-ist or any other form of nationalist movement. I would challenge anyone opposing on that notion to provide explicit, clear-cut and direct evidence to back it up, or to drop the matter all together.Gazimoff WriteRead 21:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They can't, nor is this group in the practice of providing diffs to support their claims. Lara❤Love 04:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would really be happy if users would look at the candidate and not the blog. There is no rationale behind deeming him racist nor calling him uniformed. I have never even expressed my own beliefs about race on this website. There has been so much speculation about white pride, power, supremacy, etc... and it has even been said that the fact that we have distinct articles should be reason enough for us to assume the each may be inherently different. Others speculate that WP is incorrect by having different articles. I believe that people are generally afraid of things in which they are not knowledgeable. Pride is not inherently evil. I'm proud of certain accomplishments that I've had in my life. That is not the same as a feeling of superiority, nor does it imply that I secretly wish others do not hit those same accomplishments, or even surpass them. I understand those who stand vigilant against any inclination of racism, as it is ugly and inhumane. However, I believe that those individuals should also look at the pride they take in certain accolades or life events, and realize that not everyone who takes pride is apt to discriminate against others who do not share the same ideal, traits or accomplishments. You can be proud that your child made the honor roll without feeling his peers are of a lesser caliber. If we have become so politically correct that we are not allow to take pride in benign traits, such as skin or eye color, and such active traits, such as promotions or success, we are left with a generation who feels wholly guilty that others are different, when differences should be celebrated, and not buried as taboo. the_undertow talk 07:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a common process by which terms are co-opted for a specific meaning, white pride evidently being one case. These occur in particular cultural contexts, Wikipedia is essentially multicultural and we have to take it on board when others point out the implications of terms. Racist pov pushing is all too common, and sensitivity to this issue is appropriate. While pride comes before a fall, obviously everyone can feel proud of benign traits. I'm Scottish, and rather like the associations of the term. As it happens, Scottish Pride is a make of butter and milk, so I'm less likely to use that term :) The reactionary cliché of "political correctness" is no justification for insensitivity. I've seen no indication or even allegation that the candidate is racist, the nearest being the question raised if not being actively anti-racist is a form of tacit racism. That's an assertion I'd have to consider before accepting in any way, but in my opinion admins should be willing to appreciate the undelying concerns. . . dave souza, talk 09:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gee "LaraLove," When you talk about members of "this group" who are not in the habit of providing diffs to support their claims, what "group" are you referring to? I know that Jayjg and I have been identified as Jews for our opinions on the blog in question. I have not responded to OrangeMarlin yet, because i do not have a clear opinion yet. I do not think Jayjg has responded, or he didn't as of yesterday. So putting malicious or reckless "groups" aside, what else can we do either to stir up the pot more or perhaps, more constructively, still the pot? I have one comment. SirFozzie is wrong to say that orangeMarlin sought out Jews to support him. perhaps SirFozzie finds OrangeMarlin's account of what he did intermperate or worrying or offensive. I would certainly agree it was intemperate. But Orangemarlin's comment on marjorly's page is not an accurate account of what Orangemarlin did. There are two sources available for Orangemarlin's acctions: you can either read Orangemarlin's comment on Majorly's page in which he describes the message he left on my page ... or you can read the message he left on my page. Why not read the original message? here it is:
I ran across Water's RfA today, someone gave me a link to his blog. I might be over-sensitive to racism of any time, but everything I've read from the ADL about White Pride, is that it is equal to White Power/White Nationalism/Neo-Nazism/KKK dogma. It's sort of a "whitewashing" (forgive the pun) to make it sound better. The ADL, which is oversensitive at times, says it's a code-word for racism here. I'm strongly opposed to anyone who gives succor to racism, but I know you're involved in these issues too. What do you think?
Now, maybe Orangemarlin is oversensitive to anti-Semitism (though it would take a lot for me to believe that), but I do not see anything here where he is accusing anyone of racism or anti-Semitism. He is providing his reasons for identifying White Pride with White Power and Neo-Nazis, and telling me to look at a blog and respond. That's it. Nothing hysterical, or aggressive, or inflammatory. (and the question is not what the word "pride" means or whether there is anything wrong with it; the question is whether the nominal phrase, "White Pride," is a code for "White Power" and "Neo-Nazi.") I think it is completely fair for someone to raise a question, and in context this is clearly a sincere and not a rhetorical question. Yilloslime said, "OM was pointing out that based on his blog posting, DHMO seems to have some trouble recognizing racism." I do not think OM was even pointing this out, he was asking whether this was a reasonable inference. OM was not acting out of line and was definitely not being a fuckwit. The Undertow says we should look at the candidate and not the blog. Well, the blog is written by the candidate, so I fail to see this particular distinction (especially since this candidate has written a lot oabout Wikipedia off-Wikipedia, and calls attention to his blog on his user-page). I do think it is fair to ask people to judge the candidate based on his edits at Wikipedia. Do the things he writes on his blog have any bearing on his edits? We will only know if we look at both his edits and his blog. If I find any, you can be sure that at least this memeber of that "group" will provide edit differences. In the meantime, I have already voted and explained my vote, and I defy LaraLove to point out anything in my explanation for my vote that is an example of "They're throwing white supremacy, KKK and neo-nazi around pretty liberally." Orangemarlin raised a reasonable question on my talk page, and left an intemperate and perhaps unjustified comment at someone else's talk page ... okay, so OrangeMarlin's comments eithermake a valid point or they do not. But how do we suddenly move from disagreeing with OrangeMarlin's concerns to some problem cause by that "group," to "they?" LaraLove, in my life I have heard plenty of people make some kind of remark about "those people" and while the people in question differed from speaker to speaker, the speaker's comment invariable stunk of irrational hatred. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "that group" I was not referring to "Jews". I was referring to the group of editors that have labeled me a racist despite having no evidence other than their perception of a term that I was raised to perceive another way; the group that gets away with spreading their own POV and mislabeling editors with nothing to back their claims. As far as you missing Orangemarlin's comments, let me link you, because I do have diffs to back up what I say. (Emphasis mine):


I am particularly put off by his request there at the end that I've italicized, considering getting his facts straight and providing accurate descriptions of others is not something I see him doing. Then there's the edit summary for a comment he made in the RFA that reads:

White pride=White supremacism=KKK=Neo-nazism. Give me a break.

And he isn't asking because he wants to know. He's already got his mind set:

White Pride is exactly the same as White Supremacy. And if you read my writings carefully, I state that he is either a racist himself by promoting such a silly POV, or he is so immature and naive that he has in fact enabling racism. In either case, he provides succor to anti-semites and racists by such a belief.

So this isn't simply a matter of a term having different meanings for different people around the world, it's a matter of him taking his POV of it and spreading it in various locations of the 'pedia, without any show of evidence that any of the editors he's speaking of at any given point actually hold racist ideologies, only that they recognize a difference between white pride and white supremacy. He's needlessly escalating the matter, canvassing to get support on it, and he thinks that because he's found some people to support him, he's 100% right and anyone who disagrees is either racist or enabling racism. He fails to recognize that those with the opposing view have support as well. So this is not cut and dry. It's a sensitive matter, but not just for him.

If you need more, just let me know. I'll let OM know of this discussion. Lara❤Love 13:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lara, I was aware of some of OM's other postings; my point was simply that his postings to me and Jagz were of a very different character. As for "those people" my point was just that it is infelicitous phrasing. You say that you use it to refer to "the group of editors that have labeled me a racist." Maybe i really have missed something. I do not see OM accusing you of being a racist in the quotes you provide to support your point. Also, he is just one person. How many people on this talk page or on the project page have accused you of being a racist? You are refering to some group but I do not know who is in this group. Surely you do not mean me ... or Jayjg ... or Orangemarlin. I believe you have diffs to back up what you say but for now you can just give names and time-stamps. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who equates White Pride as being the exact same as White Supremacy needs some serious education. Take a class, learn some perspective. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, White Pride is pretty often associated with Stormfront, the Klan, and Nazis. Is White Pride equal to White Supremacy? that is a matter for reasonable debate, I am sure one can find verifiable sources of notable POVs for and against the claim. But surely, "White pride is a slogan used primarily in the United States to agitate for a white European racial identity and is closely aligned with white supremacy, white separatism, and other extreme manifestations of white racism." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further information: White Pride
LeadSongDog (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As has been stated to me, citing our own articles is apparently poor form. Regardless, that article has been rewritten since all this broke out last month, and it's not our most neutral article, by any means, at this time. Lara❤Love 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had brought this to Orangemarlin's attention here, and he dismissed it with an ok. I'm pretty sure he does not wish to address this issue anymore and seeing how he won't, I don't believe this thread is of use to this RfA anymore. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:200

A note: this RFA is currently the second-most supported of all time, after Phaedriel's. Doesn't make any difference as to the candidate, just making a note... GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 21:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it is now one !vote away from a tie with the most supported RFA of all time. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 08:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Doczilla's support. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 09:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is a new record. We've still got 4+ days to go. I'm predicting ~353. Rudget (Help?) 13:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It slows towards the end. ViridaeTalk 13:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, We might soon have to put this into WP:300, as this user is only 6 !votes away. Well, any thoughts? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 23:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updating such pages during an ongoing RFA is bad practice. I seem to recall that when my RFA hit 100, it was discouraged to update WP:100 until after the RFA had closed. Lara❤Love 00:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an ugly practice that does not benefit the community, far from it. Beam 00:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This outstanding amount of support will truly test this whole system. Will crats be able to look past the possible "tyranny of numbers" and look to the content of the arguments? Or will it be simply a percentage pushing through a nominee who, imo, hasn't gained consensus at all? Beam 00:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beam, there are strong arguments on both sides. Can you please step down off the box now? Lara❤Love 13:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Oppose

Anonymous Dissident asked, Your comments reveal quite a lot of turmil within your own mentality; "And would have probably supported him... I just should have refused to nom him." So, why are you now opposing, if you say that he would be a good admin, that he should be one, and that you probably "would have" supported? Yes, I have struggled with this a lot. Both while writing the nom and throughout the course of this RfA. I honestly believe that H2O has the tools and capacity to be an admin. I think he should be---because he is a great asset to the project. He is a hell of an editor, but he does have some civility issues---which have come out in several places---namely his blog. But he opens his blog up to scrutiny here when he references specific events and people.

I nom'd him because I truly believe that he has the ability to be an admin and didn't want to stand in his way of something that I believe he should not be opposed for. I knew that if I, as his admin coach, didn't nom him that it would create obstacles and challenges for him... and since I felt he deserved the tools, I wasn't going stand in his way.

The problem that I have, is that I have developed a reputation here on the RfA boards that I'm proud of. I think people tend to trust me when I support a candidate. I've worked to garner that trust and spend HOURS vetting candidates before I nom them or even support them. I do not !vote unless i've looked at the candidate in much greater detail than most people do. I'll literally spend hours digging through a candidates contributions to ensure that they are what I can support. On a whole, I can support H20. Damnit, writing this out, I can support H20 and will change my !vote accordingly. The problem is that I can't nom him in good conscious.

I voted oppose because I felt like I betrayed the community and the trust that was given to me. And while I know that my changing stances during the RfA will do more damage to my reputation than remaining silent, it was my integrity that was hurting. I nomed a candidate that I supported, but didn't have nom type support and it was eating me up.

H20 deserves to be an admin, but his actions do have consequences. I think he's acted very irresponsibly in his Blog. And thought that would have a bigger impact here.

Anonymous, thanks for asking the question the way you did... it really helped me assess my own feelings on this subject. To those who voted or respected me based on my position/opinions on RfA's I do apologize. I nom'd H20 because I do believe that he should be an admin---I think he needs to grow up in some ways---and I thought this was going to go down in flames. The tremendous success that he's encountered here, and knowing that I was partially responsible for it, was tearing me up. I have worked with him on his civility/maturity/responsibility and would like to think I've made progress with him... I just don't think he's where I would have liked to see him before I nom'd him.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that it came to this low level after such a remarkable, and in my own opinion, unique request for adminship. I was unaware of any such developments in the RfA and I only looked through the history of it when I saw this apology, apology? I thought... what the devil for? I was simply astounded when I looked throughout the history (back to 01:54 this morning I think) and saw not only a stricken out co-nomination, but an oppose as well? Balloonman, I think this has been a reality point for you here: you need to recognise that nominators have to hold the candidate in higher regard than themselves, by looking out for your (in particular) great record at RfA with candidates, we can't simply withdraw our support based on oppposes. Pointing out that you 'may have known this could have failed' reveals that you were either a little skeptical ot the process or the nom, I don't know. If this is the case you should have never co-nominated, and if you hadn't, withdrawn your support and then gone neutral or oppose. I always look out for the betterment of the candidates, as do others Wizardman et al. in particular; Coppertwig, Epbr and Stormtracker94 (I didn't wish to use names, but these are example of my failed co-noms, Brylcreem2 also failed, but since he's left there isn't much point in naming them) who have all had RfAs which haven't gained sufficient consensus: I would nominate them all again, as probably would all the other co-noms. If we don't have faith in our candidates, we should never put them forward. Rudget (Help?) 13:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rudget, I'm surprised that you don't, at the least, appreciate the depth of character to admit such feelings. As I see it Balloonman felt that he was this boy's friend and did not want to publicly degrade him. The boy ignored pleas to wait until August, BM still stood by him. What allowed BM to stand by him was the thought, and it seems reasonable to me (a neutral as far as DHMO goes), that the community would not allow such a recently questionable nominee to pass. When it seemed that just that would happen, well BM did the right thing. I personally commend him for doing what was right....eventually. Beam 00:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that, just that depth of character should have prevented the application of a co-nomination if there was any doubt in his mind. Rudget (Help?) 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman's act

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page is not the place to discuss this. Cenarium (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is revolting. It seems to me an example of the worst hypocrisy attempted to be painted as an honest act which, I think, reveals not only a bad judgment and ethical misconceptions, but a simple lack of intelligence. Nominating an RfA one secretly hopes to fail is unethical, plain and simple.

Now, he might invoke "honesty". I don't buy it. The nomination was dishonest to begin with. So, ethics is lacking. If you do something unethical and later make it known, it does not make it less unethical.

This is an indefensible act despite I totally oppose H2O's suitability for the adminship. Contrary to the common misperception, I find that if such act is done to a sitting arb or another figure of authority and proven maturity, it is less unacceptable than to a small guy like H2O. I can see the responses to come below, but I had to say this. Baloonman is an admin and consciously acted in a despicable way to a small editor.

So, there is no need to play games of niceness. Now, I am ready for the responses that I am sure will be no less colorful. --Irpen 02:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I agree with the above. Al Tally talk 03:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Once I wrote and saved that, I saw a "new messages" text diff at the top of my screen which led me to H2O's apologizing to me for the old incident at my talk, the apology I am happy to accept. Just in case anyone wonders, I wrote the above not knowing about the apology. It in no way affects my view of H2O which I consider a nice guy who has room for improvement in the maturity field. My comment on Balloonman above is not related (or prompted) by H2O and it's being not on the candidate is the reason why I placed it at the talk page. --Irpen 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your accepting it, Irpen... it's something I've regretted for a long time, but it didn't feel right to come to you out of the blue and say sorry. I think the time was right today, and I hope we can put it behind us. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be answered one section down. --Irpen 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I think I've decided to leave an opinion. . .something happens that I would rather see play out before I get around to the !vote. Definitely a strange RfA in multiple ways. I guess BM knows this will be his last nomination? Waiting some more. . .R. Baley (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please don't hold my stupidity against H20... he deserves better.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "stupid" to covet your integrity? Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im just really shocked and feel gutted for H20. This is an embarrasement, its been the most unfair event I have seen. I cant believe this came from you Ballonman. All the advise I asked for, can any of it be trusted? Can you be trusted with Admin tools? — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, stop with the Wikidrama Realist. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think you realise the significance, besides its Ballonman who made this monster up. It makes the process look like a joke, what are the point of nominations if this happens, self noms are the way to go it seems. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 03:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop right there, folks. This should have nothing to do with DHMO's RfA, because it begins and ends with Balloonman. It doesn't belong here, further tainting an already interesting event, regardless of whether his actions led us here. Let's find another page host this venting. – ClockworkSoul 03:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

looking back

To answer H2O's post above, I long since had no grudges for that incident. I learned to ignore such stuff when this is all about being personally directed at me. I only brought it up as an example of temper issues, not PA issues, and we have other examples of temper issues as well. But this leaves the main question unanswered. H2O regrets his damaging the GA process with one hand but points wrongly (or does not at all) what exactly was his mistake.

This reminds me another case with a very well-known admin getting desysopped for blocking an excellent editor after the secretly run "investigation" which brought the said admin to a "judgment error". While apologizing multiply and profusely for the "judgment error", the said admin refuses to see (to this day) the main problem with the activity of secretly investigating editors. Not with making the decisions off-wiki on the matters that should be on-wiki.

Same here. H2O passed a bad article. Big deal, happens all the time. He, however, did so based on off-wiki discussion and immediately asked the author to "review the article for [him]". This is the main problem, the off-wiki busyness that belongs on-wiki.

Why do people continue to do such stuff elsewhere? Maillists? Posts? IRC? This is the main problem which I emphasized many times.

As for the rudeness towards me, no biggy. It's long time since the water under the bridge. --Irpen 03:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I fully agree that the off-wiki stuff was the real issue (and I've tried to address that). My comment above was to address what I hadn't already commented on—my unjustified incivility towards you. I hope I've commented on everything now, and I really would like to drop the entire incident. I look down upon it as much as the next man. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pass adminship

Please DONT accuse me of stirring the pot;-

This nomination process has already gotten a little odd as it is, im a little concerned about what else might occur in the next 5 days here. With that in mind and with this nomination certain to pass cant it be closed quickly. We have snow when its an obvious fail, logically we should also have the opposite of that. 5 more days is only going to cause more drama and the outcome will be the same. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 03:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its a good idea to early promote anything. Its easy to undo a fail close... run again. Its not so easy to reverse a early promote should not everyone get a chance to add to discussion. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be a good idea. There is still a lot of activity, and at the moment most of it is in opposition. Let it ride, if it gets closed early it would have to be considered invalid. Avruch T 03:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your perspective, the fact is that it *isn't* certain what the outcome is. This is certainly the strangest RfA I have seen in a long time, hence the unpredictability. Part of the reason RfA lasts for a full week is to permit people to genuinely examine the candidate and his or her reaction to the heightened scrutiny. DHMO has responded to some of the concerns by posting his terms of recall. I see no need to close this now. Risker (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Risker. If it was 264/0/0, one might well support closure, but almost 18% 20% of editors voting on this RfA have chosen either neutral or oppose, suggesting that it isn't the kind of unanimous and obvious compromise WP:SNOW was designed to deal with. Additionally I think it would set a bad precedent and, should something go wrong with this user's actions post-adminship, will reflect badly if process was not followed to its natural conclusion. Orderinchaos 04:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want this RfA closed before the end date; 5 June. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it was just a suggestion and i completely see the advantages of keeping it open, just dont like see bad stuff you know me, ;-) — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 04:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<<ec>> Am I reading terms of recall correctly? Assuming this passes, 5 of the opposers could demand and receive his desyssopping? That seems unduly generous. I Dlohcierekim 04:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(quoted from recall page) "over an action made in an administrative capacity". This would be up to the discretion of a neutral clerk, so no, they couldn't just request it "because he kills baby seals" (not that I do). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think desyssopping should be a consensus process akin to syssopping. That is it should take a 75 - 80 percent threshold on a multi day discussion in which the candidate and the community's views are weighed carefully. Taking away the bit should not be done lightly, and the community should have the opportunity to carefully exam the issues involved. Dlohcierekim 04:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If water gets promoted and is open to recall, then the proper channels can be taken for his reconfirmation if his hypothetical (at this point) administrator actions are carried out in bad faith. Think it ends there, no? Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't any admin open to recall? What makes this special? – ClockworkSoul 04:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, its voluntary. Avruch T 04:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recall is a flawed, voluntary process where the person sets their own terms of recall, and can change them or even opt out of recall at any time. It can be manipulated by groups with bad or disruptive intentions to compromise the freedom of action of good faith admins who have chosen to subject themselves to its terms, and as it is not a Wikipedia process, noone on Wikipedia (ArbCom etc) is responsible for the outcome. While I accept it as a good faith gesture from those who put it up and maintain it for themselves, noone should be pressured to put it up, and noone should ever regard it as a reason to support at an RfA in my opinion. I do know of one admin who passed shakily on these grounds then withdrew their terms and now has to be demoted by ArbCom like any other admin. Orderinchaos 05:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just KNEW I was going to chime in here didn't you? I naturally don't agree that the voluntary recall process is flawed. There have been some flawed implementations of the particular terms that led to difficulty, but the process works. People allege that it can be manipulated by disruptive groups. However it has not yet actually BEEN so manipulated, as a review of Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests will clearly show. (do you have a cite otherwise?). Recall is not for everyone, which is why it's voluntary, but it works for a significant subset of admins (now over 10% of the total. I never thought it would get that high) I strongly agree no one should ever be pressured to add themselves, and it is not, in and of itself, a sole reason for support (although I personally consider it a mild plus rather than a negative... others consider it a negative) ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always robustly represent my view on this one, I'm quite happy for my opinions to be considered side by side with a robust defence of / advocation for the system and people will make up their own minds :) Re freedom of action, I was thinking more of the threat to recall than actually recalling - in any combat you never put your cards on the table until any bargaining power they possess has been exhausted. Orderinchaos 17:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider adminship to be fundamentally a combat or adversarial situation. Instead it is an undertaking to be of service to the community. If someone thinks I have erred in an admin action, I want to know about it. If my explanation does not give satisfaction to reasonable persons (or at least a strong majority of them), I should not retain adminship, it's that simple. So therefore I am fine with putting my cards on the table, I'm fine with knowing that the "threat of recall" is always hanging over my head if I act injudiciously... YMMV of course. The key point I will stridently defend is not that the system is for everyone... it isn't. Not that it should be imposed instead of voluntary... it shouldn't. No, the key point is that I should be allowed to make myself recallable if I wish to. No one else need to if they don't wish to, but I do wish to. And so, I do. I intend that to survive regardless of what may happen to the category, the pages, etc. But we digress. I'd invite you to bring this to the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall where it could be discussed further. It's always possible I've missed something. Not likely, as near perfect as I am, but possible. :) ++Lar: t/c 00:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certain to pass?!? With so many opposes for legitimate reasons? This is a good test case for whether crats merely count noses or whether they consider the merits of the case. If it's the latter, no responsible crat could possibly pass a candidate like this. Immaturity has been the source of most of the problems we've ever had from admins. To continue to promote immature candidates would be grossly irresponsible. Friday (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the shadow over this RfA, I offer an alternative: the best thing DHMO could do at this point is to indicate he heeds the maturity concerns, recognizes the seriousness of the issues raised, and withdraws his nomination. If he shows that capacity for understanding of the serious concerns raised, he will demonstrate maturity and respect for the Project, and garner my support for a future RfA. If this RfA passes, there will always be a shadow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno how much of the maturity concerns are even genuine, what with all the canvassing, misconstruing, and namecalling going on on-and-off wiki. It's honestly hard to tell who's got a genuine concern, or, who's just parroting what their buddy told them to say. SQLQuery me! 17:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I suggest that canvassing may have affected this RfA in the opposite direction, and may be offset by quid pro quo at content review processes, so it's controversial in either direction. And in case anyone wonders, I am certainly not aligned with those who were suspected of canvassing or being canvassed. The concerns here run in every direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that you were (sounds like you may have taken it that way...). SQLQuery me! 17:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, to the quid-pro-quo thing... I'm not seeing it, really. I voted support, as I did in most of the rest, for the reasons I specified in a lot of the past ones. I've never had the guy do any content review for me (I know this, because I've never had ANYTHING reviewed...), and, I suspect it's that way for a lot (if not all) the supporters, and most of the opposers. SQLQuery me! 17:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly - yes, there is canvassing for support votes on this RfA - several people have withdrawn or withheld their votes in protest because of it (some of those can be seen on the RfA itself). I have personally been made aware of several editors receiving such requests. Secondly - they are not coming from the candidate, nor does (or would) he support them. Thirdly, there's more than one person canvassing oppose on this RfA as well. In short, the result is one drama-filled mess. I'm beginning to think the SandyGeorgia solution is the best - this candidate will pass a future RfA (with my support and likely others if he addresses concerns, which I've seen evidence he intends to do) but I think this one is tainted and there'll always be a question of legitimacy about it. Orderinchaos 17:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, once it's realized that that's a great for a small group way to torpedo an otherwise passing RfA, it'll happen next time, too... SQLQuery me! 17:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, and ignoring the clearly (in my view anyway) silly opposes, some serious concerns have been raised by long term contributors with the interests of the project as a whole foremost in their thoughts and intentions. This is a "yes" or "no" decision, there's no halves, and it's in almost all circumstances irreversible. This is no "small group" - as someone has pointed out, people who can't get on in any way, shape or form are opposing on similar grounds here. I consider myself friends with the candidate and edit on the same WikiProjects, but despite really wanting to support, I felt the part of me which feels a responsibility to this thing in conflict with this desire, and in the end chucked a neutral to raise my concerns without impacting the RfA. While some might argue with his style in doing so, even one of his noms backed down. Some of the support votes if you read them actually do raise or echo concerns. And then there's the canvassing issue and whether this record-breaking RfA is actually reliable, especially given some of the recent dramas - with no prejudice to the candidate involved (I think it's a case where someone has honestly proceeded with something in good faith but events have overtaken it). I understand that you are supportive of the candidate's bid for adminship, but ascribing evil motives to those who either don't agree he should be promoted or think that this should be taken as a less than unilateral endorsement is not helpful - at the end of the day the bureaucrat has to ask themselves "is there consensus to promote?" and I think there are real questions about that. I have come to the opinion that the best course of action would be to withdraw without prejudice and have a new one in August, as he originally seems to have agreed to do, taking account of concerns raised - which he seems prepared enough to do - and presenting as a more ready candidate. The questions about canvassing may need to be addressed in the intervening time so as not to prelude a repeat then. Orderinchaos 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not electing a head of state here - I see no reason for DHMO to withdraw his nomination for adminship. The candidate isn't responsible for the problems in the RfA, and the poor actions of others shouldn't torpedo his chances of a successful request. The crats aren't meant to decide whether the concerns are sufficient to deny adminship - they are meant to decide whether consensus is that they are. With a percentage in the mid/high 80s, I'd say they'd have to stretch pretty hard to come to that conclusion. Avruch T 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, we have a process. The process of an RfA has an allocated timespan, with governance from the bureaucrats. Although we have escape clauses such as NOTNOW (formally a snow close) it is innapropriate to use them here. While I may be nieve around elements such as canvassing, it is important to note (as Orderinchaos has) that these are unlikely to be the actions of the candidate. As such, asking the candidate to withdraw based on the actions or alleged actions of others is inappropriate. There is also no assurance that the same problems won't befall this instance of the RfA process should it be repeated. Instead, I would suggest that the RfA be allowed to run its natural course and reviewed by the 'crats as normal once complete. If it is felt that this instance or the RfA process itself is flawed, there would be an opportunity for post-RfA review. Let the dust settle first then decide what action to take. Gazimoff WriteRead 18:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, that's what I was trying to say more or less :P SQLQuery me! 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore the noise

I urge the closing 'crats to ignore those who are showing an appalling lack of good faith by suggesting that "the weight of the support should not determine consensus." If we assume good faith, we must assume that all sides did due diligence in researching the candidate's past and his answers to the questions. Therefore, the number of opposes is irrelevant so long as it is clear the number of supports far outweigh it. I'm sorry, but as it stand now, 4:1 spells clear consensus in my book. That many of the supports come from highly respected Wikipedians is another sign that this level of support is not trivial. DHMO has gone to great lengths to make others' experiences with him as cordial and cooperative as possible, I submit this is one reason for the high participation rate even with the high profile nature of the opposition's misconduct. People who get along well with others are an asset, especially when they've shown independence instead of cliquishness. Those in opposition who are whining that this got too much attention need to check themselves, as the level of opposition also rose with the additional scrutiny. So on balance, there is no need to be alarmed at the number of supports or the number of opposes, for that matter. Sans Baloonman's terrible lapse of good judgment, everything is going well and the results should be counted as any other RFA. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, given the convoluted and peculiar nature of this RfA, percentages are meaningless. Given the strength of the opposition (though I supported, and still do), a crat should close this as no consensus if it continues down this terrain. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's ignore the high level of support (highest ever, you know). Who cares that nearly 300 people want him to be an admin. It's a shame a noisy bunch in the minority is even being considered to help get the result here. Al Tally talk 22:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it would be poor judgment on the part of the crat to believe this dramafest showed consensus to promote. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It stands at about 83% right now. I don't think crats are really supposed to throw support votes out the window because there's too many, then run and hide behind WP:AGF. If anything, some of the opposes should be disregarded due to wiki-drama.--Koji†Dude (C) 22:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in favor of throwing any of the comments out. That's the whole point behind my statements. This isn't your cookie cutter run-of-the-mill below 75% and 95+% RfA. There could be 500 support !votes and the proportional number of opposes, and it still wouldn't matter one way or the other. Reading over the discussion in its entirety, I don't get the impression that consensus is reached at all. Hey, but that's just me. I'm just sick to death with the whole thing really and have since taken it off my watch list. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We select the bureaucrats to interpret exactly these kinds of RfAs. Anyone knows how to close an RfA that is 95% support or 60% oppose. As a community, we've gone to a fair amount of trouble to carefully select 'crats who have a feel for this sort of thing. I am sure they are watching with interest and will make a careful, thought-out decision. No matter what they decide, a significant portion of the community will have reason to disagree. That's why we pay them the big money. ;-) Risker (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Crats get paid!? :P RC-0722 361.0/1 22:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for buerucratship/Tinkleheimer coming soon in that case. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As (I assume) the "user who showed an appalling lack of good faith" (in this conversation) — while I've been one of Giggy's cronies for well over a year, I think the possibility that an RFA which could easily end with 75-100 opposes wouldn't constitute consensus is no more unworthy of discussion than Danny's RFA (another "non-vote" interpretation of "consensus"). Whichever way this goes, it's going to be controversial. And I'm distinctly unimpressed with the accusations Dragon695 seems to be throwing at me that I'm somehow "attacking" Giggy. — iridescent 22:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You and many others would be the ones who are passing off this nonsense. I did not accuse you of attacking anyone, what I am accusing you of is patently ignoring consensus because you disagree with the outcome. I don't really care about your relationship to DHMO. Personally, my only goal is not to see a repeat of Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes, a true travesty of justice caused because people insisted that the opposes are more important than the supports. 4:1 is a clear consensus, no matter how you spin it. Jesus Christ could be in opposition, it still doesn't matter. WP:AGF is very clear on this matter, supporters are assumed to be supporting per nom unless otherwise specified. No more allowing a vocal minority to torpedo RFAs. Their voices are no more important than the support voices and should not be granted undue weight. Fairness is all I'm asking for. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that trying to second-guess the 'crat's closing decision is likely to be frought with problems. If a straight percentage were required, it would make the carefully thought out arguments and discussions meaningless. If, on the other hand, closing an RfA is much like closing an AfD then the arguments, counter arguments, concerns and so on will need to be weighed and understood in turn. On the one hand, arguments are raised that some would regard as either superfluous or irrelevant. On the other, concerns come to light that may not be mitigated. All any of us can do is present our thoughts and wait for the closing comments from the 'crat on 5th June. Gazimoff WriteRead 23:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a 'crat, but I see no reason to treat this differently from any other hotly contested RfA. The rule-of-thumb per centages and the weighting of the arguments should be no different. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Let the Bureaucrats sort out the wheat form the chaff to determine consensus. Especially, when you consider that a good # of the opposes have been the result of canvassing and well-poisoning. SirFozzie (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the crats do not simply look at percentages. I truly hope they read the opposes in detail. Beam 13:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On withdrawing

This is just a general note that I don't intend, at this time, to withdraw the RfA. Yeah, I acknowledge significant concerns and significant opposition, and I really do intend to work on them.

At the same time, there is a fair bit of support—there are quite a few people who, at this stage, want me sysopped. I don't really want to withdraw and feel like I've let them down.

At this stage, at least, I'm going to leave it to the community, and to the 'crats. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats seems like the right move at this point. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is, possibly, one of the only choices he has now. If he were to withdraw, then 280+ users would groan in agony. Razorflame 00:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy, you do know you're, like, winning, right? — iridescent 01:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be a crime against nature if the most supported RfA in Wiki-history fails.--Koji†Dude (C) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should stay in. Didn't Danny pass a similar RFA? rootology (T) 01:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for any neophytes here, I hope you realize that viewing a Failed RfA in this case as a "crime against nature" is a simplistic nose-counting Point of View. What matters, above all, is the substance of the arguments of the Opposes. Another consideration is the names and how experienced/respected they are; but I don't know how much 'crats think about that. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know many fancy-people words, but judging by this, I should say I'm appaled that you would label me a plant. Green is NOT my color at all. I'm more of a red/purple.--Koji†Dude (C) 01:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ling.nut, I am sure that the 'crats consider such things. Bear in mind there are experienced, respected people on both sides of this debate, and that (unusually) a fair number of supports have added explanatory comments to their !votes. I am quite sure the bureaucrats will take all of this under consideration. Risker (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please accept my apologies. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apology noted. :-D --Koji†Dude (C) 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Koji, I am trying to adhere to a philosophy that if what you are saying can't be said without a smilie face on the end, try not to say it at all. :) But there are times when that doesn't work. D=<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean. It'd be kind of tough to tell somone their dog was dead with a big " :-) " at the end.--Koji†Dude (C) 02:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for you to withdraw. Those who excel are those who are willing to go the distance, good or bad. When my Rfar struck, I took measures to stop the bickering and the schism in the community. In retrospect, I should have gone the distance, despite the grief that it causes others because while people's feelings are going to get hurt, it's only if they allow them to be hurt. Don't appease the minority. Please the majority, because no matter how the percentages go, your supports will show any thinking crat that while 60 opposes are certainly valid, the amount of support that you have garnered, which is much deserved, will outweigh them. Essentially, it's a matter of a crat seeing 'wow, that is a shitload of support,' regardless of the opposition. You're doing fine, and I realize how stressful this may be, but stand your ground and focus less on your opponents and more on those who support you - because in the end, it's the support that gets you through these times and allows you to brush off the opposition, who really have not been constructive on how you can succeed in the future, but have simply tried to break your spirit. the_undertow talk 07:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously think the opposers are trying to break the candidate's spirit? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It takes more than opposers to break Giggy's spirit... —Dark talk 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, and I should hope so, as this is a very kind and likeable editor, a quality pointed out by a number of opposers in their comments. Look, I don't wish to make anyone feel any worse than they seem to be feeling already, so I guess I'd better let it go, but I don't think it's a good idea when we project bad faith into opposers. If we don't like editors putting in a frank and reasoned voice of opposition, then we might as well can the whole process of RFA, and instead we can let a candidate's friends hand over the tools based on whether they like him or not. I've been following RFA's again recently, and I'm seeing too much of this "opposers-are-mean" (and "opposers-are-clueless") nonsense. They are not.---Sluzzelin talk 12:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If DHMO withdrew it would be such a selfless and community first act that I would be awestruck. Having read the whole thing, and accompanying links (both on and off wiki), I would pose that it would never happen even without him saying it wouldn't. Beam 13:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that a withdraw in this case would not be a slap to the face of supporters. It's turned into quite a circus. I think Alex would/will be successful in the end, but I also think withdrawing, not only at the urging of some opposers held in high regard in the community, but also in protest of the spectacle this has become, would be an honorable move. August was the original plan, and that will give enough time to address the constructive concerns raised by opposers. I am, however, steadfast in my support of DHMO and I stand behind whatever decision he makes, as I believe he takes to heart the concerns of the opposers and will address the issues with or without the mop, and I do not believe he is to blame for the way this RFA has turned out. Lara❤Love 15:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read (everything), don't worry, he will not withdraw. Beam 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have come to the conclusion in my own conversations with the candidate that he's taken all legitimate feedback on board and will do his best to implement it. It's often a case of, sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees, and you think you're doing everything right but are too close to tell and need others to point out how things could be done better (I know that certainly applies to myself!) As I've said in other situations, I think younger users have the edge on the rest of us in being able to learn and adapt much more quickly - I've seen it not just in this case but in quite a few others where editors who are initially troublesome come good in a major way. I would strongly support a future RfA taken on this basis, and I don't doubt many of the opposers who had concerns about particular facets of his behaviour or actions. The fact he has changed so much since RfA #4, all in good ways, inspires me to believe RfA #6 would be relatively uncontroversial. Orderinchaos 04:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is some evidence of a LACK of change in the last five months since the last Rfa. But even if one were to grant that this editor has changed for the better in the past five months, what is to say that he cannot change for the worse in the next five. This editor has not shown that he has the stability to be an admin either now or for the forseeable future. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments

I'm concerned about deletions such as these. Shouldn't the closing crat be doing this during the close? If anything, we should be indenting, not removing. If there are no objections, I'd like to restore with notes. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noted this to BNoticeboard. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're absolutely right. In fact, they shouldn't even be refactored or tampered with. At the most, a note should be dropped after the comment indicating the low number of edits and the user's suspicions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with you both, removing these was out of order. --Stephen 01:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced and tagged. --Stephen 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Stephen, I concur with your actions. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've indented them. See my comments below the two comments in question. Bureaucrats can and will address the issue in what looks likely to be a detailed close. Daniel (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came to see if it was ok to replace them, I see its already done. I think this is the correct step. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see that these should have been changed, indented or removed. Making some sort of note is probably in order because of the shear volume of comments to sift. The 'crats alone should decide which comments are to be discounted or given less weight than others. Any irregularity at all taints an already contentious and disrupted process. This highly volatile, politicized RfA, to have any hope of general acceptance, regardless of outcome, should have as little tweaking by non crat's as possible. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of these accounts claims to be an alternate account of another user. While Lar has done a check on the account, and confirms that the likely master account has not participated in this discussion, "[s]ockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates" per the Privatemusings Arbitration Committee ruling. That vote should not only be indented, the master account should be counselled. Risker (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate accounts != sockpuppets. --Stephen 07:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True however alternate accounts disclose who their master accout is, sockpuppets don't --Chris 08:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I think such votes should be included but noted per {{spa}} - that's what we've usually done in the past. Secondly, there's a plus and minus side to these votes - the plus side is that the person can vote fearlessly, the minus side is that in hiding their identity they fail the scrutiny test. Suppose Editor A is a good faith editor but unbeknownst to the checking crat or checkuser has either a past conflict with the editor or a disagreement on a public topic which would explain their vote better than their support or oppose. I'm all in favour of people having a say, but I'm also all in favour of (reasonable) scrutiny. (That being said, there is such a thing as too much scrutiny and I think, as in other RfAs involving unrelated parties, some of the supporters need to take a breath and calm down.) Orderinchaos 10:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of people who've had disagreements with DHMO participating in this RfA in every column - people I respect have voted every which way, and I certainly have no problem with their decisions, which I believe they have come to in good faith. Every one of them, however, has had the courage of his or her convictions to sign their !vote with their commonly known user identity; they have put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. If one is unwilling to participate using one's regular account, one has the option of not participating at all. This RfA is wild enough without the added hubris, and such behaviour only encourages aggressive examination of opposition votes, which I agree has in some cases gone over the top. Risker (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have counseled the user via email. ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is exceptionally unfair for someone to create an undisclosed alternate account for the purposes of opposing someone's RfA. Transparency is needed to determine consensus in RfAs of this nature, and it is deeply suspicious (as well as cowardly in my opinion) to oppose an RfA without full disclosure of your intent. I urge the bureaucrats to hold little weight to the oppose, until such time the account owner decides to reveal his motive. —Dark talk 11:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is unusual and am troubled by it as I am troubled by much of the behavior of the those in favor of the candidate. Real voters are being repeatedly attacked and are removing their votes, being driven off by this zeal. The idea of CU being used in this manner is unsettling. All of this puts in to question the validity of the RFA and the rules/policies governing it. It is getting scary and I understand, as I did not so much yesterday, why editors who have voted are removing their votes. I may do the same. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first travesty was the canvassing. Everything after that has been reviewed in a poisoned light due to it. It's a fact of life, really, however undesirable. Daniel (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the more canvassing the better. It's the type of canvassing that may be the issue. Beam 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case I don't object to the CU as it was used to clear a user - it was already known they were another editor, but the CU ensured they were not evading an indef block and were in good standing. I agree with the rest of your comments though. Orderinchaos 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Confirmed is still there and to someone scanning the page it besmirches that vote. So much for being "cleared". If I were that user I would remove my vote. –Mattisse (Talk) 15:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a point. Orderinchaos 04:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation seems largely done, but I'd like to add a few remarks. In particular, I ask, and I suspect most of the bureaucrats would ask with me, that comments (or votes, as you please) in RFAs not be removed or modified. Perhaps, in the case of obvious improprieties, they may be struck through or indented so as to be left out of the numbering of the list. Only in the very rare case of extreme ad hominem should comments be redacted altogether. Further information, e.g. about the suspicious nature of the comment, should be added in additional signed comments, preferably addressed to the user who made the questionable comment, or to some other user participating in the discussion, rather than written in the voice of The Management, as for instance "This user is a sockpuppet", or "This user has only seven edits". Preferable would be: "A few of your edits [1][2][3] make me suspect that you are a sockpuppet. A check-user has confirmed my suspicion, and accordingly I have excluded from the numbering of support comments." The simple reason for this is that none of us really is The Management: we're all editors. Don't address your comments to the bureaucrat who will end up closing the request: have a dialogue with the other users participating in the discussion. This way you will not come off as arrogant and authoritarian if you turn out to be wrong about your suspicion. The bureaucrats are all reasonably literate and will see what we need to see, even if you do not write "To the closing bureaucrat" in your comment. — Dan | talk 18:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with all of the above. To their credit I've never been given any reason to doubt the bureaucrats' capacity to do an often difficult job (while they close the thing in a split second, it should be remembered they have several days beforehand to read and analyse the various arguments). Orderinchaos 04:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, well said. Cheers Dlohcierekim 14:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note re actions of supporters

I was almost tempted to make my neutral an oppose due to the unbelievable behaviour of a few of the supporters of this RfA. The candidate has distinguished themselves by not becoming involved, however, so I would be wrong to take such a step to make a point. However, at least three people have been publicly harangued and bullied into retracting their oppose votes, ridiculous allegations and assumptions of bad faith have been made against them and others, and I have been told by several editors - all of whom have either abstained from the process or withdrawn votes in protest - that they had been canvassed off-wiki, and much worse behaviour has been alleged (I am not at liberty to repeat but I have asked the person to forward the material to arbcom-l). I am ashamed to see one or two people I normally deeply respect and who I have good relations with here acting in ways which are most unbecoming. I don't care what you think of the candidate or of the other Wikipedians who have taken time out to contribute here, but this sort of behaviour is corrosive and poisonous to the spirit of collaboration on this encyclopaedia. People are free to do what they wish and participate in whichever processes they feel they can be of most value to. Bullying and harassment and threats have NO place here. Also, as the Bible says somewhere, "what is done in the darkness shall be brought into the light" - nothing stays hidden for long and even email leaks like a sieve. Right, I'm done now. Orderinchaos 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying here because I wish to reply directly to this post and this user. It seems that you posted this directly after admonishing me on the RFA page itself. I fail to see how whatever I said was bullying, and how my allegation (not assumption) of bad faith was "ridiculous". Furthermore, I'm wondering if it isn't bad faith in itself to assume that my goal in the entire incident was to get the user to retract their oppose vote in the first place; that is something that I never intended. You are welcome to take this to arbcom if you must and name me as a party, but the next time you post something with reference to me or something I did, please notify me. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, you have to suck it up. It's unfortunate, but it seems both sides (with emphasis towards supporters) tend to try and bully the other side. Ignoring them is the best option, and I don't see why you should change your vote, as it doesn't reflect on the candidate; I think it stems from editors not wanting to lose face backing a faltering candidate. But it's still normal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normalcy is not a reason to stand idly by and let bad things occur. Beam 14:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bureaucrats need to do something about this kind of thing. It's a general problem, not specific to this RfA. To be fair, it's rarely the candidates themselves who engage in harrassing opposers, but all too often their more vociferous supporters behave in an unacceptably thuggish manner. You have to wonder how many people look at the RfA, feel inclined to oppose but don't because they don't want the harrassment. Not very free and fair. --Folantin (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have this crat's attention - what is it you propose we do about it? Behaviour surrounding this RfA has been appalling from that of one of the noms through that of many opposers and supporters. The tone has been unnecessarily adversarial. I suspect whatever the outcome, we will be reaping the consequences for sometime in increased reluctance of people to run at RfA. But I'm not sure striking comments or banning people from an RfA page would be a positive way to go - indeed that would lead to an even greater feeling of disenfranchisement. WP:NPA is policy, and administrators should deal with personal attacks on RfA pages as they would anywhere else. But while there are a number of unpleasant exchanges on the page, it's hard to single out particular people who have crossed the line. All in all, it's been rather a disappointing spectacle. WjBscribe 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will, which nominator were you referring to specifically? When there's a clearly defined number (three) with all three being involved, I'd prefer not to leave such issues "hanging", so to speak, for people to misinterpret given your role in the RfA process. Daniel (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think without naming names it's pretty obvious which nominator's behaviour stands out here - after all, only one nom has a note on their talkpage from me commenting on their conduct... WjBscribe 15:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually none of the 3 seem to have such a note currently; I looked. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think you need to look more closely... :-) WjBscribe 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"administrators should deal with personal attacks on RfA pages as they would anywhere else". Should do, but this is rarely if ever the case. I'd like to see admins and/or 'crats start issuing warnings to the worst offenders that such behaviour may be "routine" now but it won't be acceptable in future. --Folantin (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the crats take that into account. Beam 14:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the best will in the world (and I am unlikely to be the closer of this RfA given its scheduled end time) it is rather hard to take into account comments that have not been made. WjBscribe 14:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hard but not impossible! Beam 15:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Packet encryption layer for ESP perhaps? Orderinchaos 16:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. Beam 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a relative Wiki-noob compared to the other voters (although the fishy-ness of some voters will most likely be called into question), this RfA is depressing. I would assume part of being an Admin is not rocking the boat, which this user has apparently done. I admit to voting before knowing the whole story, because I'd seen H20 around quite a bit, and with nothing but good vibes, which led me to believe any past transgressions were just that - in the past. It's a shame that with such a huge supporting base, there's still so many opposes. Also being that this is RfA number 5, maybe it just ain't meant to be. Regardless, this RfA should throw up some red flags that the RfA process needs some tweaking. What that tweaking is, I dunno, but I trust the 'crats to figure it out. This whole thing just exposes the ugly underbelly of Wikipedia. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the crats will take this into account? I hope not! Bureaucrats have the technical ability to make someone an administrator, but I do not believe they have the right to interfere with the process by which people are nominated for this position. And I personally do not think they ought to have any special role. There are two issues Orderinchaos raises (aside from an ambivalent and vague comment about this particular nomination I have no comment on): bullying, and canvassing. Concerning bullying, Orderinchaos was right to express his/her view, as was Folantin. Anyone else who has a strong view on the matter, or a constructive suggestion, should add to the discussion ... or it will peter out. But I see no reason to bypass typical Wikipedia mechanisms for dealing with unconstructive behavior and appeal to bureaucrats. For example, I was irked by someone's response to my vote. That person and another responded, in constructive ways, which resolved the matter, and isn't that how things ouught to work here? If someone flat-out violates a personal behavior policy an admin can warn and then block them, or someone can take it to ArbCom, if it really gets out of hand. I don't see that happening here, just the typical crap that too often occurs at Wikipedia. I agree Wikipedia attracts lots of bullies and there have been periodic discussions about how to handle them and the apparently immovable consensus is that existing dynamics and mechanisms are adequate (if someone disagrees I suggest they propose a policy on bullies, or propose edits to strengthen existing policies concerning incivility etc.) I do not agree with David Fuchs that one should just suck it up, but I would say that WP:DNFTT is usually sound advice, and when that doesn't work people just need to air their views, argue it out, and hope that enough people from the community get involved to overwhelm the attempts to bully. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning canvassing, I expressed my view in the discussion following the vote. I'll repeat it here to see if enough people really care enough that I might propose a policy, but I am betting that most people are content with the status quo or too divided to make any policy proposal viable. I think it is a simple mistake to think that the current process results in a representative sample of Wikipedians voting on nominations. This is evident to anyone expert in statistics, e.g. a sociologist or epidemiologist. I am not sure who first suggested that the poll be of a representative group, or if this is even necessary, but if it is I have two proposals. First (the most effective), have a random-number generator produce a list of IP addresses (a statistician would have to tell us how large the list should be given the number of active editors and registered users) from which a jury would be formed for each nomination, and that jury and that jury only would vote. Second, encourage as many people as possible - encourage everyone to canvass. The smaller the number of voters, the greater the sampling error; the larger the number of voters the more likely it will be a representative sample. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I feel that the continual updating of WP:100 and WP:200 during the voting process is encouraging the circus-like atmosphere and the pile on mentally of the voters, as if voting for the sake of breaking a record were the purpose. Is this usually done while the voting is still going on? –Mattisse (Talk) 15:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← To go back to Orderinchaos' concern, it's very much a quandary. On the one hand, DHMO has actually shown remarkable personal maturity and restraint in dealing with the circus this RfA has become. Since my oppose was based on maturity concerns, I'm tempted to reconsider it. On the other hand, some of his supporters are really not doing him any favors. It feels unfair to DHMO to hold the actions of his more intemperate supporters against him. MastCell Talk 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't say it as a fact, I want to AGF after all, but even the most immature person can be mature when they are so close to a personal goal. Beam 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but that's not usually what happens at RfA (Anyone remember Werdna's?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to keep looking like some sort of bad faith mongering ass but for someone who has been here 5+- times (4 this year I think) maybe they can learn to deal with it for the duration of an RfA. Again, I look like a jerk but it has to be said. Well it doesn't "have to" be said, but I had to say it. Ok I didn't, but I did say it anyway.... Beam 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a brilliant, clueful observation. </snark> --Dragon695 (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much in the same way that AFDs are advertised to concerned Wikiprojects, I would find it appropriate to advertise RFAs of participants of various projects. Neutral announcements, such as "User:Example is currently requesting adminship." Linking to the page, of course. Editors who work with candidates in such projects have the best knowledge of the candidate in many cases. I think such advertisements should not only be allowed, but the standard. I also believe that 'crats should be given explicit discretion to remove comments that are found to be off-topic or irrelevant to adminship, either reverting or moving to the talk page. As 'crats are also seasoned admins, when they believe an editor is being disruptive in an RFA to the point that a block is warranted, if they don't carry it out themselves, a note should be left recommending it, otherwise, warnings should also be standard. Those are my thoughts on it. Lara❤Love 19:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is every one or no one, what you propose may be viewed as a form of votestacking. I agree with the remark on bureaucrats, and add that only (uninvolved) bureaucrats should be allowed to do this, except when this is highly uncontroversial (indenting the !vote of an 'IP', moving to the talk page a long off topic discussion...). Though I still think that a comment should not be simply removed without a compelling reason to do so. Cenarium (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our experience on the Australian project and in other similar large projects where a person's candidature can be advertised on a noticeboard (it's not a for or against, simply a "Articles for deletion this week: 1, 2, 3. People running for adminship this week: 1" sort of thing), is that it doesn't necessarily always attract positive comments - indeed, members of the person's main locus of editing may know of examples or behaviour traits not known to the wider community or easily obtainable from an inspection which end up convincing the community not to give the person the bit. If a person is completely uncontroversial in such a space, people can see that and also have more useful (and arguably independent) information on which to draw. I'm not sure how this would work in a much smaller wikiproject, though, or in one with a tighter structure than Australia, a project without central organisation and where people often disagree whilst still being able to work together and cooperate outside the area of disagreement. Orderinchaos 01:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this RfA was not raised at WP:AWNB/A (the page OIC refers to). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear that. I'm uncomfortable with RFA being advertised anywhere. Perhaps the Australian Project is not like this, but there is one project that has racked up a large number of admins, relative to their presence here at Wikipedia through such means, and then routinely push through FAC by a large number of support votes who vote whatever the worth of the article and defend the article against alternative views. I think pushing through FAC articles and defending agains all POV (in some cases, merely a less upper class view than old history books carry) is a good way to gather support. –Mattisse (Talk) 02:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that most of your comment belongs elsewhere, Mattisse - either WT:RFA or WT:FAC. It's unfair to associate it with DHMO's RfA, and also unfair to the FAC process to make such a statement without identifying exactly who you are speaking of and bringing your concerns to the attention of that "project". This particular page is already heated enough without getting into any perceived problems with FAC. Thanks. Risker (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all the support bashing?

You all seem to forget that it's the opposers who canvassed, recruited project-based meatpuppets, attacked the candidate with links to this RfA in places which get attention, etc. I was speaking with Orderinchaos last night, and this "threatening of opposition" isn't even proved, given the source refuses to reveal who actually "threatened" him. There's the very real possibility it was a troll, an impostor, and I am still yet to rule out the fact that the person who claims to be threatened had a motive to do so (he was apparently one of the earliest opposers, and refuses to publically put his name to the allegations).

The only threatening I've seen is that done by one member of the opposition in a private IRC channel, where the user waltzed in and asked for people who supported this RfA to come forward, upon which the user proceeded to roundly insult their intelligence, tell them why they were wrong, and why they should change their vote.

Like, seriously. Don't paint half a picture, please. Some of the behaviour on the RfA by supporters hasn't been great, but I'm still waiting for evidence of this "threatening" which everyone claims is happening. Until people will put names to evidence, I cannot for a moment consider it. Unlike the canvassing by the opposition, which have the emails themselves, names, difflinks, IRC logs, and server logs all to establish the fact that it happened, it happened early, and it happened often. Daniel (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has to do with the fact that so much support came so quickly for a relatively unknown. Beam 03:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relative unknown? I'm not sure I can agree with that. Daniel (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't agree that as much of the oppose as you think is tainted. In fact, it seems pretty well supported and coming from some very respected wiki editors, including some of his associates. Beam 04:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beam, I'm not sure how long you've been editing, but to refer to DHMO as unknown is all but shocking. He is far from unknown. He's a member of two of the largest (if not the two largest) Wikiprojects as well as the Aussie project, he an admin and bureaucrat on Commons, active on Meta, he's been with Wikipedia for quite some time and has made himself well known both on-wiki and in IRC. I would put him in the group of some of the better known Wikipedians. Lara❤Love 04:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DHMO unknown? You should be in stand-up comedy. Tool2Die4 (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And therein lies the problem with this RfA and with RfA's in general. Endless opinions being thrown around by people who don't know what they are talking about or are acting on second-hand (or third-hand, fourth-hand, fifth-hand, sixth-hand or worse) information. The suggestion that DHMO is an unknown speaks volumes about your actual knowledge of the candidate and the process in general. Even if you ignore his contributions on other projects and focus only on Wiki-en, he is still one of the most prolific and highly-visible editors on the project. Beam... please... do your research. Trusilver 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, en.Wikipedia is large enough that few users are known by all. Be humbled to know that what you see up close isn't seen by many at all. Kingturtle (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are definitely two sides to this one. With threats, I was talking in part about the people running around talking loudly about oppose votes in a very bad faith manner, without subjecting the (in my view impossible number of) support votes to the same scrutiny. Yes, some of the oppose votes are seriously questionable - I've questioned them myself. Also heavily criticised them on a current RFAR and hope that ArbCom does indeed take that case up and deal with it. But quite a number are long-term users with no particular motive. This whole thing reminds me of a documentary I once saw on a Pakistani election where the guy (Bhutto's father) lost power primarily because some misguided lieutenants stacked the results in certain areas to an extent which was completely unbelievable, and the president then had no legitimacy and was overthrown. It's a question of fairness - is the process intended to reach a particular outcome, with measures being taken to ensure that outcome results, or is it going to be left to reach a fair outcome? While I would like this candidate to be an admin, the current process undermines his legitimacy if he passes and leaves an appalling precedent in its wake. Orderinchaos 03:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just clarify, since that part has been made public, that the person who shared the email in question with me has not voted or commented in any section of this RfA. Orderinchaos 03:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been an incredibly contentious RfA, in which emotions and sometimes tempers have run high. If I've offeneded anyone, it was unintentional and I do apologise. People have said and done things they would not have otherwise. My hope is that when it's completed that the participants can look at one another and say, "that was rough-- let's let our anger die and get back to building the encyclopedia." It would be detrimental to ourselves and to the project if we are unable to move on from this and leave it in the past. Dlohcierekim
173 supports in the first 24 hours is obviously the result of canvassing too. That rate of support is unheard of, and DHMO/Giggy's relative obscurity and the turnout at his 5 previous failed RFA attempts argues against any other interpretation. Odd nature (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unfair claim. If you can cite specific canvasssing, please do so, but the sheer number is not a fair reason to make such a strong and accusatory statement about what's "obvious" to anyone. You followed it with your reason, of course, but I'd hardly call the person obscure. People have way too many things to say to consider DHMO obscure. Doczilla STOMP! 22:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The observation is more fair and based on reality than those made by DHMO's supporters over the whopping 3(!) emails sent by Filll! Extraordinary numbers and responses require extraordinary explanations, AFAIK. Odd nature (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reform

If this RfA spurs more serious efforts to examine the process, like those suggested by Slrubenstein, then that would be a good thing. I can think of a lot of things that might be useful reforms to try. I think one of the most positive things the community could do is to implement a policy stating that under no circumstances will intimidation of people for their votes at RfA, RfB or similar polls be tolerated. And that attacking people or targeting people in various ways as "revenge" for how they voted at RfA, etc should not be tolerated. And these policies should be aggressively enforced, as much as we enforce WP:CIVIL now.

It is ridiculous to think that WP:CIVIL is treated more seriously than someone harassing someone else as revenge for how they voted in an RfA months ago.

But that is just one idea; there are many others that would be worthwhile. Random sampling is an interesting idea. Secret ballots might also be useful. More rigorous questioning might be useful. Mandatory supervised probation periods during which editors would be subject to mandatory training exercises after successful RfAs might be useful. I am sure that if thoughtful people were asked to consider it, many ideas would be generated.

I would suggest that we try these on a small scale or in a limited way or for a limited time to see how they work in practice, before committing to them. Be cautious in any reform.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be more appropriate on the WT:RfA? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion for exactly this purpose, considering my overseas holiday fell through yet my company insist I take the time off... *grumbles* Gazimoff WriteRead 19:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these ideas have been brought up before. I don't think the jury idea would work, and the closed ballot idea, while potentially a good one, may be too technical for RFA. I suggest a possibility of running RFA much like board elections. Have the first, say, four days be for questions and discussion only, then three days of voting. The problem with this is that for people who only log on once a week, they would not get the chance to participate in both phases. But I'm sure this is a possible option that, if others agree is viable, could be built upon into a fair, working system... at least more so than the one we're working with now. That aside, a policy regarding intimidation and bullying would most certainly be appropriate. No matter what possible changes come to RFA, and no matter what system we may switch to, strict enforcement of civility and respect should be maintained by all participants and, as I stated in another discussion, any off-topic or irrelevant discussions should be deleted or moved to the talk page as a standard.
I agree that this discussion is better for WT:RFA, and I'm going to leave a note for Filll asking if he minds if this is moved there. Just kidding, there's already a discussion there... off I go! :D Lara❤Love 20:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say do away with the RfA. If you get 10 Admins to sponsor you, you become an Admin. If you abuse your Adminship you lose it, and if it's severe or repeated you lose it forever. And as a punishment to the idiots that sponsored you they have to either give me money or some other punitive measure. And, of course, because I came up with the idea, I am now an Admin. Beam 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My very strong oppose

I've struck my very strong oppose, I understand it was completely incivil and assuming bad faith. I made it right after having a serious argument with Majorly on IRC, and part of it was spite for him. I think I owe DHMO an apology.--Phoenix-wiki 13:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for admitting that. Im sure it is much appreciated. ViridaeTalk 13:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently

I've noticed that a few well established and regular editors to RfA have switched during this particular RfA from support to abstain, or oppose to support, or even support to oppose. I've also noticed that this might have been due to the "drama" or a more accurate depiction would be because of how other editors have acted. I find this to be rather disheartening. Also note, that I'm not sending out any e-mails, I'm not posting to anyones talk pages, and obviously not posting to an off wiki blog about this. I think this is defeating the purpose of RfA; when we respond to the variables of the RfA and not the candidate. I'm not asking that anyone switch sides, far from it. I'd just like you to consider the consequences of your actions. I waited several days before I made my decision, and I did this whilst ignoring the variables. Why, after all this time spent at RfA, can't you all do the same? I'm off to work. — MaggotSyn 16:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortantely, it seems like that's how it goes sometimes. Who woulda thunk RFA is for the candidate? Hehe :)<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)In your very support, you essentially say you are supporting him because of the way he is handling the RfA. Isn't that a "variable of the RfA"? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But if it weren't for the RfA, there would be no other variables. His overall handling of the RfA has shown me proof of the "maturity" concern. — MaggotSyn 16:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with you using the RfA itself for evaluation, in fact I think that is a great way to evaluate. I do agree that any editor who is specifically changing/abstaining because of the RfA itself is probably not a good thing, although I think in most cases they really don't want to support/oppose the candidate any longer. Furthermore, I think early on in the RfA, far too many people took the why-the-hell-not-no-big-deal approach, as shown by supports actually adding reasoning later on. The changing of votes in regards to new info presented in the RfA isn't neccesarily a bad thing, unless it literally has nothing to do with the candidate. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:(e/c)Not to mention one admin canvassing another. Despite the fact that it had no effect, it's still sad to see. Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not canvassing. Probably not a good term to throw around loosely. --barneca (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::(e/c)The other admin in question disagrees with your assessment. Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think regrettably that it is canvassing. He is trying to get him to look at a specific side. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, if he had said that on the RFA page itself, it would have been fine. But because he said it on a user talk page, of a user that had already been to, and so was already aware of, the RFA, it's canvassing? That just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. All part of the drama surrounding this RFA, I suppose. --barneca (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we would have said something like "To all the neutrals out there, check out my support #1043 to see what I think of some of the opposes, that would be canvassing to. But he directed it to one person, trying to sway a vote, and although it didn't change the way he wanted, it was still, in fact, canvassing. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 16:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Hmm.. seeing as it involves my talkpage, I feel that I can comment. Of course, I did forget to indent my support when I abstained earlier on (June 1, I think), as was the main reason why that person came to my talk page. He was only opining, sure, it could be seen from one aspect as canvassing, but the other, a simple opining. It doesn't matter anyway, as I say, because I went from support to neutral afterwards. Rudget (Help?) 16:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Trying to sway a vote is not canvassing. I just re-read WP:CANVASS to make sure. --barneca (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I've read it myself. You can discuss a vote in this matter, it might only be improper if the editor didn't know about the RfA or something like that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone disagree with me to notify the user who sent this message a note of this discussion? Rudget (Help?) 16:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course that's fine. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be canvassing.  :) --barneca (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, barneca, for the voice of reason. Knee-jerk accusations of canvassing, made at the drop of a hat, without even understanding what canvassing is - this thread is the perfect encapsulation of the lunacy into which this RfA has devolved. Come on - we can do better than this. MastCell Talk 18:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes my stupidity has been pointed out by a laundry list of admins. Lesson learned, don't worry. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one who changed from support to "withdrawn from process", I can only say that as one of the nominators has completely confused me about whether or not they believe in the candidate, and because I (perhaps foolishly) relied on my perceived excellence of the nominators to lend my support, I had to pull back. I don't have the time now to re-review DHMO contributions and come to an assessment, so I just pulled right out. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fritz' mindset here sums up my point. I think the changes are really responding to new info/additudes regarding the candidate when altering their vote, not just being POINTy about an RfA that has become a circus. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem here, is that support and opposers alike don't know what to make a decision upon. Do they support an editor which is here for the encyclopedia, as all of us should be?, or do the oppose based on some recent (or earlier) events which has changed their personal assessment of the candidate. I think we'll be seeing more supports being withdrawn later on, sadly. Rudget (Help?) 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis paralysis (that's how I feel anyway).naerii - talk 16:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on Rudget's talkpage to the accusation of canvassing, which I frankly find absurd. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--I've personally had conversations in user talk space with editors about their recommendations in RfAs (after they made them, of course), and will do so again. We're a community, after all. Darkspots (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


RFA Withdrawn?

I'm assuming that this is what has happened since DHMO has blanked the page? --SimpleParadox 22:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tring to ask him for some dialogue. Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently. All over. And it generated a fair amount of carnage. Contributed to at least one RfAr and one Admin who scrambled his account password. Perhaps a few other editors who were discouraged from continuing on WP. Some warnings for incivility at least. Lots of fallout. I hope we can use this as as spur for reform. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, its over? He had like 80%. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn is withdrawn .. how very unfortunate, however :( I'm quite dissatisfied to see it end like this. Arkyan 22:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't understand. It was looking like he was gooing to pass, too. What a shame! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He had 72%, and was actually losing support votes. I can't say I don't understand him; this must have been one of the most painful RFAs ever both for the candidate and for Wikipedia as a whole. Hopefully, this disaster of an RFA will help bring an end to the current way we promote admins. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope he doesn't leave over this, we need him more than most admins to be frank. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here [2] is the explanation from DHMO. Disappointing. --SimpleParadox 23:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what was said above, I believe it closed at 299/85/17. That's 77.864%. Disappointing that it had to end this way, but there really was no conceivable good ending for it. I respect DHMO's decision to withdraw. As Beamathan said above "If DHMO withdrew it would be such a selfless and community first act that I would be awestruck." Enigma message 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, in my opinion, it wouldn't have passed at all (it should be obvious that this involuted mess of an RfA had no clear cut consensus), but I was sure that H to O was going to let it ride to the end. Sigh. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By withdrawing, DHMO wanted to make sure. Good on him. dorftrottel (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what punishment?

Whether Wikipedia is worth your time is completely up to you Ling.Nut. It has absolutely, unequivocally nothing to do with Dihydrogen Monoxide. Stop feeding the drama. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first part is certainly a good point. Speaking of flaws with RfA: Why are people praised for malicious behaviour? naerii - talk 23:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should have definitely asked yourself whether it really was necessary to make this comment before pressing the save button, Ling. It may be true, but this rings of something that wasn't well-thought out at all. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am not feeding the drama. There should be punishment here. End of story. Ling.Nut (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do punishment here. And no harm was done. naerii - talk 23:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's not being praised for malicious behavior, but rather for taking a mature responsible position, when he did something others criticize. As I suspect that I am probably the victem of said act, I will state that I don't blame DMH0.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Is Wikipedia worth my time?" (Ling.Nut)

No, it isn't. Please take your drama off Wikipedia. Al Tally talk 23:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well that's nice. Someone spreads around an editor's personal details in an act of revenge and gets patted on the back; someone else expresses disapproval and gets told to leave Wikipedia. Well I'm glad we have our priorities straight. naerii - talk 23:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't tell Ling to leave Wikipedia, he was saying that the drama has no place here. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ya...punishment....right.... And what do you propose we do? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naerii, I've done nothing of the sort. In any case Ling.Nut has inappropriately asked for DHMO to be posthumously "punished" (how?), and basically threatened to quit him/herself. Al Tally talk 23:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is an embarrassment. Yes, let's invoke punitive measures based on this bullshit of an RfA. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. WP:DFTT. --SimpleParadox 23:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Punish H20? Wow, some people really are bitter, I ask again, why should anyone have to go through all this to become an admin? Reality check people, its a website. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Punish him for what? Bad judgement calls are frowned upon, but there's no conceivable nor just punishment here and talk of such is crazy. People need to get back to editing the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 00:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. Given that "adminship is no big deal", and as stated above, this is just a website, why all this drama? We're not voting for the President of the US here. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Dihydrogen_Monoxide_3"