Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide

My views on adminship
Walton tried to raise this issue throughout this Rfa, with varying levels of response, so I figure I may as well try and explain this apparent "hypocrisy."

I will only oppose a candidate who has such a balance for other reasons (incivility, etc.) - I am not in any way opposed to a candidate who writes articles and fights vandalism, comments in XfDs, patrols newpages, etc. Of the three broad categories of editors I'm outlining in this thread, this is the category that I believe I fit in too.
 * I have nothing against granting adminship to editors who partake maintenance and article tasks.

I refer here to the Ryulongs, the CSCWEMs, etc. - the editors whose #1 focus is not article work, but instead whose focus is on maintaining the project for others to improve the articles within it. It is my belief, as one who has never had the possession of admin tools, that extensive article work isn't required to be an effective admin, but practice in the maintienance area is. Others may disagree with me on this; it is my personal opinion.
 * I have nothing against granting adminship to editors who spend the majority of their time completing maintenance tasks.

If an editor has never tagged a page for speedy deletion before, what's going to happen when someone comes to their talk page requesting deletion of an article that's been tagged with a CSD template? Chances are, they'll blindly delete it - because they don't have the experience of people who have new page patrolled before, who can tell if an article meets criteria, etc. It's all about practice.
 * I am opposed to granting adminship to editors who only work on articles.

If there was an equivalent to adminship that benefited article writing (I can't think exactly how this would work, but you get my drift), I would be opposed to granting it to editors who only vandalfight. It's not because I dislike article writers, I just don't want someone's first encounter with an AfD to be when their incorrect closure is taken to DRV. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a straw man. If you really meant that editors who have made precisely zero meta-edits shouldn't be admins, you wouldn't find people arguing with you. But you use your position on article writing as an argument against adminship for people who simply spend too much of their time researching and not enough time gnoming, and when you're arguing that edit counting is a good basis for votes.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange how there are people arguing with me, considering that IS what I think (0 meta edits, 10% meta edits, same region). Oh, and I'm curious to see my apparant case of editcountitis, cos I can't recall opposing an RfA for it (yes, there was the WT:RFA thread, but I even there I didn't oppose for low edit count). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10% is very, very importantly different from zero, and that is what people are trying to tell you. Wikipedia is not about percentages. It's not about edit counts. It's about building a good encyclopedia, however you are able, and that may involve editing patterns that are different from yours. And now I'll satisfy your curiosity by pointing to the RfA you snowballed citing edit count as the only reason.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  04:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, if we're going to measure experience in terms of edit count, it surely must be measured on raw count not percentage points... unless you think that someone with a 1000 article edits and 1000 meta edits (50%) has more experience than someone with 100000 article edits and 10000 meta edits (10%). The fact that you're talking in percentage points is further (unnecessary) confirmation of what you baldly stated 2½ months ago: what matters (or mattered, at least) to you is meta activity levels, not meta experience. And that is why LaraLove and others are way off the mark in comparing your statement of 2½ months ago to "more Xfd!". Hesperian 04:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps his statement is being taken too literally? I can't see him calculating a candidates edits to determine exact percentages. Perhaps I'm wrong. But it seemed reasonable to assume that his comments were to say that anyone who had the majority (around 90%) of their edits devoted to article writing, may be overwhelmed when they received the tools, as they have little experience in those areas. I'm pretty sure that if someone applied with 110,000 edits, he wouldn't oppose based on "only 100,000 edits in admin areas". But, hey, like I said, perhaps I'm interpreting it wrong. But it still reads to me like an expanded "more XfD" because I don't think he'd tell it to someone who he felt had enough experience in it, whether it be 1500 edits out of 5,000 or 3,000 edits out of 25,000.  Lara Love  04:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Experience is not measured in edits, no matter what kind of measuring stick you use.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  06:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How can you say that? Edit count is a determining factor for RfA. I agree that it can't be the lone factor, but it's a good place to start. I, for example, have < 20 reports to AIV and a handful of XfD votes. For those like DH that think it is important to have experience in those areas, is it wrong of them to look at my edit count in those areas? If they assume that those are too few edits to be considered experienced in those areas, would they be wrong? I think yes to the AIV, but no to the XfD.
 * If you get it right at AIV five times, I think you've probably got it down, but that's just my view. A person with 40 AIV edits that half got rejected is no more experienced than me; in fact, that person would be less qualified. So there has to be more to it than just looking at numbers. You need to go look at results. But for the XfD, for example, I am not experienced in that area by any means, and that is easily obvious from looking at my edit count in that area without even looking into the results. With such small numbers, research may reveal that I've got positive participation in that area and am on the right track, but for those who feel experience in this area is required, the raw number is enough to show I'm lacking there. And, with that said, in my opinion, DM has a valid way of looking at it.  Lara Love  14:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't have *any* AIV reports when I got through RfA, and probably most of the admins I work with were in the same position at that time. This seems a completely invalid reason to oppose, there are different types of admins who do different things. One of mine is sorting CSDs and prods, and doing a lot of housekeeping speedy deletions around WikiProjects which I am involved with. I think editcountitis is a disease personally. Orderinchaos 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is just semantics. How many opposes say, 'Get more XfD experience and I'll be your best friend at your next RfA!' Tons. Nobody objects. DM words it differently (those who solely edit articles) and he gets kicked in the teeth for it? People are looking to oppose based on his assertions, which is very discouraging. Who cares about his criteria for adminship? It is simply not relevant to how he would use the delete button, the protect button, or the block button. the_undertow talk  05:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since we're picking apart what he said, it seems only fair to put his exact words on the record here.

In response to my statement, which included "I absolutely reject the notion that administrators should be drawn only from the pool of editors that work in these areas; on the contrary, I think we need more administrators that are genuinely active in building the encyclopedia.", he responded
 * "My opinion is the opposite. I believe that administrator tools should not be granted to editors who don't work in those areas, because they may be overwhelmed by the work when the receive them. Better for everyone to let them not have the tools, and continue building the 'pedia."

He didn't say anything about inexperience; he gave an entirely different rationale, and a profounding patronising one at that.

Back then, everybody understood H2O to be arguing that adminship should be granted only to those editors who spend most of their time in vandal-fighting, AN/I, etc. H2O is very welcome to hold a different opinion now to the one he held then, or to hold the same opinion for different reasons. But he should be honest enough to present himself as having changed his mind, rather than claiming to hold the same opinion, and then presenting a sugar-coated revisionist opinion that doesn't match what he actually said.

Hesperian 06:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. When did he change his mind? the_undertow talk  07:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some time in the (I think it was) 4 months between now and then. I've not said I hold the *exact* same opinion - but the essence is similar.  Your interpretation of my initial comments, and what I meant by them, is yours only - I can't be held fully responsible if you took it the wrong way. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2½ months. Hesperian 00:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How is it profounding (sic) patronising? This seems totally ridiculous to me. I can respect people opposing for various reasons, but for this and for his one weak break with name change, it's just totally ridiculous. How many times have people opposed with the argument of "More XfD?" He's getting his ass chewed for elaborating on that. He gives a reason for saying it, and that's bad? Better to just say "More XfD!" Personally, I disagree with his view, but I'm not going to oppose based on that. It's also very discouraging to see so many people blindly oppose based on his break. It's not as if there hasn't been multiple instances of explanations for this, but they're being completely overlooked to the point that he had to reveal the full reason behind it. That shouldn't have been necessary.


 * This is the kind of BS that keeps qualified candidates from applying. Who wants to repeat themselves until they're blue in the face because voters can't be bothered to read responses before voting? Who wants to have to defend generally accepted opinions to voters who disagree with them? Who wants to have to reveal personal, real life issues that are totally irrelevant to adminship just to boar it into peoples heads that "HEY! As has been stated a dozen times already, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia!" Don't get me wrong. I have plenty of respect for most of the voters in this RfA, and I could see this RfA going either way when it started as there are valid reasons to oppose, but I am completely disappointed with some. It just snowballs. One person makes a blind, uninformed oppose and suddenly there's a bandwagon plowing through.


 * There was an RfA a couple months ago (that I won't name out of respect of the now-admin) but his character was totally shot to Hell for a point in time from a complete moron making baseless accusations and some others jumping on for the ride. His adminship was successful regardless, and the libelous comments were removed per WP:BLP after, but it was the ugliest RfA I've ever seen. While that was to a greater extreme than this case, it's the same sort of instance of people opposing based on other oppose votes without getting any information from the candidate. That should be considered unacceptable. For the sake of the encyclopedia, I hope everyone knocks this crap off soon. Otherwise, more qualified candidates are just not going to apply.  Lara Love  02:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lara, there may be a time and place for such a rant, but I don't think this was it. The opposition here is not based on a snowballing, baseless accusation, like the other situations you compare it to. I and many others have looked at the situation carefully and found that he seems to respect edit counts too much, and article editing not enough, to believe that he will reasonably apply Wikipedia policy, and we've seen this backed up by his non-admin actions so far. I have read and considered his responses, and I do not believe them.
 * So I don't know if your rant was aimed at Hesperian or me or who, but I don't think anyone deserved it. We are not complete morons making baseless accusations. We simply disagree with you. Disagreements are hardly unexpected on RfA.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  04:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Rants are justifiable almost anywhere they are invoked. Regarding the disagreement with his admin criteria, I've not before seen so many opposes based on a candidates history of opposing with the argument of "More XfD", but for him there is an issue. That doesn't sit well with me.
 * As far as who the rant was aimed at, it was no one person. No two people. It's about everyone who made an oppose vote based on someone else's oppose vote without doing any other research themselves, including so much as even reading DM's responses to previous opposes. I'm more annoyed by the opposes based on his "break" which have, in many instances, been unnecessarily hyperbolized. I find it completely unacceptable. It sways votes of those people for whom I am ranting about. They do zero research, read an exaggerated oppose, and jump on the bandwagon.
 * And the moron comment referred to exactly one person (who I will not name) and that person is not participating in this RfA, so far as I've noticed.
 * As I noted above, I'm not pissy with those who disagree with me. I knew when this RfA opened that it had a good chance of failing. And I'm not disappointed with the editors who have opposed for sound reasons. I can appreciate opposes based on the lack of time between RfAs, the questionable XfD closes, etc. But those based off of his RfA criteria and his "break" have either been (for the most part) twisted or exaggerated. And while this RfA would probably still fail, even if those votes were retracted or discounted, it's still something that people need to stop doing. There are too many blind voters for editors to exaggerate and twist contributions of candidates.  Lara Love  04:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And yet, ironically, it is the oppose voters who have been subjected to scrutiny here. I wonder how many "blind voters" there are amongst the supporters. Hesperian 04:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As do I. Another example of kinks in the process. The difference is that blind support votes don't put candidates through unnecessary Hell. My point, which is being incorrectly taken as a passionate fight for DM, is that good editors avoid RfA because of these harsh, exaggerated opposes. How many explanations for his "break" have been posted to his RfA by him and others? Compare that to how many times it should have had to been posted, which is once. How many different variations of his RfA criteria are listed on the page? And how many of those opposes came before he even commented on it?  Lara Love  05:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is what I see by this RfA (which does hold valid oppose votes). DM cannot be trusted with the tools because: He did not take the advice on his editorial review. His opinions on adminship somehow relate to his ability to administrate. Changed his username. Took a break. Socialized too much. Is my overview correct, or am I just misinterpreting certain comments? And I am honestly not being snarky here (<---first time I've ever used that word), but I would appreciate an opposers validating some of this. the_undertow talk  05:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, very funny. You missed: Created an essay advocating the use of warning templates against established users. Published private chat logs on-wiki. Has an unhealthy lust for adminship. Opinions on suitability of other candidates indicate he has no understanding of the role. Repeatedly mischaracterises good faith opposition as bad faith vengeance votes. Makes errors in closing AfDs. Makes egregiously wrong AfD nominations. Makes erroneous AIV reports. Creates pages advocating tagging other peoples user pages with undesired templates. Hesperian 05:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dood. I specifically said that I was being serious. I already noted that there were valid opposes, I just wanted an opposer to validate the ones I had listed because I didn't quite understand the connection between the oppose and adminship. the_undertow talk  06:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I get it. Well, I'm quite happy to validate "His opinions on adminship somehow relate to his ability to administrate." Think about it. Hesperian 06:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have. If he feels that an admin should posses X quality, it has no affect on DH's ability to use the tools. Voting for an admin and protecting pages are entirely different concepts. the_undertow talk  06:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And if X=a willingness to block people who piss him off? Preparedness to speedily delete pages that bore him? Protect pages on his preferred version? The fact is, H2Os expectation of the qualities and behaviour necessary to being a good administrator are abolutely core to whether he would make a good one himself. I'm struggling to see why this isn't obvious to you. Hesperian 06:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We are talking about two different things. Simply put - If DH believes an administrator needs 10K edits, it doesn't have anything to do with what he will do with a delete button. Thus - criteria for admin, and acting as one are not the same. I'm not a big fan of people who disagree with my views telling me I am missing the 'obvious' but maybe that's your thing. Could it be that we simply disagree and leave it at that? the_undertow talk  06:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is pretty easy to mock peoples' reasons for opposing if you choose the most trivial possible interpretation of them, and permit only that interpretation to be validated. Hesperian 06:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was quite easy. It's like mocking me for missing the obvious or failing to address my clarification about admin standards v. actual admin work (of which I am struggling to see why you cannot make the connection). But you did finally nail one thing - the opposes I chose were trivial. As far as my interpretations, he purposely ignored our reviews, you are a little moody,I don't like the drama surrounding him in regards to leaving and name changing and see as too much "socializing". These are verbatim. I am not interpreting them, nor 'permitting' only certain interpretations. This opposes are simply just a pile on more and more insane reasoning. Honestly, I think Kurt Weber's prima facie oppose holds more weight than most of the opposes in this RfA, as much as it kills me to say it. the_undertow talk  17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that "ignored our reviews" would be petty, but I think what was intended was an oppose based on the ignored advice, rather than an oppose based on the fact the advice was ignored. "You are a little moody" is a legitimate reason for opposing - I can understand why some people would value emotional constancy in an administrator. The "drama surrounding him in regards to leaving and name changing" comment appears to be a polite way of saying "I think you left, came back with a name change, and promptly nominated for adminship, in order to throw your opposition off the trail." Which I agree with. RfA is unfortunately so horribly broken that a single early and long-winded oppose (as mine was) can kill off a nomination virtually on its own. I can understand why H2O might be tempted to try to arrange matters so that he could go to RfA without me, or any other potential flies in the ointment, being aware of it. Evidently that is what this chain of events looks like to me and others. "Too much socialising" appears to be a oblique reference to the opinion that H2O is a member of a clique of editors who hang out on RfA, never fail to vote, nearly always vote the same, and can be relied upon to support each other in any nomination. I don't know if that is true, and if true, I don't know how it reflects upon his capacities as an administrator. Either way, it is prima facie not trivial. Hesperian 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly there are two distinct sides when it comes to this RfA. And clearly, neither side is going to sway the other. As The undertow previously suggested, perhaps it's better to just agree to disagree and be done. The result of this RfA is pretty much obvious, and I seriously doubt anything is going to change it now, but clearly there are some discrepancies in the opinion of some and these issues should be further discussed, however more appropriately on the RfA project talk page as opposed to here, as any further discussion would speak to the future of the RfA process and not this specific RfA.  Lara Love  17:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. I can only name, like, 10 other admins off the top of my head who've had renames, and I'm sure at least half of our 1000+ admins have taken a break at some stage.  The project is screwed! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (double edit conflict) Though this is probably tangential to the point of this nomination or it's discussion I did want to say that, as a frequent RfA reader but an infrequent contributor, I agree with Lara's last comment to the extent that RfA does sometimes seem forbidding. Whether that's a good or a bad thing, I cannot say.  But if WP:NOBIGDEAL is true, it probably isn't a good thing.   Into The Fray   T / C  05:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that RfA is too forbidding. That's why I'm upset by demands for candidates to have ever higher edit counts and the "right" percentages of edits in each namespace. RfA is forbidding for mostly pointless reasons.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) I want to make a clarification for anyone who may be misunderstanding. I mean no disrespect the the mass of opposers. I appreciate the arguments from many of them. I'd be inclined to change my vote to neutral if it'd make a difference in light of some of the things I've read. My problem is specifically with those arguments I've listed above and for what that says to me about RfA as a whole, not this particular one.

For example, there are a variety of reasons I have not applied for admin despite being offered a nom multiple times. One of those reasons is that I'm not a masochist. And I'm sure there are plenty of other editors that would be great admins that share this view. Personally, I don't agree with a lot of the requirements of RfA voters. "More XfD" being one of them. But I can respect that some people think that should be required. What I can't respect is people misinterpreting a diff, opposing with a hyperbolized summary of the diff, then sitting back while a group of blind opposers jump on the bandwagon without any further explanation. These diffs get posted with a spin, subsequent voters then read it with an unintended tone implied by the oppose voter, not the original author.

I also don't agree with holding things from a user's past against them forever. People make mistakes, particularly when they're new, and they learn from them. It's assuming bad faith to think otherwise. And to, for example, call DM a hypocrite for opposing candidates with less than X number of votes after he applied with only 700 also seems unnecessary to me. He was new and, like many RfAs closed per SNOW, didn't understand it all. So to say that he can never oppose based on low edit count; that's not fair. My criteria for admin have changed since I first started participating because I've learned from each RfA. I've adapted my beliefs from arguments of others, like I hope my arguments will affect others.

Make RfA difficult for the people who deserve a difficult RfA. For the people that have questionable edits. But when such questions are raised in oppose votes, don't assume what you're reading is an accurate interpretation of the edit(s) or the action(s). Look at it yourself with unbiased eyes, make your own determination on that matter, and take into account what the candidate has to say without bad faith assumptions. And read the candidates responses to votes before making yours, because it makes voters look stupid (pardon the bluntness), in my opinion, when they oppose per issue X raised by oppose voter 2 (random number not in reference to this RfA), when it's already been clarified as nothing to worry about. And that's not directed to any one person; that's directed at everyone that participates in RfA.  Lara Love  14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. In particular, I agree with the part about people misinterpreting diffs and opposing with a hyperbolized summary; having been through RfA (twice, actually) and participated in far more RfAs than I can possibly remember, this is one of the most common problems. WaltonOne 20:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren has data on question 15
As of question 15, the accusations presented are fictitious. In reality, what happened was a meeting of random people who performed GA reviews in full accordance with all the relevant criteria. This position is easily supportable by the relevant IRC logs; I particularly recommend logs from #wikipedia, September 24, 01:00–06:00 UTC.

Furthermore, let it be known Irpen's baseless accusations -- both in this matter and others -- are a subject of investigation in an ongoing arbitration case. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 08:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah right ... a more informative link is here. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC).