Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jo-Jo Eumerus

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.

I know it's unfashionable to oppose admin candidates on the basis of their content contributions, but really. The

No decent article? That's a good article.—cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signed comment -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to think how few admins we would have if we used such standards. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric's got his right of opinion. I don't believe we should badger him. I would urge editors to let the !voters make their own decisions without being badgered. The majority, including me, have made a choice; so has Eric. Respect that, or not, let's not badger.

Lourdes 17:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh just stop with the badger meme. Nobody is denying them their opinion. Just as Eric has a right to their opinion we have a right to an opinion about their opinion. Discussion about each others opinions is pretty much how Wikipedia works. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes 18:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the first time that I have seen an admin opposed because an article that they wrote and has GA status wasn't good enough. @Eric Corbett: What do you want? Every admin to have written 5 FA's ? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion,

Uturunku isn't a great article, IMHO, but a look at the history shows how much work Jo-Jo ha put into it, expanding it from a 2,800 byte stub to a 30,000 byte fully referenced, decent article. I sincerely hope that he will have experienced enough of the trials and tribulations of content work to have gained the insight we need in any admin, and that's the important part for this discussion. --RexxS (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I feel it's actually quite important to challenge the ridiculously high standards that adminship candidates are held to nowadays. It's become less about giving people the tools because they have proven themselves to be trustworthy and competent, and more about finding a reason to claim they've not done enough or doubt their character. When content creation is criticised with a good article being used as an example, it ceases to be about electing administrators and more about picking fault in any way possible. The system doesn't seem like it will ever improve, nor will it be reformed, but it's important that the community expresses its discontent with the rather spurious reasons for opposition. It won't matter here but sometimes there's a complete pile on off the back of it. KaisaL (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, RexxS needs to stop telling me to stop telling others to stop with the badger meme. (This is a joke) HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 21:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Hence the Turtles all the way down meme. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relax guys. It wouldn't be an RFA without a few ridiculous opposes. Omni Flames (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a terrible reason for an oppose. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It would be interesting to keep a log of how often editors support or oppose. Theoretically, I'd say it's absolutely fair for bureaucrats to weigh opposes less if the opposing editor opposes close to 100% of RfAs. ~ Rob^Talk 02:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just drop it. Eric's objection is uncontroversial. We are allowed our opinions, providing they do not unreasonably savage a candidate. I have seen far worse opposes.

talk) 02:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a discussion - not a vote. It should be fairly telling when many experienced editors are concerned about a comment on a prospective admin's ability to do the job. Not sure this part of the discussion should have been buried. SQL^{Query me!} 06:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this is a pretty poor oppose, but it's not going to make a difference in the end result, so there's no point in a massive argument about it, as is what normally happens during RFAs. Omni Flames (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's true it's a good feeling for potential candidates when people leap on board to defend them - I enjoyed some of this myself with the two opposes at my RfA. But at the end of the day it won't make much difference, and for all we know there may be one or two "supports" as well that are not well reasoned, but we don't tend to focus on those!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good reason for that; even though the reasoning might not be good, the idea is. This person should be an admin, so votes that support that don't need to have good reasoning to be good votes. KSFT^C 11:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KSFT: I'm sorry, what? So, what you're saying is that because your personal opinion is that the user deserves to be an administrator, people who agree with you don't need to have as good a rationale as those who don't? Omni Flames (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(The traditional answer is that supports are "per nom"). In practice, the rationales serve to advertise to others to vote the same way (so you see this is not a proper election, because campaigning at the ballot box is prohibited in democratic elections). We also rarely have a discussion whether a candidate would make a good administrator, but typically discuss whether some rationales are good or bad. In the present case, the oppose rationales (has content experience and has been around for more than 13 months) actually are support rationales in my book. The process allows quite a large number of opposes while still making the candidate an administrator, so as long as opposes with weak rationales don't become popular (like 1FA did back in the day) they are not a huge problem. —Kusma (t·c) 11:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're right. I have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote that. KSFT^C 19:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple, really: the mountain has as many volcanoes as the Queen has birthdays. Jonathunder (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't wedge your comments in front of other people's.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys, I may have started the conversation, but can we also please end it? Eric is unable to comment here. Please respect that he can't.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberpower678: Just because he's unable to comment doesn't mean that we shouldn't. (Is it our fault that he can't? No.) ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That is the second time I have seen EC make an "oppose" !vote in an RfA while being unable to comment further. While a trial in absentia is certainly suboptimal, making an inflammatory statement and expecting to be shielded by the pre-commitment to no discussion of one's ban is not fantastic either. (FWIW I think EC's statement here was not "inflammatory" and it was the most diplomatic way to convey his unpopular opinion - but still, being a minority unable to defend oneself is not a shield from criticism.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (2) @ThePlatypusofDoom: Cyberpower is right, however, because we seem to be beating a dead horse. Eric already commented, and he can't reply because that would violate an RFA topic ban against him. And even if that weren't so, it's very hard to change someone's mind if they're set on something. And even if that weren't so, bureaucrats will measure every single !vote (non-vote), because this is basically a comments referendum. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium, now featuring BB-8 (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan makes some good points here, just because he can't respond, doesn't mean that it's a shield. (It's his fault that he can't comment here in the first place, anyhow. If he wanted to be able to discuss, he should have had a higher standard of behavior.) ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, Tigraan is also correct that if Eric can't comment at RFA, it's Eric's fault only and not other people's faults. But still, it seems like this is a relatively minor point. If Eric thinks the GA criteria are flawed, he's allowed to say so, but that doesn't mean anything necessarily has to happen based on Eric's comment. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium, now featuring BB-8 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it isn't his fault, but I am trying to be respectful to him, and trying to avoid a drama. The objections have been made clear, and nothing more but simple pile-on will come of it.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the drama, but I feel my position was misrepresented... I disagree with the "your RfA ban is not my problem" mentality. It is wrong to pile on an editor who cannot defend themselves, even if "they had it coming"; on the other hand, it is equally wrong to expect immunity for one's arguments or even for one's character playing the "I am not here" card. IMO, this whole thing proves that it is fairly stupid to have someone being able to make one comment at RfA but not reply further - ban them alltogether or let them speak. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is Eric's comment a very poor reason to oppose an RfA, it's incorrect anyway. The article very clearly states that Uturunku is one volcano with two summits, and having skim-read through it seems consistent on that point. If Eric can't understand what that means, that's his problem. WaggersTALK 08:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously a terrible oppose. It's incorrect in the first place, not to mention it's a GA, not to mention how stupid it is to oppose because of one article, unless it demonstrates a clear inability in some area. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.