Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/It Is Me Here

Edit count for It Is Me Here
User:It_Is_Me_Here

run at Mon Aug 18 13:20:15 2008 GMT

Category:             2 Image talk:           5 Image:                137 Mainspace             566 MediaWiki talk:       5 Portal:               11 Talk:                 52 Template talk:        19 Template:             83 User talk:            50 User:                 59 Wikipedia talk:       14 Wikipedia:            223 avg edits per page    1.63 earliest              08:37, 23 October 2006 number of unique pages 754 total                 1226

2006/10 8  2006/11 0   2006/12 1   2007/1  1   2007/2  0   2007/3  0   2007/4  0   2007/5  3   2007/6  3   2007/7  7   2007/8  2   2007/9  0   2007/10 0   2007/11 2   2007/12 46   2008/1  33   2008/2  97   2008/3  313   2008/4  43   2008/5  31   2008/6  91   2008/7  305   2008/8  240

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red  denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 48 [2]Europa Barbarorum 9 [3]Peter I of Russia 9 [4]List of United States Presidential names 8 [5]Rome: Total War 5 [6]Mickey Mouse degrees 5 [7]Bingo wings 5 [8]FNG syndrome 4 [9]Bushism 4 [10]Vodka 4 [11]Osona (comarca) 4 [12]Transfiguration Cathedral (Saint Petersburg) 4 [13]Aptekarsky Island 3 [14]Dark Cloud 3 [15]National Assembly of France 3 [16]Lucy Jane Bledsoe

Talk: 4 [17]Europa Barbarorum 2 [18]Ali G

Category: 2 [19]Chemical tests

Image: 3 [20]Malayalam.jpg 3 [21]Osona Flag New.svg 2 [22]Nuvola apps date.png 2 [23]London local government 1961-1971.png

Image talk: 2 [24]Imbox style.png

MediaWiki talk: 5 [25]Sitestatstext

Portal: 2 [26]Mathematics/MathematicsTopics 2 [27]Scientology/Did you know

Template: 14 [28]Usercheck-full 2 [29]User VG-1 2 [30]User VG   2  [31]User VG-3 2 [32]User VG-2

Template talk: 8 [33]Did you know 2 [34]WikipediaSister 2 [35]Notice 2 [36]Iran-geo-stub 2 [37]WP India

User: 40 [38]It Is Me Here 8 [39]It Is Me Here/Accounts 4 [40]It Is Me Here/About me   3  [41]It Is Me Here/Account information 2 [42]SuggestBot/Regulars

User talk: 25 [43]It Is Me Here 4 [44]MichaelBillington 3 [45]Seraphim Whipp 3 [46]Dmn 2 [47]Jmlk17

Wikipedia: 46 [48]Village pump (technical) 41 [49]Village pump (proposals) 19 [50]Village pump (assistance) 15 [51]Help desk 12 [52]Village pump (policy) 8 [53]New admin school/Deleting/delete 6 [54]Bot requests 5 [55]Graphic Lab/Image workshop 5 [56]Requested templates 4 [57]Requests for adminship/It Is Me Here 4 [58]Sandbox 4 [59]Images and media for deletion/2007 December 19 4 [60]Articles for deletion/Polish reggae 3 [61]Translation/Sadaqah 3 [62]Translation/Aptekarsky Island

Wikipedia talk: 6 [63]Manual of Style (capital letters) 2 [64]Sandbox/Word Association 2 [65]Babel/Levels 2 [66]Babel

If there were any problems, please [67]email Interiot or post at  [68]User talk:Interiot.


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 13:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

Kurt's oppose discussion

 * 1) Oppose &mdash; I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 14:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved the discussion to the talk page. —Cyclonenim T@lk? 20:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't agree with you at all there. I have outlined why I would like to be granted administrative tools, and if self-nominated RfAs are going to be opposed ipso facto, then what is the point of having them at all? Indeed, such is the extent to which I do not accept the validity of your criticism that I move that your oppose vote be discounted. It Is Me Here (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry It Is Me Here but Kurt is allowed to express his opinion. Please do not get into a flamewar with him--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs ) 14:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is Me Here, I suggest reading this.  Little Mountain  5   review! 15:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Xp54321, I have no intention of getting into a flame war, and I have a problem with Kurt's argument rather than Kurt himself. Nowhere on Wikipedia have I seen any policies or guidelines which state that self-nominated RfAs should be opposed ipso facto (else, again, why would they be an option?), and as RfAs come down to votes and percentages at the end of the day, I do not see why arguments such as Kurt's should be counted when there is no official policy that supports his view. Moreover, I would argue that his calling me "power-hungry" is more of a personal insult that my not accepting his criticism. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Re:  Little Mountain  5  , I have now read User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA, but I do not see why the fact that he uses this argument often should make it any better. Moreover, I would argue that his dismissing self-nominated RfAs off-hand is an invalid argument as it is an appeal to motive. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're opinion of Kurt's vote/motive is irrelevent, though. He has the right to vote for whatever means he pleases. Please do not join the bandwagon in trying to argue around it, it simply won't work. You are not the first to voice this opinion, I doubt you'll be the last either, but complaining will make absolutely no difference. Just let the bureaucrats do their job and, most likely, dismiss his vote altogether in their judgement. —Cyclonenim T@lk? 16:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not "joining the bandwagon" if he does it on his own RfA. I agree that Kurt is entitled to his opinion, but he is not immune from comment, especially not from those who are directly the subject of his votes.  naerii  18:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is. The amount of RfAs that we see where people argue against Kurt's vote. By doing so here, he is joining that bandwagon rather than accepting Kurt's vote. If he/she wishes to know the reasons behind the vote, he/she can either read the link that LittleMountain5 provided or they can go ask on Kurt's page. —Cyclonenim T@lk? 18:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's not allowed to question Kurt, is that what you're saying? By that logic people should never question votes on RfAs, ever, because commenting on people's votes is "arguing" and pointless. You can't 'join a bandwagon' if you have no prior knowledge of the bandwagon. It Is Me Here has little to no experience with the workings of RfA or the weird behaviours that candidates are meant to adopt in order to pass. He was simply responding to a comment that accused him of being power hungry. And he's not allowed to respond because the person who wrote that comment makes the same comment of everyone? Bizarre. I don't see how the candidate's opinion of anyone's rationale is "irrelevant".  naerii  22:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly - I had indeed never come across Kurt Weber before I submitted this RfA and it does indeed strike me as odd that everyone who volunteers to help the Wikipedia community should have to undergo a ritual slap in the face which they can do nothing about. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that, while my argument is indeed an appeal to motive, such arguments are not inherently fallacious. An appeal to motive is an informal fallacies, not formal, and as such is only fallacious in a given situation if one's motives are indeed irrelevant to the case at hand.  It seems to me that, when seeking a position that gives someone quite a lot of practical ability with a significant potential for abuse, one's motives in seeking out that position are quite relevant--and that therefore questioning them is not in the least fallacious.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 17:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer the nominee's question: The point in having self-noms is that some people like them, and in fact think they're a positive sign. That's fine; I'm just not one of those people.  You're not going to please everybody all the time.  That's life.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 17:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To expand on that: This is the reason I ask the cool-down block question on RFAs that aren't self-noms. It deliberately puts people in a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't situation."--they give one answer and they're likely to get an oppose from me (and possibly a few others), and they give the other answer and everyone else will oppose.  Part of being a Wikipedia community servant is doing things that aren't going to make everyone happy, so that's why I like to force people to take a side one way or the other and stick with it.  It's one thing to take a side and then change your mind when provided with new arguments or information that outweigh what you had previously; it's something else entirely to not take a side altogether.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 17:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for coming back and posting again; I didn't think you would, to be honest, given the brevity of your initial response. Next, I still do not think it fair that you will flatly reject so many RfAs as your first response of the three responses above clearly suggests that you think that a candidate's answer to Question 1 does not constitute an explanation of their motive; after all, what more can they do than explicitly state why they would like to become an administrator? As for cool down blocks, I fail to see how taking a stance on them constitutes a no-win situation, given how clear-cut the advice in WP:COOLDOWN is - would you care to elaborate on why the community is split over something that official policy, at least, makes out to look clear-cut? It Is Me Here (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actions speak louder than words. If you were power-hungry, I certainly wouldn't expect you to come out and admit it, so I find Q1 rather irrelevant here.  As for cool-down blocks, so-called "official policy" is really anything but.  The so-called "rules" and "policies" here on Wikipedia are totally non-prescriptive and non-binding.  They are simply descriptions of what has typically happened in the past, and there is no obligation to follow them in present or future actions.  One should use his own judgment on what's best for Wikipedia in every given situation, and not cling to a bunch of irrelevant so-called "rules" and "policies".  That you do not yet understand that is yet another reason why you should not be a Wikipedia community servant.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 18:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, I don't think I agree with this move to the talk page. I get where you're coming from, Cyclonenim, but unlike almost every other discussion under a kmweber oppose, in this case it was an *on-topic* conversation between the *nominee* and Kurt. Surely that belongs on the project page? --barneca (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is necessary to keep the main page size down to prevent lagging on some people's internet connections. The conversation between Kurt and the candidate is only really relevant to them, so there should be no problem with it taking place here. —Cyclonenim T@lk? 13:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Re barneca, I really don't mind where you put this personally and I wouldn't like to comment.
 * Re Kurt Weber, surely you cannot simply expect the worst in people? After all, I currently have no proof that you are not wanted by the police for murder, but I do not believe that you are as I have no reason to. More specifically, I do not have any proof that you are wanted by the police for murder either and so am inclined to assume that you are not; you are innocent until proven guilty, as it were. Moreover, as you have not proven that I am just intent on grabbing power beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. ignoring everything else apart from this RfA, I am either out to get power [as is suggested by the self-nomination, in your eyes] or seeking to be able to replace PNGs with SVGs [as is suggested by my answer to Question 1]). Thus, I am disappointed that you should oppose me regardless, and not at least submit a neutral vote. As for policy being non-binding and largely irrelevant, how can I know that when Blocking policy has Template:Policy at the top, which explicitly states that what is contained within the page on which that template has been placed should be followed by all editors? It Is Me Here (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Kurt is allowed to express his views like you are It Is Me Here. Let's get past this one !vote and move on. America69 (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For something like this, which has so much potential for abuse, then yes, I do expect the worst out of people. I'm not willing to take the risks involved in assuming good until explicit evidence of evil here.  I assume evil until there is sufficient evidence of the good.  This is not a criminal court, and we are not bound by the same standards.  As for the so-called "policy" template, I'm aware of what it says, and it's wrong. It's diametrically at odds with what these so-called "policies" are actually supposed to be on Wikipedia.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)