Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Philosopher

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edit count for Philosopher

User:Philosopher

    run at Mon Apr 28 10:00:53 2008 GMT

Category talk:         36
Category:              37
Help talk:             1
Image talk:            5
Image:                 6
Mainspace              2179
Portal talk:           1
Portal:                1
Talk:                  2568
Template talk:         116
Template:              145
User talk:             326
User:                  335
Wikipedia talk:        150
Wikipedia:             349
avg edits per page     1.73
earliest               12:34, 27 October 2005
number of unique pages 3607
total                  6255

2005/10  8
2005/11  4
2005/12  0
2006/1   0
2006/2   0
2006/3   122
2006/4   43
2006/5   30
2006/6   206
2006/7   678
2006/8   411
2006/9   1491
2006/10  92
2006/11  243
2006/12  129
2007/1   266
2007/2   14
2007/3   341
2007/4   212
2007/5   75
2007/6   341
2007/7   920
2007/8   55
2007/9   12
2007/10  2
2007/11  1
2007/12  0
2008/1   10
2008/2   0
2008/3   254
2008/4   295

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes
edits without an edit summary)

                        Mainspace
30 Iowa
25 United States third party presidential candidates, 2008
23 Iowa Senate elections, 2006
22 Steve Warnstadt
21 David Johnson (Iowa politician)
18 Mary Lundby
18 Mark Zieman
18 Jack Kibbie
17 Iowa House of Representatives elections, 2006
17 Constitution Party (United States)
15 Staci Appel
15 Wes Whitead
14 Dave Mulder
13 Evangelical Free Church of America
13 Dan Rasmussen

                            Talk:
14 United States third party presidential candidates, 2008
13 Constitution Party (United States)
10 Joe Lieberman
8  Gregg v. Georgia
8  Mark Zieman
7  Stargate (device)
6  Steve King
6  Chet Culver
6  List of political parties in the United States
6  Bill Dix
6  Jim Leach
6  Ed Fallon
6  Mary Lundby
5  Educational accreditation
5  Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools

              Category talk:
2 Student governments in the United States
2 Iowa articles by quality
2 Wikipedia requested photographs in Iowa

                       Category:
4 People stubs by nationality
3 WikiProject Iowa
3 WikiProject SCOTUS
2 Iowa government navigational boxes
2 WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles participants

      Image:
3 L000111.jpg
2 Regent logo.gif

                 Template:
22 Current Iowa Representatives
20 Current Iowa Senators
14 Project Iowa
9  Project Iowa/doc
6  Narnia character
5  User Iowa Flag
5  Iowatasks
5  Election box gain with party link
3  Template sandbox
2  Infobox Organization2
2  USParty
2  Party shading/Non-Partisan League
2  S-par
2  United States presidential election, 2008
2  WikiProject SCOTUS

        Template talk:
16 USParty
14 Current Iowa Senators
13 Current Iowa Representatives
12 S-par
8  WPBiography
4  Infobox Politician
4  Infobox Officeholder
3  S-start
3  WPMILHIST
2  User Iowa Flag
2  User wikipedia
2  Wikipedialang
2  Party shading key
2  Project Iowa
2  Infobox Person

                  User:
171 Philosopher
42  Philosopher/Template:NarniaColor
31  Philosopher/Template Test
30  Philosopher/Template:Narnia character
19  Philosopher/monobook.js
11  Philosopher/Wikipedia:WikiProject Iowa
5   SuggestBot/Requests
4   Philosopher/Iowa legislators watchlist
4   Markifur
2   SuggestBot/Regulars
2   Philosopher/Category:WikiProject Iowa

         User talk:
70 Philosopher
15 David Shankbone
13 Bornagain4
13 Philosopher/Template Test
6  Ecombmiami
4  Jmwinn
4  64.113.81.179
4  Android Mouse
4  The Duke of Waltham/SBS
4  Amadia02
3  MZMcBride
3  LAATi88
3  65.190.107.181
3  Two hundred percent
3  Srstoll37

                                    Wikipedia:
21 Village pump (proposals)
20 WikiProject Iowa
20 WikiProject Iowa/Government
14 WikiProject Iowa/Iowa recent changes
10 WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force
8  WikiProject Council/Proposals
8  Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 25
8  Village pump (policy)
7  Village pump (miscellaneous)
7  Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 19
6  WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education
6  Articles for deletion/MUS2301
5  WikiProject Succession Box Standardization
5  Articles for deletion/
   Potential third party candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election
4  Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 27

                   Wikipedia talk:
31 WikiProject Succession Box Standardization
17 WikiProject Iowa
13 WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases
10 WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force
8  WikiProject Stargate
5  WikiProject Iowa/to do
4  WikiProject United States politicians
4  WikiProject Biography
4  WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
4  AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage
4  WikiProject Iowa/Government
3  WikiProject Law
3  Changing username/Usurpations
3  OTRS
2  Village pump

If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot
.
Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2]
  • The edit count was retrieved from this link at 10:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

Moved prima facie discussion

thread moved here from main RfA page by User:EVula in the interest of preventing uncivil and unproductive discourse from sidetracking an active RfA

That's an invalid reason and should be discounted by the closing bureaucrat per WP:GRFA - RfA specifically instructs editors to nominate themselves. Self-nomination is part of the RfA process, which was developed by community consensus. Opposing a nominee for following the nomination process is disruptive to that process, and should be disallowed. As RegentsPark so aptly put it, Kurt's reason is like saying "'it's ok for people to want to run for office but I will only vote for candidates who either don't want to run for office, or candidates who can cloak their desire behind a facade of disinterest.' Seems an odd sort of principle (IMHO) because, if everyone followed this principle, office bearers would either be disinterested in the office to which they are elected or, um, dishonest (in at least one way)." The Transhumanist 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? Are you still ticked off that your self-nom failed by a landslide eons ago? Get over it already. seicer | talk | contribs 18:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move on Transhumanist, everyone knows Kurt opposes self noms, and everyone also knows the closing 'crat ways it very very lightly (if any). Tiptoety talk 18:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newcomers don't. By the way, where would a new bureaucrat learn that it is routine to discount Weber's "prima facie" oppose? The Transhumanist 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But he still has a right to his !vote. And it has been discussed on WP:BN multiple times, and (somewhat) agreed upon that it would not be weighed that heavily, also it is a common question at WP:RFB. Tiptoety talk 19:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where would a newcomer or 1st-time nominee at RfA learn this if not in a reply to Kurt? I'll revise my notice to include the information you just shared. Thank you for pointing that out. The Transhumanist 19:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Kurt Weber not allowed to vote with his rationale while others can vote with the opposing reasons? Monobi (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt Weber is perfectly and completely allowed to !vote however he wants. Notice how the "discussion" of his !vote was moved, and not his !vote? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that much >_> , but why does everyone feel the need to harass him because they don't like his rationale? Why doesn't anyone bug the supporting votes for an in depth analysis into their reasoning? Monobi (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that I'm agreeing with you, right? This was removed for exactly the reasoning you've stated. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, a "new bureaucrat" would be familiar with Kurt's perpetual argument because we don't promote moronic bureaucrats. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean I cannot request Bureaucrat tools then? Darn.Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Pedro. That means you should request B-tools. And quickly.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Hurry up - forgive me for derailing the convo. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about not allowing them to self-nominate. Zing! :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Keeper and Wisdom. back to the matter at hand. The consensus thing here is, IMHO, simple. Kurt is entitled to his oppose, and recently at RFA we have also seen agreeance so this is hardly some "maverick" idea. However, as above, the RFA "instructions" are implicit. Self nominations are not just permitted but encouraged. Opposes that add no value but to oppose a community accepted standard are, by definition, of no value to the community, If Kurt (and others who also disagree with self-nominations) wish to start dialogue with a view to changing the RFA template, and the community's acceptance of self noms, this if good. It may be, after all, that theirs is a valid point. But until the community views self nominations as invalid or weak (which they self evidenly don't) I personally give no weight to the argument unless bolstered by other evidence. I love Kurt's encyclopedic work. I wish he'd get on with it without feeling the need to waste his time with input that clearly irritates (at best) and offends (at worst) the community. Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Kurt's opposes have done some good. For one, there's probably hardly an editor left who now doesn't know the meaning of prima facie. Some may have even read up on intuitionist ethics or epistemology thanks to Kurt. Moreover, the community learns something every time Kurt opposes and someone reacts, and every time someone reacts to the reactions it learns a bit more. Not only do we think about the words prima facie, which is a good thing, but we also think about knockout criteria in general, and, most importantly, we reflect about the difference between descriptive rules and prescriptive rules. We think about our own reasons and compare them with Kurt's. His opposes are important and should not be dismissed. Irritation is priceless in a community anxious to reach consensus. There is nothing offensive about it. Pi in my face (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*clap* *clap* *clap* Well said. Very, very well said. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than my usual comments, I would say that I agree with the above; it is interesting to see the response of the candidate (and others...) to the opposition. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find myseld in agreeance with Pi, within the context that any debate is generally good. I'm not really sure we actually differ to much here. My comments were not "we don't need this oppose" - Pi makes some excellent points as to exactly why we do. My thoughts were more directed at the conversation further up regarding how much weight beureucrats give to these opposes, when they are made prima facie - which here can mean therefore I'm not supplying diffs as self evidently prima facie reasoning requires no supporting information. I also feel that the self-nomination oppose (not just Kurt, there are other editors who take this line) has never been fully examined. Every time it's discussed it is a fragmented part of an RFA. We probably have 50/80/100 mini threads but no actual conclusive full blown discussion aimed at gaining consensus on wether self nominations are good / bad / indifferent. Pedro :  Chat  09:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see Pedro's point about the dissipation of mini-threads. I don't know whether the oppose reason needs to be examined in general though. True, in Kurt's case, it is usually the legitimacy of the oppose reason that gets questioned. But if I were to challenge one of his prima facie opposes, I would probably try to provide secunda facie counter-evidence demonstrating a particular candidate's lack of power hunger and showing other, more persuasive motives for becoming an administrator. Maybe this has been done before, but I've never seen it happen.
I would do the same if I wished to challenge someone's oppose based on other knockout criteria. Example: "I view less than 2,000 mainspace edits as prima facie evidence of lack of experience". (Okay, no one else would word it that way, but you get my analogy) If I wished to challenge, I'd try to demonstrate the candidate's experience, with diffs and examples, rather than accusing the opposer of edit-countitis. Pi in my face (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not big on taking part in RfAs anymore, but I wanted to state my opinion on this. Just because Wikipedia says people wanting to be admins may nominate themselves, this doesn't mean Kurt Weber can't oppose. It's his opinion and although I don't agree that users nominating themselves for adminship are always power hungry, I can see where he's coming from and respect his opinion. Thanks. Jack?! 11:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthering this, I feel that if a user deserves or needs admin tools, then they will surely have done good enough work throughout Wikipedia to be noticed. Maybe all we need is more people nominating people? Jack?! 11:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion related to question 4 moved from RfA page

  • I would like to express, first of all, an apology to Philosopher if my asking Q4 should fail this RfA. It would be a great shame if it did, for the reasons outlined in my support.
    I have a few people to respond to, so I'll leave them here. Firstly, this candidate was not a "guinea pig"—these questions have been asked in and out of RfA before, the challenge has been popular outside of RfA, and they are realistic situations. The attitude that RfA should be made ridiculously easy so candidates aren't forced to back away slowly (Keeper, apologies for quoting you so much on this...) is a bad one—it simply makes stock questions seem more favourable, when the whole purpose of this question was to avoid that junk. I asked the question here because I didn't know if I should support or oppose, and was interested in how the candidate worked...plus, with such a username, how could I not. ;) I think the candidate's answer was spot on. Leaving it for another admin is not the sort of thing we want to be promoting... especially if experienced admins have that attitude. In response to arguments that the candidate should just leave it for OTRS; sure, yeah, but what if an OTRS guy leaves a note at AN or similar outlining the threat, etc. I suppose some admins would just leave it for someone else, but I'd rather someone proactive who will take a stand in such cases. Philosopher has clue, has good judgement, and will be one of the best admins we've seen in recent times; it will be a great shame if this RfA should fail because he was willing to do voluntary work. Again, to him, I apologise, and to others, I urge them to reconsider the attitude we should be promoting.
    Sincerely, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm being quoted here, from two of my different threads regarding this "AGF challenge", I'll respond. I very much like the AGF challenge. Filll has put together (I assume alone, apologies if there is a co-writer, oh the irony), terrificly terrifying scenarios that need to be trodded through, most skillfully, and in my opinion, in the hands of those experienced with a. the subject, b. BLP, c. the admin tools, d. our policies. An admin candidate can of course be experienced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with a, b, and d. But by simple definition, as much as they can know about admin tools, and as much as they can work in admin related areas, they don't have experience with admin tools. I put myself in this category. I've had admin tools for 3 months. I'm inexperienced with admin tools. If that particular scenario, as posed by Filll and asked here by Dihydromonoxygenide, were to ever cross my talkpage, my first post will be to a more experienced admin. It's the smart thing to do to understand that when you are drowning, you shouldn't flail your arms around madly trying to save yourself. Leads to quicker drowning everytime. It isn't "passing the buck" to say I need help from someone with a life board. That being said, and IMHO, the right answer to any of Filll's scenarios is "Get HelpTM. (AKA "Back away slowly"). Find someone with experience. I find this question therefore to be a trap on an RFA simply because Philosopher honestly doesn't have a way to answer correctly. If he ignores the question, he gets a "refuses to answer questions" group of opposes. If he says "ask for help", he gets an "unwilling to deal with controversial situations" group of opposes. If he takes a stab at it, knowing full well its hypothetical, hasn't happened, he gets opposes based on nuances in his answer (I say nuances because some agree with his answer, some disagree). It is a trap, because had he answered in a manner that those that are opposing felt he should answer, others would oppose instead. If a question can garner opposes based on any answer given, it is by definition a trap. Simply an unfair treatment of an editor in good standing that is brave enough to shine the light in his eyes. I will add, I personally don't think RfA should be easy either. However, show me a thread anywhere on Wiki that says RFAs are too easy to pass at the moment, and I'll show you a hundred threads that say the opposite, without hypothetical trap questions. I'll also show you dozens of terrific editors that got blasted in RFA for some good reasons, some bad reasons, some minutia, some majutia. I'll finish with an assertion that yes, Philosopher is a guinea pig. A test RFA. I realize that Filll's questions have been asked before at RFA, but they are, by every definition of a test, being "tried out" in RFA. There is no consensus on any of the answers to the questions, there is no consensus that they are appropriate for a new admin, or an RFA, and therefore, they are being used in live situations to "test their (the questions) merits" Simply unfairly brutal. Sorry for being so longwinded once again....Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Said Keeper. <----- see that? that's called brevity that is :) Pedro :  Chat  15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brevity? What does that mean? -- Avi (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few issues...firstly, guinea pig; I don't know how it appears now, in retrospect, but all I can and will say is that I did NOT intend for this RfA to be a guinea pig. Nor do I intend to ask the AGF question as a regular thing...I asked it because I wasn't sure—that's it. In answer to your a.b.c.d. point...again, I'll have to disagree that leaving it for someone else is the best port of call. I also disagree that the questions are only for seasoned admins. I've answered all of them, without hesitation, and I'm not an admin. My answers are visible in the multiple choice version of the test. If Philosopher refused to answer the question, I would have accepted that...as you say, you aren't required to do something if this should come up on your talk page. If he said ask for help, same thing...I'd accept that. What I won't accept is the idea that doing nothing, or passing it off, should be seen as better then taking action yourself. That's my prerogative. I will also note that he probably did choose a bad question, simply because of the OTRS issues bringing in confusion...I'll try to talk to Filll about that at some stage. Finally, I don't think that we shouldn't ask a question because its answer doesn't have consensus—that just reverts us back to the stock question, and cheatsheet, debacle. I prefer it this way, I understand if others don't. Again, it's my prerogative. I'll try to say no more on this RfA; I hope I've gotten my point across. It's in the community's hands now. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go on about this much longer, I promise, and in fact, Philosopher or Dihydro, I would prefer this whole "little" section was moved to the talkpage, either of you feel free to do so as it has, mostly because of my ridiculous longwindedness, become a distraction. That said, I wish to clarify only one thing, DHMO. I didn't say, or mean to say, the right answer is "do nothing". I never said ignore it, or be inactive. (although in retrospective "back away slowly" gives that vibe). What I mean to say is "know when you're drowning, know your limits, and know when to get help". New admins need to know when to get help. All editors need to know when to get help. DHMO, you've been here for years, you have dipped your toes in many waters, (NPI:-) and have an overall level of comfortableness that would presume that you'd be comfortable handling a "live" challenge directly. It's all about knowing your own limits. That's not inaction, that's smart action. It's not "doing nothing", it's "doing something, but dear God, not by yourself." This is a wiki afterall. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also try to stop now, but discussion is fun! :) I'm glad you've noted the distinction between back away slowly (yes, I definitely got that vibe...) and know your limits. And yeah, I see your point...I have been around for too long, probably, and I'm probably a bit more bold than some others. Maybe Philosopher is "like me". From the answer, it seems he is. That's what I like in the candidate; that's one of the reasons I support. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I didnt see this before and I apologize. I have had some help with proofreading the questions from others. Also, a couple of the questions originate with others. Since she has revealed it herself, I will note that User:Durova is one. However, most of the scenarios I wrote myself and most of them are directly related to situations I have directly encountered.

I do not want there to be fewer passing RfA. I want there to be more. However, I think we want to train our Admin candidates and our new admins a bit before we give them the admin tools, and let them wield the admin tools with no restrictions.

I want to see all candidates and admins very familiar with our policies. I want to see all experienced editors familiar with our policies. I want all admins and experienced editors to understand a bit about the controversial situations that arise on Wikipedia, so they can give more informed advice and make more reasonable comments on these sorts of issues. Frankly, I think that is one of our worst problems; we have a raft of admins that do not understand our policies as well as they should. And we have a lot of editors and admins that have no experience with or knowledge of the demanding situations that arise on Wikipedia regularly. Yet, even with no knowledge or information, they are perfectly willing to pass judgement on controversial situations.

We need to fix this. And the Challenges I have been constructing consitute a small step in that direction.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing because of being bold?

On this RfA, I have seen a few oppose votes jump on Kurt's bandwagon. For the record, being bold should NOT be held against the candidate, and opposing due to the Rfa being a self-nom sends the message that if you self-nom yourself, that's an automatic oppose. Now is that being fair to the candidate? ArcAngel (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not fair to the candidate. I suppose it's a valid reason, but I've noticed an increase in the number of editors who now !vote with this "rationale", which frankly, stinks (IMHO). Nevertheless, do we have faith in the crats to take this into account. Oh, and if any of these editors (in the future) decide to nominate themselves for adminship, they should be prepared for backlash. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You would think that none of them would. Kurt's was well before he started opposing for self-noms. I hardly think someone who's strongly against self-nominations would nominate themselves for adminship. Enigma message 03:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 'crats will weigh these !votes accordingly. --SharkfaceT/C 03:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's April first ;-)Balloonman (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, should we assume that if somebody supported this candidate with the comment, "Support — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of the candidate's willingness to take the initiative to help the project", that you would be equally adamant about insisting that the closing bureaucrat toss out such an outrageous "!vote" as an "invalid reason" (in the words of Transhumanist above)? You don't have to agree with somebody's criteria for what makes a good admin candidate, but attempting to marginalize contributors with criteria that differ from yours by asserting that their opinion "counts less" than yours is certainly not a roadmap to success in a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Hidden Glass 2 (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I don't share Kurt's opinion that a self-nom is an reason to oppose (or even a point against) any admin candidate. Hidden Glass 2 (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends if "support - self nom" bother to mention any policies. AUIU self-nom is desirable and is supported be some policies. thus "support -self nom" probably doesn't have much weight, but "support - self nom as per WP:X, WP:Y, and WP:Z" would carry more, no? Also, do the support and opposes balance the tally box? Dan Beale-Cocks 11:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My question would be why is it ok for people to give absoleutly no reason whatsoever to support, but they have to have perfect, well-written, diff loaded statements to oppose?--KojiDude (Contributions) 23:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think generally, if someone is a good candidate for adminship, diffs aren't needed. A diff that might appear in an oppose section might be intentionally fixing a word so that it is spelled wrong, then the text: "tries to disrupt wikipedia". Now how many support votes would say: "corrects spelling in article" and then a diff? SpencerT♦C 23:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've said this elsewhere, I believe at WT:RFA, that the support position is default in the spirit of WP:AGF. Typically the !voters give a terse reasoning and are done with it. The burden of proof resides with the opposers to provide evidence to the contrary. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion based discussion moved

I am really amazed at opposition on the basis of a religious statement, as if "Evangelical Christian" was some sort of monster. Most of us are something predominantly other than wikipedians. Before one questions whether someone's primary allegiance to a belief is possibly prejudicial, one need to have some evidence it's being used this way. There are religious and other bigots or all sorts at WP, and I wouldn't want one as an admin, but being a Evangelical Christian is very far from being necessarily a bigot. DGG (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, but I am going on the common modern view of about 90% of Evangelical Christians... in which they are, actually, very prejudicial against gays, lesbians, single parents, people who dont share their beliefs and pro-choice folks. If one is going to wear their religion on their chests, one probably does so in all matters of their life. That is the basis for my reasoning. I dont believe that he is a monster. Whatever makes you happy, go for it. But in this regard, no. Also, I did not oppose due to his religious views. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 02:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who's to say that that would be an issue? Part of having responsibility is being able to not let your views cloud your judgement. Wether he is prejudice or not, you should AGF and assume that he won't take his views into account when performing admin duties.--KojiDude (Contributions) 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who's to say it wont be? All we are doing here is trying to predict the future. Instead of calling me a bigot or making personal attacks on me, why cant we all just accept that I have my own idea. From what it looks like, he will pass. And hopefully my ideas will be proved wrong. I dont appreciate that people think I havent looked all of the other parts of this person's contributions... such as what he has edited. I have said, many times over, that I am not opposing. I dont feel like a full on oppose would be warrented when weighed against all the other good things. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 15:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly hoping that the closing Crat takes into account the religious bigotry (and it is bigotry, pretty much per the duck test.) when closing out what is working itself out to be a very close race. Quite simply, attacking someone for their religion is the same as attacking them for their race or their sex. What you are doing, queerbubbles, is the same as if I didn't support your RfA because you are a woman ("and shouldn't be admins because they tend to be emotional, dontchaknow?"). That's a downright ignorant perspective that I would hope any rational Crat would automatically toss out. Trusilver 17:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but now we could start getting into totally hypothetical arguments. I could argue that an RFA is, to a large degree, about deciding whether the candidate demonstrates good judgement and decision-making, and I could argue that on the balance of evidence, deciding that God exists shows bad judgement and decision-making. Of course, things are different on both sides of the Atlantic and that will be reflected by the fact some reading my comments will be disgusted, some won't care and some will agree. But I do believe that a belief in God suggests flawed judgement George The Dragon (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...wow indeed. I'd say that, unless someone's belief in God has a bearing on their Wikipedia editing, it shouldn't influence your RfA participation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of getting flamed, I agree, George. Think about how ridiculous it sounds to believe in an invisible man up in the sky who no one has ever seen or heard, and then saying that a book written by alot of dead guys thousands of years ago should be taken literally and applied to every day life. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
QB, your "intolerance" of others beliefs is showing, under the guise of "I'm tolerant". If you require, request, demand even, "tolerance" of your own views, I would recommend not being a hypocrate. (and yes, I know you're "neutral" in this RFA, stop saying it. You are clearly opposed to this RFA). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has become ridiculous. While a little controversial, concerns over a potential admin's decision to identify their religion in a userbox or opening sentence were reasonable enough. The only thing being reasonable, that is, is questioning the point of posting such information on a user page. However, the subsequent suggestions by some that they in fact are concerned simply because Philosopher is an evangelical Christian are unnaceptable. We can say "Philosopher, I'd prefer my admins not talk about religion on their userpage", but to suggest "Philosopher, I'd prefer my admins are not Evangelical Christians" is the ultimate assumption of bad faith. Bigotry? I'm not sure, but either way, this reasoning is backwards and unhelpful. The only reason this is even remotely acceptable here is because it is against Christians, the overwhelming majority religion in the United States. I imagine if the same concerns were posted regarding how Muslims or Jews act then the comments would be removed by other users. Would this ever be acceptable in an RfA? No. Concerns over use of user space are valid, concerns over a candidate's religious beliefs are not valid, and I assume hold no weight here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is not that he is a christian. My issue is that I do not believe that a member of a religion which states that those who subscribe much believe that lgbt people and thoes others who live "sinful" lives will unilaterally go to hell, and that the rest of the world needs to be protected from them. How can someone who believes these things be an impartial administrator in a generally viewed as liberal encyclopedia? Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
QB, those are technically the beliefs of just about every major religion on the United States. Many, many, many people part of those religions do NOT hold those beliefs. But that doesn't matter, such a theology and sociology discussion isn't needed here. I mean, are you suggesting that no admin who is Catholic or (most) Protestant can be an admin? Get off it. Stereotyping like this is a horrible thing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those who do not subscribe to those prejudicial beliefs do not, then, put a banner on their userpage that says that they subscribe to the most strict and literal view of the bible. I have made my argument. You will not convince me that I am being narrow minded by taking issue with narrow minded beliefs. Its not going to happen. I am done discussing this aspect of my belief system. Take it as you will, but thems my two cents. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting:

Think about how ridiculous it sounds to believe in an invisible man up in the sky who no one has ever seen or heard, and then saying that a book written by alot of dead guys thousands of years ago should be taken literally and applied to every day life.

It can be said that anyone who believes that human beings just came into being due to a major league fluke and that people should ignore the good ideas that has come from a book of insight are equally unworthy of editing Wikipedia, as they give too much credit to chance.--Bedford 18:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be candid here for a moment. This entire discussion, the fact that it has even cropped up, is wholly disgusting and appalling. I don't really care about one's personal beliefs. If one considers Christianity bigoted folklorist malarkey, then so be it. But do not bring it into a discussion about whether or not someone would abuse the granted tools of a sysop on a free online encyclopedia. I trust all of this will be dismissed at the appropriate time, and until then, I recommend we forgo this conversation altogether. Stymie it before it gets even more absurd than it already is. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I don't get labeled a fundamentalist or an evangelican Christian, I'm atheist. This comment is mostly directed to Queerbubbles: I find it so fundamentally hypocritical that you express such extreme prejudice towards evangelical Christians in the same sentence in which you blanket accuse 25% of the US population of prejudice towards others. What common modern view, other than your own personal opinion (you are entitled to it, yes, but don't try to give it more credibility by re-labeling it as something else other than personal opinion), says 90% of them are prejudiced? Your comments would imply that you are more intolerant than the very people you accuse of intolerance. Philosopher said nothing anywhere against gays, lesbians, single parents, people who dont share their beliefs and pro-choice folks but you actually did single out a group of people you don't like on your very own user page. Please don't be so hypocritical to so brazenly attack a very descript group of people and then defend yourself by citing personal attacks and whatnot when your ideas, not your right to free speech, get challenged. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. And beyond that, I agree with Wisdom. This is not the right venue. In fact, I'll go further and say there isn't a "right venue" for this discussion on Wikipedia. No place for it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am a staunch atheist and even I find this entire discussion completely disturbing. It's amazing that it's continued this far - it is completely inappropriate for an RfA and probably an inappropriate discussion on any part of Wikipedia, as far as I'm concerned. People's religious beliefs are irrelevant and should not form any part of the criteria for adminship. Ridiculous. -- Naerii 18:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But on the upside, it's added a few people to my mental list of people I am never ever going to support for any position of trust in Wikipedia. -- Naerii 18:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. (pun intended.) Trusilver 19:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Philosopher"