Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cordless Larry

Oppose #1 by Collect

 * 1)   Oppose A trifle over-eager to delete articles, alas. Collect (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A standard request for diffs. talk to ! dave 19:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The "diffs" are the AfD, and BLP links from this very page. Iterating them does what? I am not citing specific edits, but the statistical reports generated. "BLP edits AfD votes" Collect (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (not "badgering," sincerely unsure) Where is there a statistical report of a candidate's BLP edits? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The blp edit counter is here It is linked from the collapsed RfA/RfB toolbox directly above the support section of this page. Mduvekot (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a good example: Education for sustainable development. This topic has massive notability as there are many respectable books about it and the candidate confirms this himself in his nomination.  But he doesn't like the current text of the article and so he wants it all deleted along with its 13 year edit history.  His idea is that deleting all that work is supposed to encourage someone to write something better.  But who's going to volunteer to do such work when they see what happened to the earlier good faith drafts?  WP:TNT is not policy and not even a guideline.  Our actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT which says clearly that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome"  but the candidate seems quite careless about this fundamental principle. Andrew D. (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I must say that Education for sustainable development mostly reads like a copy of something from the UN press department to me. Ah, yes, a random quote googled rapidly finds this UNESCO document. Ok, there are a bunch of open sources given at the end. But we don't really want to fill WP up with UN press releases. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That page includes 7 "This article incorporates text from a free content work" templates on UNESCO docs. UN docs are almost always public domain. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, comment refactored after ec. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't much like the current version either – too much high-minded waffle. But the point here is that deletion is quite inappropriate as a way of making progress because there are sensible alternatives.  For example, one could simply revert to an early version of the article before it was bloated with all that CC text.  And/or one could pass the article over to someone to copy-edit.  Someone like John Cummings who is the UNESCO Wikimedian in Residence.  Our deletion policy clearly states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  It appears that the candidate doesn't understand or agree with either our editing policy or our deletion policy and so presumably would wing it by ignoring such rules.  I'm not willing to grant deletion powers for life to someone with such a casual and callous approach to our content.  But maybe there's something we're missing and so I'd like to hear what the candidate has to say about this.  As he has not commented in this discussion, I'll ask a direct question. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The operative part in the deletion policy you quote is "...should be done..." The policy doesn't say an editor must improve the article nor does any other policy say that attempting to improve the article is a required prerequisite.  Saying that choosing deletion over the alternatives is somehow non-policy-compliant is flatly incorrect. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The word should indicates "what is right or becoming ... in statements of duty, obligation, or propriety" (OED). Failure to follow that course is therefore a dereliction of duty; unobliging; improper.  Per WP:ADMINCOND, "Administrators are expected to lead by example ... are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities ... disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators".  Andrew D. (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At first I was of a mind to let this stand without comment and trust other editors to see it for the obvious biased view that it is. After all, in the other currently-running RfA I was encouraging exactly that type of restraint on everyone else. After reflection, however, I think that something needs to be said. Twisting dictionary definitions to attempt to imply the opposite of the plain meaning of the definitions is bad enough.  To then try extending a standard that didn't even apply to  at the time to justify it as evidence he doesn't know what the deletion standards are is mendacious.  Dragging "disruption" kicking and screaming into the room merely justifies that everything your detractors previously said about your RfA participation was fully justified.  The not-at-all-subtle implication that Cordless Larry will use the tools to damage the project based on his nomination of an absolute morass of bureaucratic international development doublespeak for deletion is completely unjustifiable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Eggishorn seems to be having some difficulty with the word should. Note what our own article says about this usage, "The main use of should in modern English is as a synonym of ought to, expressing quasi-obligation, appropriateness, or expectation".  That seems clear enough and the candidate seems to be getting the point, "Given that I have a reputation for being deletionist ... closing AfDs is not something that I anticipate doing as an admin...".  Andrew D. (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's as may be, but at least I understand that the "quasi" in "quasi-obligation" really means "actually not at all an". "Obligation"", "expectation", "appropriateness", "propriety", etc.; none of those terms are statements of absolute requirements. We can stop pretending  failed in a requirement when your own policy quotes make it clear that the requirement exists only in some over-inclusionist headspace.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In the AFD in question, nobody at all agreed with the candidate's position. That position was based on WP:TNT which has never been policy; not even close.  Our actual deletion policy was started at the outset by one of Wikipedia's founders.  It is interesting now to review that first draft.  The message seems quite clear: "When in doubt, don't delete.  Do not delete anything that might in the future become an encyclopedia topic. Hence, just because someone has written a completely worthless article about John Doe, that doesn't mean we should permanently delete the topic...".  So, this is a foundational policy of Wikipedia.  It's not "some over-inclusionist headspace"; it's fundamental .  If you don't accept or agree with it then you should not be put in charge of enforcing it. Andrew D. (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * While I do agree with the sentiment (which is still policy in WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD), one has to remember the context, i.e. that the first software used did not allow deleted articles to be restored (as noted by Larry in the draft of WP:DEL you cite), so deletion had to be much more limited. Regards SoWhy 18:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you still planning to ask me a formal RfA question about Articles for deletion/Education for sustainable development as you suggested above, ? If so, I will wait to answer it. If not, I can give my thoughts here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to take it easy in this RfA and let others make the running. If Cordless Larry would please volunteer his thoughts on the matter, that may save some work. Andrew D. (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, well the context for that deletion nomination was that I discovered that a number of UNESCO staff, who have apparently been trained with the support of a Wikimedia grant, have been contributing to Wikipedia by copy-pasting large chunks of text from UNESCO publications into existing or new articles. Many of these articles are in Category:Science and technology by country. For another example, see Science and technology in Turkmenistan. The training that these UNESCO employees have received doesn't seem to have imparted on them the importance of NPOV, because their contributions include importing UNESCO's opinions into Wikipedia articles without clear attribution. I raised this at Village pump (policy)/Archive 137 and there was some concern, but no real action resulted. I admit to being somewhat overwhelmed by the number of articles involved, and thought that I would test the water by nominating one of the more problematic ones for deletion. In hindsight, this may have been a mistake, and it was almost certainly a mistake to pick an article for which there was a previous version that could have been reverted to, rather than one that had been newly created by UNESCO staff. The AfD demonstrated that deletion isn't the solution here, but the problem of the UNESCO articles remains unresolved, and I do not think their presence in their current form serves the encyclopedia well. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose #3 by Eric Corbett

 * 1) Oppose. Too much emphasis on deletion and admin busyness and not enough on creation. Eric   Corbett  09:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight... You oppose an editor with an FA to his name on the basis of not enough content creation, and simultaneously criticise him at his RfA for too much admin business? To use a turn of phrase I saw recently: Yep. Those are... those are words someone typed... and in that order... apparently on purpose. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  10:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Busyness, not business, Insertcleverphrasehere. Think "busy as a bee". - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of definition, the rationale makes little sense. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  11:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it makes sense, although you may disagree with it. The argument is that they spend too much time fiddling around with the nuts-and-bolts of policy/lawyering/whatever and consequently lack experience/understanding of content issues. It's a common argument here and always a valid one. A sort of variation on "those that can, do; those that can't, teach." If someone lacks ability or experience in the core matter of the project then who are they to judge? - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See also busybody – an article that I rewrote when it was at AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the special circumstances concerning Eric's RFA participation, I don't think that this discussion is leading to anywhere and is esp. bad, when one is T-banned from participating in any threaded discussion and has no right of reply.So, let's drop it. ~ Winged Blades Godric 14:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But, at the same time, I'm of the hope that the high and the mighty choose to rescind their age-old restrictions, for otherwise, sans any additional explanation, his !vote at 331Dot's RFA is functionally equivalent of ....... ~ Winged Blades Godric 14:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, maybe--I'm sure Eric has looked closer at Larry's article contributions than I did, but the admin busyness that I've seen Larry get involved in was very useful and went beyond the simple things like vandalism and deletion: I know Larry as someone with a fine nose for the more complicated things, like socks. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If Eric can't respond, I think it is far better to have any discussion here. I apologise, I was not aware. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Insertcleverphrasehere, you're completely missing the point. My response was not for Eric, it was for the other readers. Sheesh. Aren't we overpolicing this a bit? But what do I know--I've only been here since 2008. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry, feel free to move your comment back over if that's what you think is appropriate. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  01:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Corbett is a master of rhetoric and phrase (and indeed one of our very best FA and content contributors ever), and as long  as his participation  in  RfA is within accepted terminology, his comments are usually  accurate. I  understand that  not  everyone will  be aware of his RfA editing  restriction, but for anyone here reading  this thread, please understand for  the future that it would not  be fair to comment  on  his votes while he is not allowed to  respond. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose #4 by SoWhy
Discussion moved back to main page ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 19:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)