Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Northamerica1000

Northamerica1000's edit stats using X!'s edit counter as of 03:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC):[reply]

Username:	Northamerica1000
User groups:	autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker
First edit:	Jun 08, 2011 12:22:52
Unique pages edited:	19,432
Average edits per page:	4.95
Live edits:	91,290
Deleted edits:	4,918
Total edits (including deleted):	96,208

Namespace Totals

Article	56119	61.47%
Talk	4373	4.79%
User	692	0.76%
User talk	6585	7.21%
Wikipedia	13697	15.00%
Wikipedia talk	1648	1.81%
File	687	0.75%
File talk	39	0.04%
Template	683	0.75%
Template talk	192	0.21%
Help	14	0.02%
Category	27	0.03%
Category talk	3	0.00%
Portal	6496	7.12%
Portal talk	35	0.04%
	
Namespace Totals Pie Chart
Month counts
2011/06	1985 	
2011/07	4616 	
2011/08	4988 	
2011/09	4272 	
2011/10	4714 	
2011/11	4841 	
2011/12	5032 	
2012/01	6648 	
2012/02	6424 	
2012/03	6055 	
2012/04	4927 	
2012/05	6739 	
2012/06	4636 	
2012/07	6737 	
2012/08	6181 	
2012/09	6804 	
2012/10	3959 	
2012/11	1732 	

Article	3331 edits	51.85%
Talk	310 edits	4.83%
User	36 edits	0.56%
User talk	923 edits	14.37%
Wikipedia	1056 edits	16.44%
Wikipedia talk	258 edits	4.02%
Template	67 edits	1.04%
Template talk	6 edits	0.09%
Category	4 edits	0.06%
Portal	433 edits	6.74%
Top edited pages
Sorry, but in order to consume my fair share of toolserver resources, Top Edited Articles are disabled for users with over 45000 edits.}}

Discussion about User:BarkingFish's oppose vote

That's not valid reasoning. This is a wonderful user who obviously deserves the tools. There are over 1,000 admins, and I see no harm in having more. What's the harm? If there were enough admins, why does the requests for adminship center still exist? If anymore admin requests come up, are you also going to oppose them for the same reasoning? It has even been said that more admins are needed and there is a concern that RFA is dying. TBr and ley 23:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is perfectly valid reasoning. The more people have power, the weaker that power becomes. If I give you a cup of tea, made with one teabag, it's strong. If I make 1000 cups of tea with that teabag, it's like pisswater. We don't need anymore admins at this time, imo. And please don't TB my talk page, I have the RFA on watchlist, thank you :) Fish ^Barking? 00:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (edit conflict) Well, I personally disagree, but that's just me. I still don't see what the point of requests for adminship is right now then. I do agree with AutomaticStrikeout's comment below, however. Understood about the talkback. TBr and ley 00:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, how does someone deserve the tools? I would expect that we give someone the mop if them having it would help the project, not because someone deserves it. Legoktm (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deserves may not have been the best choice of words, but I think the biggest problem here is that BarkingFish opposed this RfA for reasons that have nothing to do with the individual candidate. AutomaticStrikeout 00:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think more of an issue would be the wording of your nomination, to make it sound like we should just pass this guy through and to hell with it - "I ask you why, if adminship is indeed no big deal, should we not give this editor the mop?" - It's not a case of "oh here's a candidate, dash it all and let's make them a ~~sysop~~admin." - before you criticize me, look at your own work first. Fish ^Barking? 00:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the wording of my nomination and I did realize that it could have been a cause of your !vote. However, I do believe that I gave some good reasons for why the candidate has demonstrated his trustworthiness and can be given the mop. My point was that that since the candidate has demonstrated that he can be trusted with the tools, why wouldn't we give the tools to him? AutomaticStrikeout 00:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In the end, RfA is merely a process to produce a good admin corp, which is used to produce a good encyclopedia. Maybe I'm being a bit too idealistic at this point, but I don't see how an oppose against the general state of things is counter-productive to the overall process. Legoktm (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (edit conflict) Yes, he obviously does and would/will help the project, and, adding to that, he "deserves" it. I do agree with AutomaticStrikeout. TBr and ley 00:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the OP has not read the RFA talkpage about the panic due to so few admins these days. Wow - opposing when we need admins based on statistics? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Bwilkins, instead of telling me about statistics, you would be kind enough to link me to the page showing them - also, fwiw, 105% of statistics are wrong, and the remaining 43.6% don't add up. Fish ^Barking? 00:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. But this oppose is just plain uncivil. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BarkingFish: see User:Soap/RfA for some stats. There are other statistics available too, some of which show that admins are retiring at a significantly faster rate than new admins are being created. Check out some of the recent discussions at WT:RFA for more info. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 01:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Scottywong, for the details. At least I know where I can see the statistics now - for what its worth, I don't intend to change my oppose, regardless of how much I get badgered. And my oppose is not uncivil, Alex, it's based on how I feel about this nomination in particular - that it was worded in such a way as to intimate we should give this person a through pass to adminship. It don't work like that, and never will. I notice it's never the supports who get badgered... Fish ^Barking? 01:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ye gods

"Do you, personally, feel that you deserve to be an administrator on this project, and if so, what makes you more deserving than other candidates with more experience than yourself, who have lost out at this place? If you don't feel you deserve it, what qualities do you feel you will add to the admin base on this project?"

Are we taking applications for staff at Kinko's now? Ugh. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. "Where do you see yourself in 5 years?" ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 14:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, not as an admin, Scottywong :) I wouldn't risk it in this place. Fish ^Barking? 19:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting question - I did not vote twice

I originally voted Support without providing a rationale. I then added a rationale and changed my vote to Very strong support by adding a comment indented under my original numbered vote.

I see that this was not correct procedure (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FNorthamerica1000&diff=522130856&oldid=522129057), but I don't want to appear as if I voted twice. What is the best way to format this Ottawahitech (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting is fine as it is - there is no number next to your "second" support so doesn't count as a vote. Giant Snowman 15:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech , the only litte thing you missed when you originally upgraded your support was that you didnt start your new comment with a "#:" - whenever you add a comment to a numbered vote (whether its your own or someone elses) the first two characters have to be #: -else it breaks the formating. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Should no.15, "Additional question from Kraxler", be hatted, Q, A, rebuttal, counter rebuttal, and all? Drmies (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would have been justified, but they seem to have realised they went OTT with their ultra hostile loaded question to a candidate with no chance of passing, and the ABF in assuming Norths possibly innaccurate remarks were a lie. Thank you so much Dr for the intervention and removing the worst of the attack! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently Kraxler is having a rough day. At any rate, there's another comment on the very page now, suggesting that maybe this whole thing should be dealt with. I'll leave them a note, pointing to this. Thanks Feyd, Drmies (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time ever I opined in a RfA. I'm not really familiar with the proceedings, or the formats, and just went along, apparently being carried away. I'm sorry if I caused any disturbance. Kraxler (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler, I am also in the same boat - first time (I believe?) I ever participated in this zoo (just kidding). Having established one thing in a common, I wonder if you would care to address my curiosity:

You have stated that the number of deletions for Northamerica1000 is excessive - but I am of the opposite opinion. I wonder how he manages to keep his deletions at around only 5% of his contributions. I see numbers much higher than this on many wikipedian accounts, including wikipedians who are much less active in contributing to "tagged" articles. Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to discuss this subject after the poll is closed. Kraxler (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support for users that are not connected to current admins and their friends

Whenever I get a chance, I spend time wiki-linking comments for the benefit of newbies who have yet to master the wiki-jargon used in a lot of wiki-discussions. Unfortunately it appears this is frowned upon here as can be seen from this edit summary :

(revert changes made to my comments made by user:Ottawahitech - if I wanted to wikilink things, I would have wikilinked them myself. Don't mess with other people's comments)

Just wondering if this is only this individual admin’s outlook, or have I unwittingly breached Wikipedia guidelines?Ottawahitech (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, you should never change another editor's comments on any discussion page. Sometimes, it's okay if, for example, there's a formatting issue, but adding a wikilink is more than just formatting, and I'd stay away from doing it unless you're confident that the editor won't mind. I sometimes want to fix typos, but, hard as it is, I resist (once in a while I've caved :-) ) BTW, that's a very odd section header for this topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 - Thanks for responding. When I first started wikilinking discussions for the benefit of others I was a bit hesitant. However, it seemed that this was met with approval at places like Signpost comments and village pumps. How else can we include newbies in such jargon-rich discussions? As for the heading it was borrowed from Support#27 which I believe represents many outsiders such as myself: "Support - ... we need to support more users that are outside of the current cliques of admins and their approved/mentored friends that appear to be /are attempting to control the project." Ottawahitech (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think that many of the problems with wikipedia's community stem from wikilinking, people turn a phrase blue and assume that everyone will know what they mean. This is in spite of the fact they often do not mean what the essay said (I've started a list of places where this happens in my contradictions essay. What I'd much rather see is editors explaining themselves better - not using the jargon in the first place. That was one of the early requirements of the teahouse project and a large factor in its early success if you ask me. As to your question, no, I think it's a poor idea to wikilinking other users comments, it will quickly upset people who upset easily, and is against our community guidelines. Better would be to talk to the user on their talk page about using less jargon. We live in a community who are focused on writing well, why is it we can't do it when talking to each other? Worm^TT(talk) 07:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you're talking in general terms, rather than directed to this specific case, where Ottawahitech redlinked admin backlog (with the comment what is this?) and then linked the words "delete", "block" and "protect" to their respective policies. Neither edit complied with the exceptions to the general rule that one does not edit another editor's comments without permission; I was annoyed, and I would not count myself as someone who gets "upset easily", in fact. The first edit additionally could have given the impression that I did not think there was any admin backlog, since it was a redlink. (To answer Ottawahitech's question, I would refer him to Category:Administrative backlog and {{admin backlog}}). While I take WTT's general point that less jargon is generally a good idea, there was no "jargon" that needed explanation in my comment - can we realistically imagine that there might be someone thinking of contributing to this RFA who didn't know what I meant by delete, block or protect? And, Ottawahitech, next time you have a question about my editing, please ask me first rather than taking it to a general talk page without even notifying me that you're discussing me. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Bencherlite, You are absolutely right to be annoyed by being discussed “behind your back”. Please accept my apologies – I can only offer one (very) lame excuse: I do not engage in discussions on Wikipedia very often, and some of the social nuances escape me, but I should have informed you and promise to try and do better in future.

Now back to my original concern that this forum is uninviting to less experienced editors. You believe that the meaning of words like blocking, deleting and protecting are obvious and that everyone knows what admin backlogs are. So, let me state for the record, that to me these are still an enigma and I have been around wikipedia since 2007. You may feel that I am "slow", and that may be true, but I am also not interested in what seems to me to be endless wiki discussions and I avoid the talk areas as much as I can. Unfortunately, every once in a while, I feel I have no choice but to take part in this (can I say this without being shot down?) democratic process.

So, no, I don’t believe everyone knows what the terms delete, block , protect and Category:Administrative backlog and {{template:admin backlog}}) mean and what their implications are. And, while we are at it, it is very unlikely that very many wikipedians are following this discussion - just wondering if anyone else here shares my concern? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question wasn't whether everyone knew what it means to delete, block, or protect, but whether everyone here did. Frankly, if you're not familiar with what an admin does, you're not going to know whether someone is qualified to be an admin. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But how will they learn unless we show them? --No unique names 04:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By asking. Not by editors going around and "fixing" the comments of others. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Philosopher If you are saying that wikipedians who do not know the ins-and-outs of admining should not be participating in wp:RFA discussions then I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. As a rule, the content of others' comments should never be altered. It doesn't matter whether it's to wikilink things or to correct glaring typos: the correct thing to do is to add a comment with suggestions for the other editor ("is that a typo?" "Did you mean to link to X?") rather than just editing someone else's words. Talk pages are the only places that we put our names to our writing: it's the only area in which some degree of ownership of the text is desirable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would especially note that actual meaning is often conveyed by the choice of whether to link and what links are used - Bencherlite noted that a redlink could be (potentially) used to indicate an opinion about the state of the thing redlinked to; similarly, if I link to bureaucrat instead of bureaucrat, I might be trying to imply that our local 'crats are too bureaucratic. That additional meaning isn't always there - sometimes a link is just a link - but because adding or changing a link in a comment has the potential to change or create meaning, it should always be avoided. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take this RfA out behind the barn and shoot it

Why is this being allowed to stagger towards the finish line? RfAs don't even pass at 70% at times, and this one is hovering around %40. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could be the Jamaican Bobsled Team clause at work. --No unique names 15:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates shouldn't be forced to withdraw just because they're not going to pass. RfA is one of the few ways that users get direct appraisal by their peers. NA1K is still posting (voluminous) replies to comments, so presumably he's still got something to say. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nouniquenames - obviously the Jamaican Bobsled Team clause in use. Typical stiff upper lip and all that - got to let process have its way, see it through to the end, etc. If this was a puppy, I'd have fed it to my Anaconda for lunch. :) Fish ^Barking? 13:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]