Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Izno

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

---

1. Oppose, regretfully, based on my admin criteria. I'm regretful because I like the answers to Q7 & Q8, especially the second half of the answer to Q7. But both answers show a maturity and a level of thoughtfulness that are needed in an admin. As a clarification, my criteria doesn't require an FA, although I obviously prefer that. Going through the GA process twice does the same thing, and it doesn't take the same level as for an FA - but it does give you the knowledge of what it takes to create a good article. You don't even have to be the one creating the prose, you can get help with that, but it is important to go through the process to see what content creators go through. Finally, as to the position of the community on content? That's a misplaced concern. At the very top of my user page, there is a quote from Wehwalt, "Wehwalt's Analogy on Content Creation" that sums it up perfectly. (BTW, Wehwalt has 186 FAs and is also an admin). I would be happy to support if you could get two GAs. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 20:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   For what it's worth, I have 49 DYKs and 7 GAs (with one having good chances to become a FA) and every single one of these was created after my RFA in October 2008. And I wouldn't have acquired a taste for content creation if I hadn't been an admin, because my first four DYKs were pages I rescued from deletion. Regards SoWhy 08:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   OK. My criteria is that you need some content experience before you become an admin. GregJackP Boomer! 08:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   No, your criteria is you need 2 GAs or 1 FA. That is NOT the same as content experience. It's a shitty arbitrary requirement. And it dissuades people from working on lesser known topics which may lack the necessary sources or broad coverage to reach FA, or even GA. Oh, and since FA and GA reviews are so fucked, you know lots of us don't even bother sending stuff for review any more, despite working reasonably hard on content. Nick (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, 2 GAs or 1 FA is "some content experience." And while you believe that it is a "shitty arbitrary requirement", it's my criteria. Second, if you don't like my criteria, then don't use it. Third--no there is no third, as far as I can tell you just showed up to vent your displeasure at someone who did not agree with your opinion. Which, BTW, you argued against at Liz's RfA. GregJackP Boomer! 13:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   I would be curious how many editors even have the 2GA and 1FA crtieria you demand to be admin? How large would the potential admin pool be? We have 5,596 current FAs (so excluding former ones). Considering many editors have nominated more than one of those, and then consider banned or retired FA nominators. How many do we have left? 2000 at best maybe? Then how many of those want to be admins? How many want to have to pick up the mop and spend time on that rather than content creation (because no one else is qualified to hols the mop apparently)? You should reconsider your criteria; I think it's completely unrealistic to expect every admin to want to wade into the FAC pool. -- Shudde^talk 14:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   It's not 2GA and 1FA, it's or. And we have thousands of editors who have 2GAs. You should probably focus on reading what I wrote, and not what you think that I may have written. It would perhaps keep you from making this type of mistake. GregJackP Boomer! 23:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Gently, those of you who have issue with Greg's criteria should probably take that concern to

   WT:RFA and/or seek one of the dispute resolution options available, as I know that it has been a point of contention in other RFAs lately. Mine is not the RFA for multiple people to jump on Greg, if I have a comment on the matter (and perhaps he needs no jumping on in any specific RFA). I accept his gracious oppose for what it is. --Izno (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Thanks Izno. Your comment is one of the reasons I think that you'll do fine once you pass your RfA. The hive-mind types have been bitching about my criteria for about 4 years or so, and they have thus far not been able to convince the community to change the rules. So in the meantime, they try to intimidate and harass someone who does think as they do, and doesn't really care that they dislike it. I would ask, respectfully, that after you get the bit, try and take a couple of articles to GA. It'll make you a better admin. GregJackP Boomer! 23:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   I never speak up but I feel I must. In this day and age when consensus generally allows that a lower percentage is required for an RfA pass, thankfully, statistically, !votes which bureaucrats regard as being easier to ignore can be (mathematically) minimized even more by their content or rationale. If you !vote based on the belief that you are contributing to some kind of numbers game, or because of some fringe theory which is generally not seen as "kosher" by the community - rather than judging the candidate on his or her merits as a contributor to the project, and suitability as an admin (there are types of contributor other than content contributors) - you are doing so for the wrong reasons. If you are not !voting based on the candidate's potential suitability as an admin, which this process entails, the 'crats probably have their own ideas whether to take those opinions into account too. Does the "community" have faith in the potential of a candidate as an administrator? Is a single person's beliefs loud enough to drown out the majority? Only if you let them. And that is the job of a responsible bureaucrat. If a candidate is unable to use a specific !vote as a way to know whether he/she can improve their experience as an admin, certain !votes will be useful to them personally and certain !votes not. Moreover, if a person requires obscenity to put his/her point across, this likely reflects more on them and less on the potential admin... Bobo. 19:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP's considerable history of badgering RfA !voters also doesn't sit well. To go from a position where you are badgering random users for rationale - be it supporters' even for fellow supporters, or opposers' rationale for fellow opposers - merely seems like a form of general cynicism with the RfA process which has lasted for nearly four years, if not more. Bobo. 23:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo192, either come up with diffs for that or strike it. From where I'm sitting (having clerked a half-dozen RFAs now since becoming a 'crat) it's Greg that is being badgered for their opinions. They have a set of criteria and get pushback every time they oppose a candidate for those criteria. You're treading very closely to aspersions and/or personal attacks, and that's not necessary here. Primefac (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me, as you know RfA isn't, and has never been my area. My main point still stands. If you vote based on a fringe theory rather than the candidate's individual suitability for the role, then the project is not benefiting. And, as I pointed out, a 'crat's clerking at RfA is about knowing in certain cases which Support and which Oppose votes actually hold weight, based on judging which !votes tackle a user's suitability as an admin... Wikipedia is upsetting me right now and, as I've stated elsewhere, I need to take a step back. Bobo. 07:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1 2 3 4 5 6 (more badgering based on fringe criteria)... Bobo. 08:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really Bobo192? The only one of those which "might be" considered to be inappropriate was the first diff, and if the others (2-6) are badgering, well, then your comments have stepped way over the line. Please go harass and badger someone else, because frankly I don't care what you think. GregJackP Boomer! 21:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, while I do believe unhelpful opposition rationales need to be challenged (and am not planning to stop doing so), I am very happy about your clerking. While we can still discuss the question what is and is not relevant to adminship, moving such discussion to the talk page protects the candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 08:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all, I've been attending RFA's since about 2007. Let me assure you, it is never appropriate to argue with an oppose. The most you can do safely, as this is a discussion, is to pose counter arguments in your support. I've seen apparent badgering of opposers wreck RFA's through no fault of the candidate-- the community reacts that strongly to the appearance of badgery. Also, the oppose rationale that one considers absurd or beyond any reach of logic today may become a standard criterion in the future. So it is best to leave be.-- Dlohcierekim 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Never sweat any RFA unless it's your own. And even then.-- Dlohcierekim 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. 1FA was a standard criterion back around ca 2008. For a long time it was a standard oppose rationale if lacking. While I disagree intensely with that criterion, it is historical and long accepted.-- Dlohcierekim 07:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I remember that. But in this day and age where the RfA pass threshold is lower, it is much more up to the 'crat to decide whether an argument holds weight. Bobo. 07:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim, I don't want to go back to the time when something so unrelated to adminship was accepted as a "standard rationale". I do think such opposes should be challenged, but I very much support moving any long discussion that ensues to the talk page. —Kusma (t·c) 08:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma - you believe that it is unrelated to adminship, I believe it is the reason that content creators leave Wikipedia, either for long periods or permanently. Which is more important, creating good or featured content or thousand of stub articles? Especially when the stubs are rarely, if ever, improved on by other editors? I believe that the former is of utmost importance, and is needed in order to be an admin. You don't believe that, which is fine, but attempting to tell me that my beliefs are not fine is not appropriate. GregJackP Boomer! 21:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP, I believe there are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia, and I am not going to call one "more important" than the other. I agree that specialised high-quality content contributors are harder to replace than all-purpose gnomes, but it is in collaboration that we can achieve the best overall result. I think that people (of all kinds) leave when other Wikipedians insult or mistreat them, and we should try very hard to avoid losing good people. So if you can show me diffs that a candidate is disrespectful of content creation and content creators and believes that Wikipedia-space work is somehow more valuable, that is a very significant argument against them. But whether they have participated in certain processes (FA, GA) or not is not a predictor of how they will interact with content creators in the future. (Or if it is, you haven't made your case well enough yet: neither of us seems to be using any real evidence in this argument). I don't mind asking for content creation experience, I just disagree with your way of measuring that, which is quite different from "your beliefs are not fine" in my book. —Kusma (t·c) 09:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]