Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Tedder

Is this really necessary? As much as I would love to sock this guy in the face have atheistic views accepted by all, responding will not change his mind. And after all, hopefully the closing crat will be rational enough to discount this oppose as well as any others that make the same argument. We are only setting up another DougsTech type of situation. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that your "atheistic views" apparently run counter to the idea of people being respectful and tolerant to one another. And the irony here does not go unnoticed. Keepscases (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bsimmons, Keepscases, c'mon. Keep it productive. As Theleftorium showed, WPAtheism has a somewhat offensive userpage banner, and a cursory glance through religion projects showed that's a unique thing, and probably not a good thing. Keepscases, perhaps you could raise that as an issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism, or if you don't think that will be received well, raise it at the village pump? (I'll support you in having it removed; users, of course, may post it, but that doesn't mean any project should endorse something like that)

I'm hoping that any further conversation on this topic, on this page, will be productive and not a personal attack. Raise objections about me, counter objections if you want, but near-personal attacks aren't necessary to do so. tedder (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem here is that Keepscases is holding the wrong person accountable.

  Imagine if I were to say: "I have no problem with Christians, but I don't like people who're members of a Baptist Church, because Fred Phelps is a Baptist and he's disrespectful of people." I think most Christians, and certainly most Baptists, would rightly say that was unfair; Christians are by and large nice people and it's not their fault there are a few fundamentalists who have objectionable beliefs.

  I think the same applies here. Being a Baptist doesn't mean you support godhatesfags dot com, and being a member of Wikiproject Atheism doesn't mean you're Richard Dawkins.

  I didn't support Tedder's RFA either; I'm just trying to be fair here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reeks of

@Keepscases: If User:Example were a member of Wikiproject Christianity, and Wikiproject Christianity had a banner for displaying on userpages that said "The world would be a happier, safer and saner place if everyone were Christian," and WP Christianity had some members that were known for being questionably elitist, would you oppose on the rationale that "He's a member of WP Christianity," but barely miss making it seem like you're opposing because he's a Christian? (This is not rhetorical; honest question.) [flaminglawyer] 03:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait.. Let me get this right. You are opposing because someone is in a wikiproject "to better organize information in articles related to atheism."? Since when was editing articles on atheism offensive? Since when was improving the encyclopedia offensive? And regarding the inappropriate userbox, can you really hold him responsible for the offenses of others? That's just like saying that all Muslims can be blamed for the attack on 9/11. —Dark ^talk 03:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Firestorm's point. You're judging him based on his inclusion within a project, when he doesn't display any of those borderline-offensive userboxes which you normally oppose over, and when the project is simply a way to improve our coverage of atheist topics and not a demonstration of his undying, unswerving love to The Great Dawkins. I don't quite understand how you rationalise that - I assume if anyone is a member of WikiProject Christianity, they'll be getting a swift oppose from you too? Those grubby little WP:Christianity members, with their arrogant userboxes saying "I want to improve our coverage of the catholic church!" Yuck, it really makes my skin crawl how they like editing. Ironholds (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I recognize that basically every useful response has already been said, but I am too angry to keep quiet. Keepscases, your argument hinges on "All members of WikiProject Atheism are the same"? Do you even realize how insanely prejudiced that makes you sound? rspεεr (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Christianity/General_Forum#Project functions by, gasp, "outsiders"?, I see a few comments that I find disconcerting; but I wouldn't dream of opposing someone at RFA for being a member of WikiProject Christianity. This is a global encyclopaedia which brings together people from many cultures with diverse religions, nationalities, politics and philosophies; For some editors this place may be the first where they encounter Christians, for some Christians it may be the first place where they encounter atheists; For Wikipedia to work what matters is not what religion or nationality we are but whether we are prepared to cooperate with others regardless of their background in an attempt to build an encyclopaedia. As a lapsed atheist I consider myself pretty tolerant on religious matters, but I'm aware that atheism is controversial to some. Many of our editors come from a place where prejudice against atheists is one of the few socially acceptable prejudices, not every atheist on this site will be expecting to encounter prejudice - especially in an academic environment. But I hope that all of us can try to set aside our prejudices and "leave others their otherness". ϢereSpielChequers 12:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This makes me feel sick. Sick I tell you! (Sorry for the rant). Keepscases, your actions show blatant discrimination towards different people, not "tolerance and respect". This is a punch in a gut for an editor who is not religious. So what if he's an Atheist? He might not even be an Atheist. He just improves Atheism-related articles. As for being a member of the Atheism Wikiproject: I don't think that makes their judgement any more irrational or their edits any less intelligent. What should be done to combat the slogan you find offensive? Well, certainly not an oppose to an editor associated with the group that put up the words. The worst vote I can see come out of this is a neutral. I'm feeling so sick right now :(. I hope you will come to your senses and reconsider your oppose. Thanks, Airplaneman (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should drop this subject here. Keepscases has demonstrated his unwillingness to listen to reason, and there's little we can do about that. I have faith in the crats' abilities to (dis)count !votes. Aditya (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hearing any "reason", I'm hearing a bunch of strawmen and misrepresentations of my argument. WikiProject Atheism's purported goal of "improving atheism-related articles" does not excuse its fostering of attitudes that make Wikipedia a worse and less welcoming place overall. (I am sure the KKK does some good things in its communities, too.) A user who voluntarily claims membership in such a group has no basis to claim discrimination. If I were a member of a group that encouraged such disrespect and airs of superiority, I would try and change it for the better, and if that were unsuccessful, I would quickly renounce any ties to it. Keepscases (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your claim seems to be "WikiProject: Atheism is full of unwelcoming people. Tedder is in WP:A. Therefore he is an unwelcoming person". Don't see a problem there? I don't for a minute believe that you're opposing because you don't like the wikiprojects, but rather because you think atheism fosters "disrespect and airs of superiority". If the wikiproject was the problem you wouldn't be opposing people with userboxes identifying them as atheists but who don't claim to be a member of the wikiproject. If he's part of a group that fosters "disrespect and airs of superiority" and this has rubbed off, surely you'd be able to find some diffs somewhere that demonstrate that rather than relying on guilt by association. Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I actually don't see any problem in judging someone based on associations that he or she chooses. If I were a current member of the KKK, do you think I could be elected to a high office...even if I personally haven't lynched any black people? And, as helpfully mentioned by S Marshall up near the top, I have supported users who display simple "This user is an atheist" boxes. I'm sorry that seemingly most atheists just aren't content to stop there. Keepscases (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your example fails because the primary aim of WikiProject:Atheism isn't to give off disrespect and airs of superiority, while the primary aims of the KKK include lynching black people, throwing stuff at jews and dressing like divs. WikiProject:Atheism is aimed at improving the quality of atheism-related articles on Wikipedia, not an air of superiority. The behaviour of some project members is not an excuse to judge members of the project as a whole, particularly when the individual behaviour is not related to the project remit. A better example of what you're doing is saying that people from Chicago can't be elected to high office because some of them are KKK members, regardless of the fact that one can be from Chicago and not in the KKK, one can move to Chicago and chose to live in Chicago without giving a thought to the KKK and the fact that one living in Chicago isn't related to being a member of the KKK (a person can be a member of the KKK without living in chicago, for example).Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm sorry that seemingly most atheists just aren't content to stop there." Oh yes. Some wish to improve atheism-related articles. The horror. Aditya (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The city of Chicago, to my knowledge, does not endorse the KKK, whereas WikiProject Atheism's display of the userboxes in question indicates endorsement of such. Aditya, I'm assuming you're perceptive enough to understand that no one is arguing against the improvement of atheism-related articles, so try and stay on target, please. Keepscases (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it. A Wikiproject brings together people who want to improve a certain category of articles. Tedder did not create those user boxes. He even stated that the only reason he joined that Wikiproject was because he wanted people to know he had a conflict of interest. You're just grasping at straws here. Read Firestorm's comment above, about guilt by association. Heck, read all the comments above. Absolutely no one agrees with your twisted logic. Wikipedia is run by consensus, you know. And if consensus is that your vote is inappropriate, then it can be struck. Aditya (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted logic? Here is my position, in one sentence: "Users who promote disrespect towards fellow Wikipedia users, and/or self-identify with groups that promote such disrespect, should not be promoted to administrator." It's that simple, clear, and direct, and I have been entirely consistent. Now, look at all the strawmen and assumptions and misrepresentations made by others trying to argue against me. And you maintain that I am the one with twisted logic? It's amusing, really. Keepscases (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder's comment above: "Keepscases, perhaps you could raise that as an issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism, or if you don't think that will be received well, raise it at the village pump? (I'll support you in having it removed; users, of course, may post it, but that doesn't mean any project should endorse something like that)" I'm out of this discussion now, though I might drop in again later if someone starts a separate discussion to strike your oppose vote. Aditya (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a member of that WikiProject, and not being an advocate of censorship, I don't believe that I should have any say in the positions that group endorses. Keepscases (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: May I also point out that nowhere on the userpages is their any message saying this user is an atheist, in fact he has images of a catholic church further down the page. Nonsense. All of it.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the candidate is an atheist is irrelevant. Keepscases (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it is very relevant. It shows to me that the editor is not going to be biased in his decision, and his being in this wikiproject is strictly to help the encyclopedia, and is no different then my involvement in Wikiproject Nascar and my displaying of Project userboxes.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you and/or the NASCAR WikiProject intentionally antagonistic towards others? If not, then I think the situations are actually very much different indeed. Keepscases (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the discussion above I see that you have failed to provide links to edits showing where this project is antagonizing anybody, nor do I see this editor in particular antagonizing anybody. I don't see this as a valid argument against this editors ability to perform administrative tasks effectively, which is what RFA is ultimately about. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't found the userboxes in question, you're not trying very hard. And I will make my own decisions about what RfA is ultimately about, thank you. I personally do not believe that users connected with intolerance should serve as administrators and as such be looked upon as the face of Wikipedia. Keepscases (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxs such as this one User:Jeff dean/Userboxes/Atheist Are created by one user in the group namely User:Jeff dean. The user this RFA is discussing is not using these userboxs, and he might not even endorse the use of these userboxs as they apply to atheists, which this user has not said he is. I fail to see the problem. You can also view the discussion where these templates were up for deletion, and the community decided they stay.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such userboxes on the WikiProject's page indicate an official stance. I would not be associated with such a group, and if I were, I would certainly understand and accept the consequences. As for the discussion in which the templates were up for deletion, I would have voted to keep them too. I am not looking to censor anyone. Keepscases (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The points you are arguing are not RFA material, and really should be discussed on the Project talk page. I think your !vote should be indented as if he is an atheist, it is racist to judge his judgment on what his religious views are. If he is not atheist, it should also be indented as your !vote is based on decisions made by a project, not by the editor in question. In regards to your "And I will make my own decisions about what RfA is ultimately about, thank you." comment, yes you can infer whatever you would like;however, RFA IS and always has been discussing the actions of an editor and deciding if they are fit for administrative tools, not criticizing the actions of a project that the editor in question spends time helping. Teader's edits to this projects scope are all positive to the encyclopedia.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one in his or her right mind would strike my vote, as I have every right to judge someone based on the groups he or she is a member of. It is not "racist" or discriminatory to do so. And I have no intention of participating in that project in any fashion, nor would I see any value in my doing so. Keepscases (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging somebody because they are atheist or because they are involved with atheism looks like racism to me. I don't know where in the world you are getting that from.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this discussion. Keepscases has stated his reason for opposing, and it's been discussed to the edge of civility- no consensus is going to come from it. tedder (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]