Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Good Olfactory

Edit count for Good Olfactory
User:Good_Olfactory run at Mon Jul 21 13:02:15 2008 GMT Category talk: 56 Category: 8524 Image: 1 Mainspace 33017 Talk: 471 Template talk: 33 Template: 87 User talk: 845 User: 97 Wikipedia talk: 11 Wikipedia: 1858 avg edits per page 1.55 earliest number of unique pages 28944 total 45000

2008/2 2425   2008/3  7878   2008/4  12772   2008/5  10998   2008/6  8763   2008/7  2164

Mainspace 60 Mission (LDS Church) 57 Master Mahan 51 Mormonism and evolution 41 Chris Heimerdinger 34 Brigham Young 34 Thomas S. Monson 30 Missionary (LDS Church) 30 Mormon fundamentalism 29 List of anthems by country 28 Mary Rogers (murderer) 25 Mormon 24 World Council of Churches 22 Theodore Brandley 21 Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 20 Grand Mufti of Jerusalem

Talk: 78 Master Mahan 29 Chris Heimerdinger 24 The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) 20 Pace memorandum 17 Missionary (LDS Church) 13 List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 10 Westboro Baptist Church 9 Suharto 7 Animals and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 7 Temple (Latter Day Saints) 7 Washing and anointing 7 Solemn assembly (Latter Day Saints) 6 Naval air station 6 Church of Christ 6 Mormon

Category talk: 6 American Unificationists 5 Democratic Republic of the Congo murder victims 5 British prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment 4 Sufis by nationality 3 Chilean people murdered abroad 2 Romanian Catholics 2 American Latter Day Saints

Category: 9 Japanese executions 9 Romanian Orthodox Christians 8 Prisoners sentenced to death by the United States military 7 American Mormon missionaries 7 Romanian executions 7 Russian executions 6 German executions 6 Madeira Islands 6 Pimps and madams by nationality 6 Iranian executions 6 Indonesian executions 6 Soviet rehabilitations 6 Filipino people executed abroad 6 Australian executions 6 Holy Week

Template: 12 MFleaders 9 LDSChurchpubs 5 LDS70quorum1members 4 LDSpriesthood 3 LDSpresidingbishopric 3 LDShistorian 3 LDS70pres 3 GMJerusalem 2 São Roque do Pico 2 UTGovernors 2 LDSyoungwomen 2 NevisPremiers 2 CofCpresidents 2 CEScommissioners Template talk: 18 LDS70pres 7 MFleaders 5 CofCpresidents 3 LDSpresidingbishopric

User: 41 Good Olfactory 17 Good Olfactory/Empty 12 Good Olfactory/List of national anthem writers 3 Good Olfactory/Grimace v Barney 3 Good Olfactory/Sandbox 2 Good Olfactory/HermanKahn 2 Good Olfactory/Academic

User talk: 306 Good Olfactory 16 Koavf/Archive008 16 Koavf/Archive010 13 Mike Selinker 12 Moondyne 9 COGDEN 9 Jayjg/Archive 25 9 Mayumashu 8 Black Falcon 8 Cgingold 7 Jgstokes 7 Doma-w 7 Koavf/Archive009 7 BigDunc 6 Roundhouse0 Wikipedia: 380 Categories for discussion/Speedy 40 Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 28 34 Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 16 31 Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 25 29 Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 6 28 Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 29 27 Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 6 26 Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 9 26 Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 14 25 Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 3 24 Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 10 24 Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 10 24 Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 12 23 Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 11 23 Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 10 Wikipedia talk: 5 Userboxes/New Userboxes 5 Categories for discussion


 * The edit count was retrieved by Rudget   ( logs ) 13:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC) from this link at 13:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC).

Kurt's Oppose

 * 1) Oppose per answer to Q6. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 00:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Invoking IAR there, Kurt? Of course an admin candidate is expected to provide answers that follow policy when standing for RfA. To ask them a question which is clear-cut in the policy and then oppose them for giving the policy answer seems even more petty than normal. Chaotic  Reality  00:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These so-called "policies" are not prescriptive at all. Just because a so-called "policy" says cool-down blocks are not acceptable doesn't mean they're actually not acceptable, and a potential community servant should understand Wikipedia well enough to realize that.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 00:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow." Whilst that statement does slightly support your view, I still think that following policy is important in a lot of cases, especially CDB. One might consider that, should that policy not exist, your account may have been blocked a lot more than it has been. Chaotic  Reality  01:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly though, it's a double-edged sword. Kurt is absolutely correct, policies are descriptive, however, what would happen if the candidate had answered "yes". How many editors would have opposed? Just putting it out there.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I refer to it as an "anti-fence sitting question"...it's to force him to publicly take a stand on a matter that, either way, he's not going to be able to please everyone. What's wrong with that?  That's an important character trait for a community servant to have, is it not?  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that should the contributor above have concerns with an integral part of WP policy, that it would be more productive to challenge said policy rather than those potentially tasked to uphold it. It leads back to the old adage of commenting on the content, not the contributor. Gazimoff Write Read 08:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to agree with Gazimoff here. Kurt, challenging CDB as a policy may be a good way to go. I certainly think CDB can be useful in some cases and would certainly not just dismiss your arguments off-hand. I suspect others feel the same as I, and would take you a lot more seriously on this issue should you pursue that route, rather than starting more dramafests like the one we've seen here. Chaotic  Reality  10:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are both suggesting that, then it indicates that your understanding of how so-called "policies" are supposed to work on Wikipedia is backwards. Actions don't follow the so-called "policies"; rather, the so-called "policies" follow actions.  These so-called "policies" are simply descriptions, written after the fact, of what is typically done.  The way to change so-called "policy", then, is to advocate for people to actually change the way they do things--if that happens, then the change in the written so-called "policy" is automatic.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 14:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's only a drama fest if you start the drama by commenting on the oppose. Kurt was not the one who turned this into a drama and he has less posts to this thread than almost every other contributor. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 12:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The only comment here that really goes in the direction of drama is this post of yours. user:Everyme 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A good point well made, Wisdom. I think standing at RfA is tricky enough, without having to navigate a minefield or answer questions like Kurt's, where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Chaotic  Reality  01:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What's really amazing to me is how prescriptive Kurt's opposes are. Self-nom?  By rule, power hunger, and therefore oppose.  Against coll down blocks?  That's prescriptive of someone who abides by policy, therefore oppose.  Why, pray tell, community, is Kurt allowed to be this disruptive, and yet whenever anyone comments on his disruptiveness, they are admonished?  When will this end?  I welcome responses to my question, especially by Kurt.  Trout slap me if you'd like, fellow editors, but I am completely sick and tired of Kurt inventing reasons to oppose other human beings.  Keeper    76  01:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He actually has supported RfA's before, as hard as that is to believe. I don't think that Kurt is being disruptive, or making a point. Rather, he is stating an opinion that we as the community should respect. We may disagree, as most of the community does, but we have no right to call him a sore loser, as some have done, or a hypocrite, or any other insults some editors have slung. Also, note that Kurt merely says self-noms are evidence of power hunger; he is not accusing the user of power hunger, but expressing concerns. I think we should let Kurt be. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also don't think Kurt is trying to use his CDB question to drag people between a rock and a hard place. Opposing people for following policy in some cases might be irrational, but he has a right to his opinion, especially on a controversial policy like CDB.Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 01:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've argued that sentiment many times, Erik, and I have defended Kurt's "right" to say whatever he wants at RFA. I have a firm belief though, that Kurt is laughing his ass off right now, because he, in his incessant way, has convinced the community that he is allowed to be an ass.  He can say whatever he wants at RfA, and anyone that challenges him is automatically deemed a harasser?  Ha.  As a community, we've been had.  He is currently inventing reasons to oppose, including his unanswerable question about "cool down blocks" (there is no answer that will get Kurt to support, how convenient for him).  I'm well aware of his few-and-far-between "support" votes and neutrals.  I'm utterly convinced, after seeing his migration from his cookie-cutter "self-nom" opposes to his more elaborate "I'll find a reason" opposes, that he has absolutely no intentions of adding any informative, reasoned opinions to RfA.  I firmly believe he should be banned from RfA discussions for disruptiveness.  If, by typing this, I'm also banned from RfA, so be it.  I'm sick and tired of seeing this particular editor given "free reign" on other editors and their (already stressful) RfAs, and worse, given such free reign that no one is even allowed to challenge his ill-founded rationales.  He's making them up on the spot, and because "it's just Kurt", we're allowing this?  Bullshit.  Excuse my language, but it's bullshit. If anyone else besides Kurt typed what Kurt types, they'd be flamed off RfA and discounted as talking bollocks.  Why is he getting special treatment?  Becuase he's been disrupting RfA consistently for a long time?  Total bullshit.  I am well aware of the previous RfC(s), ANI report (s), etc.  Unimportant, IMO. His "opposition", that he is prescriptively following, is bullshit.   Keeper    76  01:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Inventing reasons"? Has it ever occurred to you that I'm actually thinking this through, and as I think it through more and more I realize that there are more and more questions/issues that are very very useful as an indicator of a potential servant's overall worthiness for the role?  Yes, I tend towards using litmus tests&mdash;because they work!  You think I enjoy having to risk being banned for doing what I think is best for Wikipedia?  It's not a risk I want to take, but it's a risk I'm willing to take, because Wikipedia is worth it.  It's not like I'm being spiteful or cruel here.  I'm simply stating my own assessment of the suitability of a given individual to be a community servant.  I'm doing it as politely and honestly as possible&mdash;what more do you want?  If someone puts himself up for judgment, then he should expect to be judged.  By and large, the nominees don't seem to have a problem with this--and they're the actual subjects of my comments.  So I can't see any valid reason for you to get so upset, unless you're just looking to draw attention to yourself.
 * And yes, I am doing this explicitly to see how someone handles being put between a rock and a hard place. A community servant who does his job right isn't going to be able to please everyone all of the time.  So what's wrong with putting candidates on the spot now and seeing how they hold up?  "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations are part of life, and they're certainly part of being a Wikipedia community servant.  It's important to know how well a person deals with them.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 03:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Better refactor that! Common sense observations of Kurt's RFA posts aren't allowed here. SashaNein (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He's actually said that he will support if the user answers yes and means it. I actually think that if it wasn't Kurt, the editor would be left alone, however, because Kurt has opposed so much, he is getting bombarded. I won't write another word, though, until I hear Kurt's sentiments on this matter. "I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 01:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you have no problems with Fred Phelps, then? (NB: This is a joke.) Chaotic  Reality  01:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've actually struggled with that question for a long time, as an atheist and a humanist and so opposed to religion and Phelp's hatred to humans. I can oppose a protest while defending it's legality at the same time, can't I? Or at least that's my (rather weak and apologetic) rational. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 01:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Keeper, the only way you're going to get Kurt banned from RFA at this point is an Arbitration Committee case, which I'm sure would royally piss him off. I don't endorse doing so.  But I'm putting the idea out there (merely because I have some degree of fascination).  It's your prerogative. &mdash;  scetoaux (T | C)  01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a popular Heinz product to me. Chaotic  Reality  01:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (moved from rfa page)-- Koji Dude  (C) 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Once again, because nobody seems to know this exists, a long, fruitless discussion on Kurt's Oppose has been moved to the talk page.-- Koji Dude  (C) 01:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because it doesn't exist! "This page doesn't currently exist; you can search this title in other pages or edit this page.". I take your point, though Chaotic  Reality  02:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Ah, you changed it during the edit conflict. Fair cop.  Chaotic  Reality  02:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * KojiDude, you sneaky bastard, you. ;-) -- Koji Dude  (C) 02:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from missing the word "she", yes :P Chaotic  Reality  02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of that essay. I disregard it because I am not responsible for another person's actions, regardless of whose idea it was in the first place. &mdash;  scetoaux (T | C)  02:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * <--I am completely pissed that my comment to Kurt was moved here without my permission. Why is Kurt allowed to willy-nilly allowed to be as ass as he wants without response? His oppose should not be unchallenged, because his oppose is without merit. Completely pissed.  I'm going offline.   Keeper    76  02:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per AN, there are definitely parts that belong at the RFA and definitely parts that could be left over here. Tough call to make, if someone wants to take a stab at it, it would probably be worthwhile. And refactor my comment to say "Some discussion moved..." xeno  ( talk ) 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have moved it regardless of who commented and why. I know full well that Kurt's opinion holds no weight whatso-ever, but I doubt the candidate was enjoying the debate too much. He shouldn't have his RfA overshadowed by this.-- Koji Dude  (C) 02:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries — but yes, I think the talk page is probably a more appropriate forum for the ensuing discussion, which has been interesting to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's plainly obvious why such discussions should be moved away from the RfA. They are distracting, protracted and, commonly, very touchy. Keeper, don't fret man, it wasn't intended to be a slight at you and I personally understand your frustration. The mover made the correct call here though, and the evidence is above all of us. Well, above me at the moment.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to Kurt's "so-called policies" note above, I regretfully disagree with his methodology. His proposal is to effectively change users' behaviour then change the policy or guideline to match that behaviour. I could not disagree more that this is an error of judgement. The policies and gidelines are put in place through community consensus - the community as a collective has in the past agreed that these structures are appropriate and to work by them. If there is concern over a policy, or any other content on wikipedia, the correct approach is to attempt to change consensus for the policy, not to berate or criticise those who would enact it. I would have major concerns about any user attempting to affect policy without consensus, just as I would have concern over an editor trying to affect content in a similar way. Gazimoff Write Read 16:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is not how it works, how it's supposed to work, or how it was ever intended to work. I appreciate that you've been misled by the unfortunate choice of the term "policy", but in fact they're the opposite of what is typically meant by that term.  I've suggested in the past that we change what they're called to rectify this situation, but apparently there's too much institutional inertia for that--so all that's left is to try and educate newer members such as yourself to understand what they really are.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 15:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I see your point, although I think I'd benefit from understanding how you feel a policy should work on Wikipedia. My own take is that when presented with a given situation, editors and admins tended to handle them in different ways. Through the collaborative nature of the project, a feeling of best practice would emerge that the community would agree on. This best practice woulld then be formalised and codified into a guideline or policy, depending on project importance. The problem I think you're reffering to is when there is a disagreement over what best practice for a given situation is. Trouble is, and this goes back to my earlier point, how do we bring about change? Do we challenge the people who would enact policy and penalise them for it? Do we encourage people to think about policy, and if it still matches best practice, or if pollicy should be overridden by ignoring it? Or do we challenge the policy itself, stating that we no longer feel it represents best practice and reccomend alternatives? On a personal level, I'd probably go for option three and partially option 2.  Gazi moff ( mentor / review ) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Kurt is using RFA as a platform to garner support for his views on cool down blocks ("I'll oppose becuase your opinion on them differs from mine"). This is completely the wrong forum, use the blocking policy talk page if you must, but not here.-- Serviam  (talk)  10:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't make false (if not outright dishonest) assumptions about my motives. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 17:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)