Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/GermanJoe

Collect's oppose

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * 1)  Oppose  Negligible creation of articles. Negligible actual editing of BLPs.  Under 8% "Keep" !votes at AfD. Indeed, mainly a "delete nominating" person, it seems  (roughly 1/2 of all AfDs voted on, were nominated by this person).   Three negatives and I have to oppose. Collect (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Those percentages tell us nothing about this candidate whatsoever. Who cares if he mostly votes or nominates to delete if those judgment calls are good? The community agrees with his opinion the overwhelming majority of the time. Out of the more than 300 AfDs, only two of them went "keep" where GermanJoe went "delete". Two times. Ever. Not exactly "out of control deletionist" numbers. ~Swarm~  {sting} 23:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I very rarely comment on comments at Afd, but the first two of these complaints are so remarkably silly I cannot keep silent. Swarm has I think adequately dealt with the third, just above. "Negligible creation of articles" - in fact it seems from a question above that he has never started a new article. That's fantastic! If only more content-editing editors were like him! We have far too many articles (especially BLPs), and we have fallen into bad habits as a community in that most content-editors prefer to start new articles (generally very little read) rather than improve existing articles, vast numbers of which fall into the range from  mediocre to appalling dire, with many of these getting highy views. The community's failure to see this and act on it is one of our very biggest problems. The idea that anyone, or an admin candidate, has to edit BLPs is novel and wrong. Of course they present distinct problems, but anyone unused to these can just avoid that area.  In fact I think he is the strongest content-adder we have seen at Afd for a good while, with over 850 edits to Otto I, and high edit counts for a number of important articles, some at FA. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh. We have a long tradition of allowing curmudgeonly votes at RFA. I disagree with Collect, but he has a right to his opinion, however arbitrary it might seem. Guy (help!) 08:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I hardly ever feel the need to comment on RfA's, but indeed, this type of comments make me cringe. Editors can only be good admins if they have hundreds of article creations on their name, and !vote balanced and correctly on AfDs.  Because, well, that is the only thing admins should ever do: create content and appropriately close AfDs (well, thát is at least countable).  That they get a wealth of other 'powers' is irrelevant because that we cannot measure anyway.  This is !vote is just the plain example with what is wrong with RfA.  GermanJoe has been very active over the last period with evaluating spam edits, reporting many of them, cleaning out behind them, and in my opinion, they does that in a very balanced and correct manner.  They may very well have mainly commented on the absolute spam which results in a 92% delete (as should be done for spam), and (per Swarm) they does that again very balanced and in line with community standards and consensus.  But that does not matter, because the only thing admins HAVE to do is create content and work on AfDs.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey guys - I believe that where a range of topics requires administrative cognizance on a regular basis, that it is reasonable to seek candidates who are aware of the issues in those spheres. You can look at my comments over a goodly number of years, and you will find my position is reasonable to hold. BLP issues and AFD issues regularly are ones which are involved in disputes.  And a profound lack of understanding of the process of "article creation" is essential. Look at the usual debates at the noticeboards and note that this is true. And read WP:BLPN as well.  And remember that comments should never be used to attack the commenter.''' Collect (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I may have come through a bit too harsh, but I read your comment also as a bit of an attack, 'you are not fit to be an admin because you don't do article creation, are not active at BLPs and only !vote delete in AfDs'. Yes, we need admins who have a profound knowledge of article creation, yes, we need admins who have a profound understanding of article deletion.  That are indeed areas of contention.  But not all admins need to have only those criteria.  We also need admins who have a profound understanding of spam, we need to have admins who have a profound understanding of copyright materials.  Your !vote, from my point of view reads like 'we all need to make sure that the toilets are clean, and you don't know how to hold a mop, so you are not fit to be a rocket scientist either.'  To me, it is unreasonable to insist that every candidate has to have a profound understanding of article creation and AfD, there are many other areas that are prone to conflict, that do need maintenance and where the admin bit is needed (and that do not necessarily involve deletion of pages and blocking of editors!).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that you ascribe words to me which I did not write.  Where a candidate is lacking in three critical areas, that is a concern. I would not hire an auto mechanic (as an example only) who is great except that they do not know much about engines, transmissions and brakes - even if they were wonderful otherwise as a mechanic. Too many missing areas of knowledge make them a poor mechanic. Even if they are great on windshield wipers, tires, and air conditioners. Collect (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that article creation is as important today as it was when this was all just fields. We have a bazillion articles, most of which are sub-standard. I value curation more highly than creation these days. But it's a matter on which reaosnable people may differ. Guy (help!) 16:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that it was my interpretation, it is more: you are not suitable as an admin because you have (my interpretation of oppose) ... Negligible creation of articles. Negligible actual editing of BLPs. Under 8% "Keep" !votes at AfD. Indeed, mainly a "delete nominating" person, it seems  (roughly 1/2 of all AfDs voted on, were nominated by this person).
 * Most editors that pass have zero experience in MediaWiki namespace, zero experience in finding socks, and zero experience in finding spam, zero experience in recognizing possibly copyvio material ... following that count no candidate will ever be a suitable candidate ... --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A person who has no experience in finding socks, is not great. A person who has not removed "spam" is not great. A person who has not shown any sign of dealing with copyrights is not great. And a person who has not furnished images for Wikis is not great. And folks who have dealt with every single category you name exist.  Am I to understand that you feel than the areas I mention are of trivial value, though?  Collect (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, collect. We need admins in every area.  But not every admin needs to be active in all areas.  Most of our admins are active contentcreators with high participation in AfD.  very important to have those as admins.  We however also need admins with high participation in, e.g. anti-spam.  It is very important to have such admins as well.  If that is an admin who does not have a lot of content creation, so be it.  Your !vote reads as if a candidate admin who is not active in content creation and is not active balanced in AfD (more of a deletionist) can never be a good admin because an admin cannot be an admin without those qualities, but they can perfectly be an admin if they do content creation and discuss deletions properly but have absolutely zero experience on the spam blacklist (or MediaWiki namespace overall).  No, if a candidate is not suitable because they do not do content work, they are also not suitable because they don't do sufficient anti-spam work as well.  That disqualifies most of the last 10 passing admins.
 * I guess we disagree on our approach to analysis of candidates to RfA. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "And a profound lack of understanding of the process of "article creation" is essential" - a little extreme, but a move in the right direction! Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &larr; I think it's possible to discuss Collect's position without calling it silly, curmudgeonly, or arbitrary. I believe Johnbod has pointed out your sentence may need copy editing? (striking the words "lack of"? or I misunderstand). –xenotalk  17:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reread the entire post and you can see my fairly clear use of irony seems lost on a lot of folks here. Collect (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, completely lost, after a number of rereadings. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think collect is correct and my neutral may change to oppose. It matters not if nobody else agrees - I think Collect is right. We are building an English encyclopedia - this candidate admits they do not understand English well enough to create an article. Lightburst (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the above, I think cherrypicking a meaningless statistic and falsely claiming that can be interpreted as a problem is not only a fallacious argument but a personal attack and an aspersion. By highlighting the small percentage of keep votes, and the high percentage of nominations, I presume that you're attempting to portray the candidate as a deletionist, making an appeal to fear that the candidate can not be trusted with the delete permission. However, you've omitted actually-meaningful statistics that imply that the candidate's views on deletion are overwhelmingly in-line with the community's mainstream standards. For emphasis, out of 230 straight delete votes, the community consensus decided to "keep" only two times, less than 1%. Of the remainder, 96% are endorsed via deletion, redirection, or merge results, with 4% reaching no consensus. In other words, the candidate votes delete with a 95% accuracy rating, or a 99% accuracy rating not counting no consensuses. ~Swarm~  {sting} 21:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The actual personal attack is clear here. Thanks.  Might you consider deleting your clear attack, as I made none at all, and do not care a whit about any personality on Wikipedia.   Meanwhile, how many articles were written by the person? How many BLP discussions?  Did I "cherry-pick" those issues too?  RfAs are not the place to attack others for their opinions, last I looked.  Collect (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? Your response here is really off-the-wall. Your personal attack is making an accusation without evidence. It's called casting aspersions. Calling someone out for making personal attacks is not a personal attack, that's just a silly defense. Nor am I attacking you, I'm simply explaining why that argument is utterly invalid and unsupported by evidence, which makes it a personal attack. You can stand behind your BLP/article creation arguments, I specifically set those aside, but don't use that to defend your AfD argument, in which you either jumped to an incorrect conclusion based on a meaningless statistic, or intentionally made a fallacious argument based on a meaningless statistic. Don't play the victim just because I actually looked into your own argument and found it to be completely baseless. ~Swarm~  {sting} 23:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What the F are you calling an "accusation without evidence"? I fear I shall place you on the "ignore forever list" which I do not even have in the first place. If all statistics are meaningless why the hell are they clearly linked to on the nomination page?   Using stats which are specifically linked to on the nomination page seems to be quite logical. Collect (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Beetstra hands Collect a cotton swab * --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I suggest hiring the mechanic to work on windshield wipers, tires, and air conditioners, which are not unimportant. If that's all they ever do if they never choose to get into engines, transmissions, or brakes  I'm ok with that. I have zero problem with specialization in auto mechanics. However, they should understand that the (un)pay range is higher for engines, transmissions, and brakes. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  15:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? In a bigger organization there are likely specialized mechanics: some that do air conditioning only, others that specialize in car electronics, and yet others that specialize on the engine.  That overall makes it a better organization as your specific problem will be addressed by a specialized mechanic.  Other shops have only a few 'all round' mechanics.
 * Wikipedia, however, runs a shop where every mechanic has to be a world-class specialist in engines and window wipers. Any other specialization is an advantage, but not necessary (they can literally mount steering wheels for tires, as long as the engine and window wipers keep working).  However, a mechanic with a specialization in air conditioners is flat out turned down, even if there are enough other mechanics at hand who do have sufficient engine and window wiper experience, and even if there is a severe shortage of mechanics with a specialization in air conditioners.  I would be rather offended if management would operate like that ...  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"editors can only be good admins if they do a lot of content creation"?
Did I read that correctly? If that is the case, I would conclude that I am a not-good admin? I agree with on this, in any event --  Deep  fried  okra    17:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I was interpreting the !vote Dirk Beetstra T C 03:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was being overly sarcastic in the reply to that !vote, and you can see from the stats how good an admin I am if I would apply it to myself. Maybe 2 articles in the last 10 years or so?  I guess I am your window-wiper specialist with limited engine knowledge from the analogy in the above thread.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks and sorry for getting carried away. That oppose rationale always hits a nerve.--  Deep fried  okra    09:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I guess it says also something about the !voter. —Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)