Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Budgiekiller

User:Budgiekiller

run at Thu Jan 4 18:00:30 2007 GMT

Category talk:	1 Category:	15 Image:	55 Mainspace	10649 Portal:	10 Talk:	368 Template talk:	1 Template:	148 User talk:	4792 User:	379 Wikipedia talk:	15 Wikipedia:	321 avg edits per article	1.41 earliest	17:51, 30 May 2005 number of unique articles	11865 total	16754 2005/5 	3 	2005/6 	4 	2005/7 	166 	2005/8 	129 	2005/9 	164 	2005/10 	194 	2005/11 	320 	2005/12 	347 	2006/1 	141 	2006/2 	364 	2006/3 	223 	2006/4 	576 	2006/5 	593 	2006/6 	536 	2006/7 	682 	2006/8 	1508 	2006/9 	1002 	2006/10 	981 	2006/11 	3366 	2006/12 	5187 	2007/1 	268 	Budgiekiller's editcount summary stats as of 1800, January 4th 2007, using Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 18:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on the RfA
I find the opposition and stern warnings ("if you continue responding in this manner it is going to cost you dearly") to be very, very disheartening. Are we trying to reach a consensus through discussion here, or is a person not going to be allowed to respond if people are opposing based on an inaccurate perception? I know this is somewhat standard RfA "etiquette," but the harping seems to be a bit much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a "stern warning". It was an observation that responding in that manner backfires on candidates and it does cost them and often dearly. I have seen RfAs go down the drain when people insist on responding like that. Budgiekiller hasn't participated in many RfAs and maybe he doesn't realise. Personally, I'd rather be told bluntly than find out the hard way. Sarah 05:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarah, you're right, I didn't realise that my discussion and communication to opposers to determine where they were coming from within this RFA would cost me. To be honest, in running for admin I'm dedicating even more time to the project, and while I may have broken the unwritten rules of RFA etiquette, I also firmly believe in understanding other people's views.  Budgiekiller 10:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that responding to such criticism would have that sort of problem, not so much your exact warning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "...opposing based on an inaccurate perception..." – you've hit the nail on the head here, bdj. Candidates for adminship should have the right to reply to oppose !votes, and if they don't reply, then the person with the perception will forever stand uncorrected. Now, the place to do it seems to be in contention here. Most RfA frequenters don't like it on the RfA page, but is a candidate to know this "etiquette" automatically? Or is the etiquette even justified at all? Maybe this (and subsequent) talk page(s) should be flagged for the use of. OK, I like this candidate so it may look like I'm sticking my neck out for him, but I've seen it in the past where people are given the "ooh, you shouldn't reply to every oppose vote" and they are quite justified to answer. And I'm sure I've seen it where they haven't replied because of this – to their ultimate detriment. Bubba hotep 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(<- Moving back here) It's an interesting question. I've also been weighing in on this and have been torn between three options - responding on the RfA, responding on a user's talk page or doing neither. Responding on someone's talk page is perhaps the best way to go, but, assuming my counter-argument is 100% unshakable logic but they can't be bothered to change their !vote, their comment remains unchallenged on the RfA. Is this then more about the volume of responses to oppose !votes, rather than the more intrinsic responding to oppose !votes? --Dweller 08:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While I don't want another load of opposes for throwing my hat into the ring, I would say that my primary goal in responding on the RFA page was simply so that all editors could read my responses rather than trawling through various talk pages. It kept everything in one place and visible for all to see.  Little did I know that I'd get an oppose based purely on my responses!  Budgiekiller 08:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think responding on individual talk pages has much the same effect as not responding at all, except to the person you are responding to, of course. Not many people will check others' talk pages for responses – it needs to be a centralised discussion point, such as the RfA talk page. Bubba hotep 09:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree - particuarly if person y then opposes per person x's reasoning, which you've already explained on x's talk page. I don't see what the big fuss is about applying to opposes and I certainly don't think it should be a reason to oppose in itself. If it was overly confrontational, then perhaps, but if (as in this case) it is either explaining certain actions or asking clarifying questions about the opposer's reasoning there is no problem. The former is very relevant and may cause a change in !vote; the latter should help improve the editor, and be useful for other RfAs. Would it be better to let flawed or misunderstood opposes stand? Trebor 18:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Belligerence" "confrontational" and "uncivil" - Bishonen
Is Bishonen calling Budgiekiller "uncivil" and "confrontational" and me "belligerent"? Posting this here, per Bishonen's request. --Dweller 07:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I'm saying Budgiekiller's replies to Oppose !votes aren't civil and unconfrontational, although that's clearly the goal he shoots for. Please avoid changing my words into more highly charged negative ones which I haven't meant or used ("uncivil" and "confrontational"). Tone is a skill and I'm suggesting the candidate would benefit from more practice at it. Am I calling you belligerent? Well, I shouldn't have, as I was thinking more about Spawn Man and his repeated questions about "rules". (And now, confusingly, I see Spawn Man himself !voted to oppose.) I'm sorry about that. "Challenging" would be a better word for your responses. (Why do you speak to me in the third person?) Bishonen | talk 13:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Dweller: No, she's not. Unless you think you are. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  13:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know how else to address you, as it's neither your nor my talk page, sorry if that was inappropriate. I understand what you mean, I think. Hoist by my own petard - I corrected someone else this morning for believing that there's no alternative to deletionism than inclusionism. Apologies for that. As for myself, I think I'll take "challenging". I like to think of myself as being pretty tolerant in my actions here, but also fair-minded, so I will challenge where I think an unfair assertion's been made (though I try hard not to push an argument too far). I guess what I'm trying in a longwinded manner to say is that I'm still not that experienced here and was shocked that my actions might be considered "belligerent". Glad to know it's not that bad. If you think I've overstepped the mark in any way, (here or anywhere else for that matter) please do drop me a line at my talk page... I get things wrong like anyone; perhaps more unusually, I like and respond well to constructive criticism. --Dweller 14:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)