Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte 2

Cyberpower768's not-Oppose !vote discussion

 * 1) Oppose Just because the user has a 100% track record and 4 nominators. I can't let that happen.— CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 19:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * cyberpower678, may you please move your !Oppose vote to "Oppose" section? It's not suitable to be under "Support" section. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Moved from "general comments". --George Ho (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But I'm not opposing. If you think that rationale I provided is a valid reason to oppose, then I don't know what else to say.— CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 21:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Retracting suggestion. Well... ... ... Ah well. I'll respect your wishes then. --George Ho (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , may you please move your reply to underneath Cyberpower's vote? It's not suitable to be under the "general comments" section. Thanks. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. What about the above responses, Tavix? May I move those as well? --George Ho (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah, they can stay down in general comments so people will have no clue what Cyberpower and I are responding to. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I know this is unhelpful but it has to be said - How on earth can anyone with half a braincell confuse that !vote for a real oppose ?, I mean I'm not the brightest tool in the box but even I got the joke!, God help this place in 5-10 years time that's all I can say!. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not the only one. --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's rather unfortunate that some people don't see how blatently obvious this rationale was supposed to seem in the fact, that were this really in the oppose section, I would be getting shit on by just about everyone for using such a ridiculous rationale to oppose. Hence I thought considering this rationale is ridiculous, people would clearly see it as a me jokingly opposing but actually supporting.— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 23:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's only a f*cking joke lol, I should have change my vote into joke oppose to scare the crap out. lol :D KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 02:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're mistaking Wikipedia as a fun place with people who have a sense of humor. That ended ca. 2008.  Everything is  today.  :-/   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I remember why I was allowed to become an admin in 2008... Regards  So  Why  17:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose from Tonton Bernardo

 * 1) Oppose couldn´t find anything interesting in his history that other users don´t make also. Shall everybody nominated admin, therefore? So there´ll be 500,000 admins and no normal users anymore.  b.rgds I&#39;m so tired (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC) User:Tonton Bernardo
 * May I appeal for you to reconsider? This candidate has written featured content, participated actively in administrative areas such as the deletion process with civility and cluefulness, and had significant experience overall. Surely not all members of the Wikipedia community have the same qualifications. Keep in mind also that while it is important to use the admin toolset appropriately, merely being an administrator is not intended to be a "big deal". In other words, there should not be a huge distinction between "administrators" and "normal users". Admins are (or rather should be) just normal users with more tools at their disposal. once wrote that "It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone." Whether this applies today is, of course, debatable, but I think  it is unfair to oppose this candidate on the basis that there is nothing interesting about him. Mz7 (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. In all my time on Wikipedia, that is quite possibly the most inane comment I have seen. Are you editing under the influence? Lepricavark (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your logic appears to be to oppose because if more editors become administrators than we will have more administrators. Is this a correct summary? William Harris •   (talk) •  08:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Having 500,000 admins and no normal users would be a good thing in my opinion. Wikipedia's quality would improve, because those admins are trusted good editors. As Jimbo said in the past, this should not be a big deal. ~Anachronist (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "No normal users"? there are at least 25 new accounts created a minute. I've patrolled the new users log. I reload the page, and its full of newer users. The garmine  (talk)  13:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that to be an administrator, one has to have an "interesting" history? Well then, I guess all the hundreds of admins who just go about doing their job normally without 6-digit edit counts or drama or scores of FAs should be de-sysopped. --Joshualouie711talk 18:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Everyone under this oppose deserves a bloody barnstar just for being able to read what this Oppose says as I've read it 6 times and I still have no idea what it says!. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I have literally no idea what this oppose is trying to say either, some clarification from would be nice.  SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 00:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the way I read it was: (a) there are many other non-admins out there who are as good or better than Anarchyte, so why should he be an admin when they are not, and (b) if we promoted all the editors with this sort of quality, we'd end up with 500,000 admins which would be terrible for the project. I don't agree with either of these sentiments, but if Tonton is right, and there really are 500,000 editors of the same quality as Anarchyte, then I think we're in a very happy place. Let's have them all up at RfA, get them promoted, and the backlogs will be a thing of the past... smiley.png &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. I suggest we start with Requests for adminship/Dr. Blofeld, just because he gets wound up when I suggest this :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, wouldn't 500,000 admins of the same quality as Anarchyte be better for Wikipedia, even if there weren't any regular users? It would get rid of all of those backlogs...  SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 17:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You would think so, wouldn't you! And it's not like that would result in nobody writing articles any more. Because obviously admins do a lot of that too, as well as admining. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia did have 500,000 admins and no non-admins, I think its long-standing problem of being considered unreliable could very well be obliterated! Linguist 1 1 1 20:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Dull editors make the best administrators. Partisan POV warriors and drama-royals (gender neural language) are not what is wanted. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC).
 * There's a strong argument that this !vote should be stricken as being close to gibberish, if not actual trolling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Leave it. It would be inappropriate to censor RfA debates without necessity. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC).
 * It's either trolling or incompetence, maybe both. While it is not a huge deal either way, I don't think it would be wrong to strike this !vote. We should be allowed to have minimal standards for what is acceptable at RfA. I'd also recommend topic banning Tonton from participating at RfA in the future. Lepricavark (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The only thing is, does that mean we end up applying a higher standard for opposes than for supports, and thereby skewing the process? Since support votes will rarely attract the same level of scrutiny here as this kind of lone oppose. That said, most support votes are just along the lines of "agree with nom", which is always going to be valid. As Tonton was one of two people who opposed my own RfA, I won't comment too much on on RfA topic bans, in case someone thinks it's a grudge on my part. That said though, their response to polite queries on their talk page does seems to raise a few questions. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. Trolling in the sense that it introduces an in-universe notability requirement for administrators. Maybe they should have just tagged this RFA as an A7. Debouch (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good evening . I'm the person who's being nominated here, and while it's normally a bad idea to respond to !voters, I feel like I need to here in hopes that it lowers the tension. I respect your opinion and if you believe I shouldn't be an admin then that's your decision. People may disagree, but that's just part and parcel of contributing on an RfA. What I don't respect, and what many other's don't, is how you've responded the people that have disagreed with you. Calling someone a Nazi or North-Korean is downright unacceptable, and falls under the no personal attacks policy. I don't expect you to retract or change your vote, but I genuinely want you to look at what you've written and ask yourself whether it was called for. Anarchyte (work  &#124; talk )  08:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the above reply, here's the diff for content that was removed from the RfA nomination page, for crat reference. North America1000 12:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've read this comment 4 times and still no brief explanation of constructive criticism of this asurd oppose. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 11:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

You're entitled to your !vote, and I'm not raging against you, this is just the way I see it, and why I disagree with you. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  14:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that Wikipedia only has some 30K Wikipedians, i.e. unblocked, EC, edited in the last week. A good number of them/us don't want to have access to Block Protect Delete (BPD). A good number of us have a rap sheet larger than the Trump Tower (sadly), and a list of legit enemies that makes the Motor Vehicle Code look short. Wikipedia has around 1100 admins, half of which were active in the last month. IDK what the number of active admins in the last 24 hours is. And even though our admin corp is spread out around the globe, AIV closes for business at 10 Eastern time. What Wikipedia needs from its admins are editors who are willing to work the banhammer and close AfDs and actually use their BPD tools, rather than just stuff their DYK-FA-GA-4X brag wall. Take a look at the logs of some really active admins, NeilN and Oshwah come to mind. (no offense to any other admin). 500+ logged actions in a day is normal. As an editor, I struggle to make 100 edits a day. Our admins exert themselves greatly to help Wikipedia, and their fellow editors every day by deleting, blocking, and protecting. As a Wiki-janitor, I don't pretend that the BTS (CVU, noticeboard work, cleaning out the backlogs) of Wikipedia isn't boring, hard, and unrewarding/unpopular. Another 300 admins can't hurt Wikipedia, and will help lessen the load on the current Admins.


 * Comment--The communication problrms(??) and an immense hostility for sysops are trans-wiki.Check his SUL and the reasons for the recieved blocks.IMHO Per se a good contrib. but not suitable for a collaborative project! Winged Blades Godric 16:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Those blocks appear to be self requested, so I'm not sure I'm seeing your point.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 17:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They are self-requested but the circumstances on fr.wiki seemingly went to such a point where he stood on the verge of being blocked for maintaining a radio-silence towards any query raised to address his linguistically problematic editing.Most importantly, he cannot stand up to the idea of any editor criticising him/his edits. Winged Blades Godric 18:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

People. The editor said "couldn´t find anything interesting in his history that other users don´t make also". I think its pretty clear and straightfoward that editor thinks that, to be an admin, you have an extraordinary editing history. What is so hard to understand. I mean, a couple things: 1) it's not clear what the editor would like to see -- an extraordinary number of FAs or GA, or articles created, or AfD participation, or edits, or vandal patrolling, or NP patrolling. But he wants the admin corps to consist only of the very top elite of truly outstanding editors. That's not madness or idiocy or trollery as people here seem to be saying. So lay off for crying out loud. Also 2) I don't agree with the editor and I think that very few would. But its not insane to believe it. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's madness to want admins to consist of only the very top elite of truly outstanding editors. Why? Because those editors are the ones who do the creative work to contribute outstanding content. Once you get the admin tools, you can still do that, but you end up using the mop a lot, and that isn't creative work. It's actually drudge work to be honest, sort of an elevated level of wiki-gnome work. Being in the "very top elite of truly outstanding editors" is the opposite of being a janitor, isn't it? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Our ideal is for the admin corps to consist only of truly outstanding editors. It's hard to be one without the admin toolkit. Yes, it includes the mop, but it also includes the keys to the door. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If, after mopping 7,000 times, my janitor doesn't know how much bleach/disinfectant to add to the water, he/she is getting passed over for the promotion to cleaning supervisor. sirlanz 00:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Tonton Bernardo has been "indefinitely topic banned from participating in any active requests for adminship and requests for bureaucratship effective immediately" per this discussion on AN/I Consequently, I have struck out and un-counted his "oppose" vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 23:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure the striking is warranted. The topic ban is reasonable, given the history, but the oppose vote on this RfA was cast before the topic ban was in place. It was an unfortunate vote accompanied by an inane rationale, but it was in order procedurally. I can think of rare instances where a topic ban should be applied retroactively, but those cases would usually involve suppression of purely disruptive edits, not the "un-counting" of RfA votes that, however misguided and tiresome, were cast in relatively good faith by a user who was later sanctioned, in part because of their reaction to our reaction to their vote. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   13:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it should be reinstated. Let a crat strike it if they want to, it's not for others to do that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If it was bad enough to warrant a topic ban, it is bad enough to remain struck. Lepricavark (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended commentary from sirlanz's oppose vote

 * ''(Commentary straying off topic from review of this candidate. — xaosflux  Talk 02:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)}


 * I tend to edit articles related to Pokémon. Does that make me a bad admin?— CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 21:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well no, but if you primarily edited articles related to Digimon... well... Timothy Joseph Wood  21:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Cyberpower678's view on this particular point might be taken with a grain of salt: The most editing ever done by them on a non-gaming site is 10 (30th most edited page) and 28 of 29 top-edited pages are all Pokémon, so the editor is unrealistic to call that a mere tendency; the editor cares little about anything else.  User:Cyberpower678 and the candidate are peas in a pod at least in that respect so we can well understand the sympathetic ear.  There is no doubt the candidate is defensible (learnt a lesson, etc.) but see them for what they are, at best very slow on the uptake. sirlanz 01:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll interpret your comment as an insult to both me and the candidate. For the record, your statement about me caring about nothing else is also entirely false.  My focus on Wikipedia is primarily technical, more specifically bots.  I haven't edited a Pokemon article in a while.  Calling some slow on the uptake is like calling them retards.— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 01:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment was that your history demonstrates that you care "'little' about anything else" not that you care about "'nothing' else", so if your distortion of what I said is considered by you an insult, you have levelled it at yourself. And, if you consider my highlighting your editing history of focusing intensively and narrowly on gaming (or even just one genus of game) an insult, it follows that you accept that it is a negative in the editor profile.  sirlanz 02:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again you are off the mark. I interpreted being slow on the uptake as an insult since it's effectively calling some a retard.  And again, my editing history on articles is no indication of how much I care about anything really.  At the moment I' vested into bot work.  I couldn't care less what people think of my focus on Pokemon articles.  Just don't confuse the fact that articles aren't everything on Wikipedia.  I have a vested interest in WP:LINKROT.— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 02:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sirlanz, you framed what looked like a reasonable argument in your oppose rationale. However, it is beginning to seem more and more like your comments are the ones to be taken with a grain of salt. Your evaluation of C678 is off-base and calls into question the reliability of your other evaluations. Lepricavark (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)