Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2

Username:	Mattythewhite User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Jun 18, 2006 18:24:37 Unique pages edited:	23,618 Average edits per page:	5.33 Live edits:	122,722 Deleted edits:	3,249 Total edits (including deleted):	125,971

Namespace Totals

Article	88243	71.93% Talk	4067	3.32% User	3724	3.04% User talk	10413	8.49% Wikipedia	2583	2.11% Wikipedia talk	516	0.42% File	8	0.01% Template	10869	8.86% Template talk	1676	1.37% Category	435	0.35% Category talk	138	0.11% Portal	4	0.00% Book	1	0.00% Namespace Totals Pie Chart Month counts 2006/06	54 	2006/07	1708 	2006/08	3800 	2006/09	2331 	2006/10	2622 	2006/11	1793 	2006/12	3493 	2007/01	4610 	2007/02	3400 	2007/03	2792 	2007/04	2915 	2007/05	3367 	2007/06	4445 	2007/07	4824 	2007/08	4178 	2007/09	2313 	2007/10	1362 	2007/11	1025 	2007/12	774 	2008/01	411 	2008/02	397 	2008/03	396 	2008/04	270 	2008/05	474 	2008/06	1317 	2008/07	1431 	2008/08	1830 	2008/09	726 	2008/10	492 	2008/11	836 	2008/12	745 	2009/01	1426 	2009/02	1102 	2009/03	1215 	2009/04	1034 	2009/05	1127 	2009/06	973 	2009/07	1460 	2009/08	1308 	2009/09	683 	2009/10	470 	2009/11	530 	2009/12	442 	2010/01	1197 	2010/02	415 	2010/03	709 	2010/04	470 	2010/05	756 	2010/06	1181 	2010/07	1251 	2010/08	1026 	2010/09	391 	2010/10	428 	2010/11	292 	2010/12	278 	2011/01	538 	2011/02	219 	2011/03	186 	2011/04	327 	2011/05	416 	2011/06	556 	2011/07	1240 	2011/08	1288 	2011/09	842 	2011/10	275 	2011/11	670 	2011/12	828 	2012/01	2351 	2012/02	1887 	2012/03	2361 	2012/04	2027 	2012/05	1421 	2012/06	2268 	2012/07	2180 	2012/08	1599 	2012/09	1747 	2012/10	2250 	2012/11	1491 	2012/12	2050 	2013/01	2596 	2013/02	1734 	2013/03	1430 	2013/04	1776 	2013/05	2829

Top edited pages are disabled for users with over 45000 edits.

Traditional encyclopedic content
Let's have a look at page views, comparing Mattythewhite's page with some of Kiefer's, as highlighted by Kraxler.
 * Mattythewhite - 11,170 for York City F.C.
 * Kiefer Wolfowitz - total of 3,211 from major thirds tuning (807), Ralph Patt (604), Discipline Global Machine (1,016) and Shapley–Folkman lemma (784).

Make of that what you will, but seems to me that many more readers prefer Mattythewhite's "non-traditional" content to Kiefer Wolfowitz's "traditional" content. GiantSnowman 14:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * More persons still suffer from HIV. Quantity, not quality. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you just compared football fans to HIV sufferers?! GiantSnowman 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not read what I wrote? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No - please clarify what you meant. GiantSnowman 16:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fast answer, Snowman. And I'm amazed: I hadn't been aware that Wikipedia seems to be a major source of knowledge for sports fans, although I knew that the sports section is taditionally the most read part of most newspapers... Kraxler (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Over half-a-million page views for the Manchester United F.C. article, and I'm sure there are more football articles which are even higher. To basically say that such content is not worthy of an encyclopedia is a great disrespect to the many, many readers who turn to Wikipedia for football-related information, as well as the editors who maintain such articles (myself included!) GiantSnowman 15:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would anybody care about your interests?  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you getting personal? GiantSnowman 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, why the crusade here? It transpires you focus a lot of your time editing esoteric articles that would not be considered traditional content, just as Matty has (and Matty has dozens of GAs, several featured articles and lists, and a featured topic). Are you now suggesting there's a scale on which GAs, FAs, FTCs should be judged when it comes to assessing one's contribution to Wikipedia? Is writing extensively about a football club in the north of England any better or worse than writing about how to tune a guitar? There must be some bad blood here, please explain. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The candidate writes badly, even here, and so it is questionable whether he can serve well as an administrator. I've never interacted with the candidate, as far as I remember, and I wish him well.
 * Again, the universe has space for Wikia and other pop-culture repositories, which presumably need administrators. I applaud him for contributing to Wikipedia, and I trust he shall continue.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  18:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How does your personal (and inaccurate) interpretation of his writing skills have any relevance to his ability to apply blocks to vandals for instance? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * After reading Kiefer's concern about the writing skills in the Oppose comment earlier today, I went and carefully re-read those answers. I agree that the writing is substandard, especially knowing that this is how the candidate chooses to present himself to the community.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How would your interpretation of his writing style prevent Matty from being a net positive to the project as an admin? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If I can't consider the workmanship in the questions to the candidate, then just what evidence can I consider? But to answer your question, I agree that it is possible that the candidate could be an asset to the project while having exhibited substandard writing skills in preparing the questions for candidacy.  Do you agree that the writing in the questions to the candidate is substandard?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is like comparing a university degree to an apprenticeship. Matty may not (in your opinion) be able to write like Shakespeare, but he knows how to keep Wikipedia turning over nicely.  An insistence on some imaginary literary qualification is entirely based in bollocks-land, and I'm shocked and disappointed that some editors I thought were clued up are now demonstrating some kind of snobbery.  How would Matty becoming an admin be a detriment to the Wikipedia?  Answer that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You tell me my opinion, tell me without evidence the future conduct of "Matty", discuss something imaginary, relate that to genitalia, allege umbrage, invoke class warfare, ask a question that only a diety deity would know, and then use the imperative mood to evoke the knowledge of a diety  deity .  You got me, I'm not a diety  deity .  Do you agree that the writing in the questions to the candidate is substandard?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're commenting on writing ability and you talk about a "diety"? Really?  Is this a joke?  I'm glad KW is relying on your analysis when you can't even spell deity. Well played the pair of you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback regarding my spelling error. I also learned a lot from your calling this discussion "play".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot? C- for writing here I guess.  And when critiquing others' spelling, grammar, writing style etc, best to avoid hypocrisy.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad writing

 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would look to be more heavily involved in the areas I am experienced in, at least initially. One area I feel I could add to is the deletion process, especially PROD and AfD, having been long-involved in these. I am familiar with the protection policy, and having nominated a sizeable number of articles for protection I believe I would be capable of administering this. Further, having vast experience in warning users for vandalism I would be able to assist with the WP:AIV backlog. In terms of administrator responsibilities relating more to article creation, I would be interested in becoming more involved at WP:DYK; having contributed to the project with 28 DYK entries this is an area I have a long-standing interest in.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I consider myself as having varied areas of interest on Wikipedia, contributing not only to content expansion and creation but to more small-scale and mundane activities.


 * In terms of content, I'm proud of the 'featured' and 'good' content I've contributed to, especially the work I've done on York City F.C.-related topics. I suppose this is due to my support for this team, with that being the primary reason I decided to start editing here in the first place. In addition to getting content promoted to elevated status, it's a job in itself maintaining this status, with standards having risen considerably over the last six years. Article creation is another area of interest I take pride. I was especially active in this when I was newer and there was a greater number of articles still to be started. I do still create new articles, and when I do I ensure they are well-referenced and meet the relevant notability guidelines.


 * I feel doing the 'little things' is arguably as important as performing large-scale work on specific articles. I have been consistent in dealing with disruptive users, such as out-and-out vandals and those adding unsourced content, which is an important task because it helps keep the encyclopaedia clean, accurate and respectable. Further, I have been active in performing smaller-scale edits on a number of articles, particularly BLPs, helping copy edit, reference and perform other WP:MOS-compliant edits.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: The collaborative nature of a wiki means that disagreements and conflicts are to be expected for most active contributors. As the years have progressed I have become more adept and skilled at dealing with disagreements, and would say I am generally approachable and friendly in my communication with others. Whenever I do find myself in a disagreement with another user, I tend to message them on their talk page about the issue, and if we cannot find common ground I will usually seek independent views at WT:FOOTY to help garner consensus. If I find myself feeling stressed by a conflict I usually take a short break to help clear my head, but with the experience I have in communicating with other users I tend not to become too emotionally affected by disagreements.

Even in his quoted response to the standard questions, the candidate has trouble writing standard written English. Most of the sentences have clichés, and nearly all sentences are badly expressed. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  16:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And that affects his ability to determine whether a vandal needs to be blocked how, exactly? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, please, you cannot lecture anyone about clear or precise language skills. GiantSnowman 16:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "clear or precise language skills"! LMAO Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  18:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "LMAO"? That sums up your meaningless oppose.  You have yet to demonstrate why your version of "classical writing" would prevent Matty from being a net positive to the project as an admin.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor Unscintillating evaluated the candidate's writing, above. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  13:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeat, "You have yet to demonstrate why your version of "classical writing" would prevent Matty from being a net positive to the project as an admin." The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read a dictionary and learn "classical", a word that I did not use. Your broken-record false witnessing jeopardizes your soul (and does not improve discussion here).  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Per your referenced analysis, I'm not a "diety". Give me a break.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A "featured article" with "brilliant prose"?
York City Football Club is an English association football club ["association-football club", per WP:MOS?] based in York, North Yorkshire. The club participates in League Two, the fourth tier of English football. Founded in 1922, they ["the club" was singular] joined the Football League in 1929,[inappropriate comma] and have spent most of their history in the lower divisions. The club briefly rose as high as ["briefly rose as high as" is nonsense; "rose to and played in"] the second tier of English football,[dangling participle] spending two seasons [delete "two seasons"] in the Second Division in the 1970s [replace "in the 1970s" with 197m–197n]. At the end of [After?] the 2003–04 season the club lost their League status when they were relegated from [to] the Third Division [redundant; delete "lost their League status when they"]. They remained in the Conference National until [through] the end of [delete "the end of"] the 2011–12 season, when they were promoted back to [word choice] the Football League following [after] a [not "a"; their/its/the?] 2–1 victory against Luton Town at Wembley Stadium in the 2012 Conference National play-off Final.

This FA-status article has many English errors in the lede, which lacks even the "good prose" expected of GAs. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  19:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't the right forum for discussing the failings of the featured article process. Please try WT:FA. Struway2 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the forum to evaluate the candidate, whose FA-status article has been mentioned as a merit. How many of his supporters citing the article have bothered to read the lede?  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If this article has got your knickers in that much of a twist, request a FA review. Or, better yet, be constructive for once and suggest a better lede. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Kindly avoid sexism and keep your fantasies about my underwear to yourself. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please take this issue to the FA director (User:Raul654) or the FA reviewers, or, in the worst case, WP:FAR. Once again, for the fifth or sixth time, this has nothing to do with this candidate's ability to spot a vandal and block him, does it? FAs aren't "self-promoted".  You should be chastising the promoting delegate, not the writer.  You've got this arse about face.  You're suddenly running a crusade which is most unbecoming and which will drive even more candidates away for RFA.  Brilliant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that this is only my second RfA vote, Keifer's actions do indeed make me reluctant to participate in these debates in future. I'm sure I'll get a snide comment about that from him, but whatever. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your behavior here and at e.g. discussions related to Wikipediocracy speaks for itself. Don't worry about me. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your behaviour here (alone) Kiefer speaks volumes. You're distressing the whole RFA process, and you're bringing in new criteria that are entirely unnecessary.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For his last edit's summary, WP administrator and bureaucrat The Rambling Man's stated "sadly you're the one causing all the issues Kiefer, that you're chasing people away, making people feel stupid, making people feel inadequate, you're the big man, right?".
 * γνῶθι σεαυτόν
 * Classically, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So you write in a language that 99% of people won't understand? Fantastic, because that's clearly helpful to all users... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Brilliant Kiefer, you're really engaging us all. (And I meant 100% what I said, you, Kiefer, are destroying this place from within. I hope you're happy about that. Mind you, I only edited "non-trad" articles, so I guess you're links to my RFA and RFB are .... for what reason exactly.....?!!)  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The prose of the lede is perfect. Your proposed changes are mostly nonsense, partly unnecessary (exchanging synonyms) and possibly inappropriate for a lede. A lede is supposed to give an overview, detailed info should be given in the main text. Kraxler (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) As this has now made it onto WP:ANI, I followed various links and ended up here. KW's analysis of the introduction shows a lack of familiarity with British English, notably: As a former English teacher, I can't see any errors in the text cited. Number  5  7  15:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC) A featured article with a perfectly acceptable (even a "good") lead. KW's objections are all without basis in fact, a clear (and hereafter citable) example of an inability to understand variations in the English language. Surprising for such a "scholarly"(?) contributor. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "association-football" - no hyphen in this word. See association football.
 * "the club" was singular" - sports clubs are referred to in the plural in British English, except in certain instances ("the club" being one)
 * "relegated from [to]" - from is correct. They were not relegated to the Third Division
 * "until [through]" until is correct. Is through an Americanism?
 * "a [not "a"; their/its/the?] 2–1" - this is also correct
 * Now I've wasted my time reading the "corrections", I concur with Number 57. Either Kiefer is being arrogant in the extreme and suggesting that only American English is valid (which is incredibly inappropriate, especially for an article about a British club) or he simply isn't as eloquent as he professes himself to be. There, see, I can use totally, and pointlessly, toff-like phrases as well. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could add that "lost their League status when they", while objectively redundant, may help any reader who ... ahem ... doesn't know that the Third Division is still part of the League, while the next thing down isn't. It may help them, for example, to understand that "relegated from" is correct there. Objective non-redundancy isn't the whole story in good writing. Innit? --Stfg (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely get your point, but "relegated to" is perfectly acceptable British English, just do a search on the BBC website for "relegated to" (e.g. 1, 2, 3 etc etc etc. This is British English, which ENGVAR entitles article writers to use.  Sorry, article-writers to use.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Both "relegated from" and "relegated to" are good English, but the facts of this case are they they were in the Third Division and at the end of the season were relegated from it, to the next thing down. So his change is an incorrect change of meaning. See 2003–04 in English football. (I am British, by the way, and of course for that article, BrE is mandatory per ENGVAR.) To be fair, not all his "corrections" are wrong: he's right about the comma, and I believe "following" used in the sense of "after" is managementspeak. --Stfg (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, so we can toss up over a comma and some business bullshit, but what the hell has that got to do with Matty's ability to be an admin? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing at all. I've always been clear about that, and that's why I piled on with the change of meaning -- a copy editor's worst fear. I made the last point in order to be fair, is all. And you, too, have joined in the business of taking KW's criticisms apart. Perhaps we've already done that well enough by now? --Stfg (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Blatant troll votes
I am considering removing (by the current numbering) oppose !votes 2 and 3, which appear to be blatant trolling by brand-new accounts that have no intention of making a serious contribution to the RfA. I consider this action to be necessary, but if a bureaucrat would like to take care of this, it might be less controversial. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think they should be removed not sure what the protocol is though. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 21:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They should at least be indented. I'd prefer actual removal. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've indented them. A 'crat can always undo what I did if they wish. I wanted to hat them as well, but the template seemed to interfere with the numbering (made Kiefer's vote #1 instead of #2), so I gave up on that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A note that an IP deindented them, so I reindented. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 09:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize this isn't the forum for discussing this, but perhaps we should change WP:RFA so only auto-confirmed accounts can vote (currently only registered accounts can vote). If I want to "troll-vote", I create an account, vote, and I'm done. I realize even a troll can edit enough things to become auto-confirmed, but at least it makes it a little harder, and I don't see why non-auto-confirmed accounts should be voting, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would 100% support that. If an account isn't autoconfirmed, and it is used to vote in an RfA, it is almost certain to either be a sock of a blocked user, or someone simply looking to troll. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand the concern, but I also have faith that the reviewing Crat would be able to weigh them properly. Adding the SPA tag would seem to have been sufficient.  I'm reluctant to remove any vote that isn't my a sockpuppet or unless it clearly violates some policy, as that is a line that is difficult to draw at the threshold.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that the bureaucrats would ignore the votes. However, there are two problems with leaving them. First, it distorts the percentages, and editors are influenced by percentages. Second, and less important, it clutters the RfA with obvious garbage.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The percentages shows aren't the same as the percentages used by the Crat to determine consensus. It is a rough count only, so I'm not as concerned with that.  As for garbage, we have already moved some comments to the talk page, and we don't need to judge the number of previous edits to decide if something should be moved here.  We have to be careful to not try to redefine policy here on the talk page of an individual RfA.  As for garbage: at every RfA, there is a degree of "garbage", some of it from well established and well meaning editors.  Policy doesn't disallow new editors from voting simply because they are new, so we have to tread carefully in how we treat the votes here.  This is why we have Crats to begin with, to weigh the votes.  We need to be careful not to encroach on what is normally reserved for them to do.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your first sentence. To clarify my point, voting editors often see the percentages in that box many of us have on our user or talk pages. That percentage influences some of those editors. I'm not talking about the bureaucrats. Less clutter is better. We need to apply a little common sense here. RfAs have become inherently disruptive for all sorts of reasons. To the extent we can minimize that disruption, that's a good thing. In any event, I'm talking about changing policy, which we're not going to do here, not really about my "controversial" indentations of the two troll votes.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And I am agreeing with Newyorkbrad that this is best reserved for a Crat. If they were sockpuppets or something less borderline, then removing/striking/indenting isn't controversial.  As for the percentages influencing other votes, I'm not as convinced that is the case or that policy allows that as the reason to remove votes.  My concern is simply "where do we draw the line?" Someone with 10 edits? 20? 100?  My opinion is the same as yours, that the votes have no value, but I think we are close to exceeding our authority.  That is why it is my opinion that it should be handled by a Crat. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We're talking at cross purposes here. That said, a bureaucrat could have undone my indentations if they felt it was inappropriate. Indeed, if any other admin had undone my indentation, I would have left it alone. Policy isn't as clear to me on this issue as it apparently is to you. And NYB did not say that policy prohibited the indentation or removal of the votes. He said he felt it would be less controversial if it were done by a bureaucrat.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the lack of clarity that makes reserving for Crats prudent, particularly since you had already participated in the RfA. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved from Kiefer's oppose

 * Pure snobbery. GiantSnowman 08:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has enough low-brow projects with members awarding one another GAs for illiterate articles. I wouldn't object to such projects' responsible and literate leaders having limited administrative powers. But c.f. Stephen J. Tonsor on neoconservatism.... The cliches and tortured syntax of this editor's responses to the standard questions confirm that this candidate is unlikely to be the C.L.R. James of football. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC) (underlining 16:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC))
 * "...there is here not culture but a need for human relations of a size and scope which will in the end triumph over all deficiencies." (C.L.R. James, Mariners, Renegades, and Castaways) Matty's quite good at human relations. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since when was Wikipedia a "traditional encyclopaedia"? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the noun "content". Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean traditional content like alternative tunings for guitar, jazz-guitarists, independent record labels and higher mathematics? Are there numbers available how many people consult "traditional" content and how many people consult sports articles? Maybe a task for some wiki-statistician... Kraxler (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see this RFA's talk page for the relevant statistics. GiantSnowman 14:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Like logarithm, statistics receives 4000 views daily.
 * Guitar tunings receives 1500 views daily and guitar chord 500, not bad for the world's most popular musical instrument (since the first enlightenment patron). Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Association football receives just under 6,500 views daily. Not bad for the world's most popular sport. GiantSnowman 16:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Guitars and their ancestors contributed to music, mechanics, Diophantine approximation, harmonic analysis, etc. What is football's contribution to civilization, Andy Capp? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh, again with the personal attacks? Please stop, it's becoming tiresome. As for football, it was played by Ancient Greeks and Romans, as well as in Ancient China, are they high-brow enough for you? GiantSnowman 16:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, this is becoming entertaining. We now need "classically-trained" admins when we can barely get any admins at all?  This is all wrong.  KW, do you think allowing Matty to have the ability to block vandals on our "less-traditional content" (e.g. football, as you seem to imply) is a net gain to the project?  Do you think Matty will suddenly wade into a discussion about deletion of guitar tuning?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that Mattythewhite would perform better than Giant Snowman? Giant Snowman writes grammatically and without clichés. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  17:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironically, that's something you appear unable to do, based on that rambling farce. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Luke, Run along and play nice somewhere else. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  11:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Now it's clear why WP:NOTPANTOMIME is a redlink. --Stfg (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, perhaps that wasn't useful. What I really meant was, OK, so he said something that sounded mighty like Not in my encyclopedia, and many people aren't impressed. So what? If it were going to change the outcome, it might be worth debating it, but all this "mine's bigger than yours" stuff (regarding view counts, obviously, what else?) is just noise. By just how much is any of this going to change the price of bread? GiantSnowman, you're an admin. How can you complain about personal attacks after you started them off with "Pure snobbery"? Great example! --Stfg (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Despite his literary studies..., GiantSnowman apparently misread my question about a comic character as the amusing "What, Andy Capp, is football's contribution to civilization?". (I could have imagined his having written a thesis on the subject, but not that he'd think I was addressing him.) Precisely because GiantSnowman is an administrator, he gets to lead with personal attacks without facing any consequences. If GS resigns his administrator status and submits to a new RfA, then I will reconsider my oppose. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain how my comment was a personal attack. GiantSnowman 20:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Please explain how "Would seem to be well qualified to be an administrator on Wikia or football wikis, but I don't see contributions to traditional encyclopedic content." is "pure snobbery". Then please explain how "Guitars and their ancestors contributed to music, mechanics, Diophantine approximation, harmonic analysis, etc. What is football's contribution to civilization, Andy Capp?" is a personal attack. --Stfg (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Easy: because it shows that Kiefer will only support candidates who work in specific areas. That would be fine, but opposing on those grounds is indeed snobbery. Especially as the scale and readership of the football articles is far greater than the musical instrument ones for the most part. But then, this is Kiefer we're talking about: I'm completely unsurprised that he made an oppose in this manner. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Lukeno94, but I already understand that. My question was intended to invite GiantSnowman to explain how "pure snobbery" can be said without it being a personal attack. Your explanation confirms that it is one. --Stfg (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it a personal attack when it is a statement of fact? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Stfg, Kiefer's comment was a personal attack because he addressed me - in both edit and edit summary - as Andy Capp. GiantSnowman 09:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I see how you're reading it, but I don't think he did address you as Andy Capp. I think he was just snarking about Andy Capp being football's contribution to civilization. He has already addressed this, by the way. Still, perhaps he would have done better to write: "What is football's contribution to civilization? Andy Capp?" So perhaps the criticism of Matty's prose skills loses a small amount of any credibility it had. And I still think you'd have set a better example if you'd just left the whole thing alone. It's not as if any of us needed to have it explained what KW's oppose really was. --Stfg (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I can now see the two possible readings - one can also now see the irony in Kiefer's complaint about Matty's language skills. As for AGF, I'm afraid it only goes so far with KW. GiantSnowman 10:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Who cares about your opinion?  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  11:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, how about you stop insulting other users and go and make some actual edits? You are obviously gravely concerned with the quality of Wikipedia articles, strange that you are more concerned with talking about the problems rather than trying to execute a solution. GiantSnowman 12:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * GiantSnowman, Stop your dishonest harassment, which has been renewed at this RfA. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What harassment? I strongly suggest you either provide some evidence or withdraw your false accusations. GiantSnowman 12:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, you need to drop the stick - you were the one who started this farce, after all. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok, so now we have to judge RFA candidates who have dozens of GAs, many FAs and FLs and an FT on some unknown scale of importance of said GAs, FAs, FLs, FTs? Is that what we do at RFA nowadays? I've never ever known a Wikipedian to make such a fool of themselves (beside me) as I'm seeing KW do now. Quite outstanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All that anyone needed to remember is DFTT, and there would have been nothing to see here. None of this makes any difference to anything at all. And just in case ... I haven't said who I think the troll and who the feeder. G'night. --Stfg (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No wonder RFA is failing
Now then, a new thing to me, the requirement to be able to write about "traditional" subjects with elegance has become an unwritten pre-requisite at RFA. We're barely getting any volunteers at RFA, let alone promoting any of them. Could someone please explain how an editor with over 100k edits, several GAs, FLs, FAs and a FT can be opposed at RFA on his ability to contribute to the encyclopedia? How does writing about "football" in preference to "guitar tuning" suddenly make an editor unable to determine if a vandal writing "cock and balls" in articles is worthy of a block? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the locker room (I'm told), football players say "cock and balls" all the time, whereas in the green room, such a comment would cause gasps by the blue-haired ladies waiting to greet the performers. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The candidate's RfA has overwhelming support (so far), so why are you so upset (and why do you repeat yourself, particularly with false imputations)?
 * Substantial social and intellectual maturity benefit qualified administrators, who quickly gauge the political environment of talk pages and recall the policies relevant to a conflict and who therefore help to resolve issues equitably, instead of angering (potentially) productive editors. The candidate's answers to the three standard questions raise questions for me (and others).
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  16:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you've introduced a new facet to RFA, that your "traditional encyclopedia" desires must be fulfilled. And that everyone should rite like you.  Quite what that has to do with dealing with vandalism is beyond me.  You haven't proven a thing other than your snobbery and your willingness to perpetuate a failing RFA system (in fact, your aim to make it even worse).  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, what was it you said about people needing to write coherently/correctly/whatever earlier? What the hell was that waffle masquerading as your opening sentence? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposing a candidate for what subject they write on is a valid reason to oppose a RfA, though not one I agree with. Everyone should be free to openly discuss the candidate on what they see as important attributes to being an administrator. If not enough administrators are being promoted, I would argue it's not because RfA is failing, but that different users have different ideas of what characteristics to expect in administrators. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it valid? AutomaticStrikeout ?  18:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Okay, what subjects are "acceptable" for an admin and which are "unacceptable" for an admin please? We need to start drawing up a list so future candidates understand that if they've specialised in a particular niche (but not a "traditional" subject), they may be suddenly subject to opposition.  Should we start with "association football" is unacceptable as a topic to which contribute for an admin candidate?  Or perhaps "guitar tuning"?  Some advice on how to start this would be useful.  As for RFA failing, yes, it's failing, but opposition based on the fact an editor happens to focus his interest in a topic over a billion people have an interest in seems flagrantly obtuse.  It doesn't help.  How does this stop a candidate being a net gain to the project?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Users can use whatever criteria they deem necessary for evaluating potential administrator candidates. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, like what their favourite colour is, or what star sign their dog was born under. We need to assess candidates on their ability to mop, i.e. block vandals etc.  Contributing to "traditional content" has nothing at all to do with that. Nothing at all.  So the users that use such criteria are wasting our time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Intelligent responsible writers considering the playground at RIHANNA may share my concerns. Wikipedia is being over-run with teenagers that should be studying or flipping burgers. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You've summed your own position perfectly there, and thank you for such a succinct demonstration of ignorance and prejudice. I'll keep the diff below my pillow!  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think/hope what Nathan is trying to say is that Crats are sensible enough to take weak opposes into consideration, should the RFA be borderline. GiantSnowman 18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You [The Rambling Man] think that "we need to assess candidates on their ability to mop". Other users may disagree. It's important that everyone's view be heard. Silencing opposing viewpoints is not the answer. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Attacking minority viewpoints is an established way to build group solidarity, and this technique especially appeals to adolescents, who have yet to establish an independent identity. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's truly fascinating but to whom does it apply and how does it prevent Matty being able to determine that a vandal needs to be blocked after 122k+ edits here? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you hear me KW? Answers on a postcard please.
 * I'm not sure we should be weighting viewpoints. I would like to think that if someones comment at RfA is so poor that it would actually inspire one (or more) users to vote to counterbalance a viewpoint they disagree with. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "I would like to think that if someones comment at RfA is so poor" is this supposed to be ironic? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was phrased poorly. I think that if someone disagrees strongly enough with either a support or oppose, instead of trying to invalidate that opinion, they should vote the opposite and state their disagreement with the other users vote. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well "oppose" the "oppose" based on poor English in the "oppose". What a waste of time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How about "Oppose User is black." or perhaps "Oppose User is a homosexual." or maybe "Oppose User is French."? Valid reasons? —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How are those editor characteristics comparable to writing badly? The problem is a lack of standards at many of the pop culture projects, which raises suspicions about associated editors. The candidate's FA's lede does not satisfy the good prose criterion of good articles. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That wasn't your reason for your initial oppose. Sure, you went back and added it, but the inescapable fact is that you opposed with absolutely no reference to that here:. You've only added in this bullshit about writing style to attempt to look credible. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I was responding to "Users can use whatever criteria they deem necessary for evaluating potential administrator candidates." I was wondering whether Nathan—and the many other users who agree with the rule that Nathan espouses—thinks that race or nationality or sexuality might be a valid crtieria that a user can deem necessary for evaluating potential administrator candidates. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course, KW has yet to answer the question of how writing the "traditional material" he's looking for will help a candidate identify vandalism and block vandalistic users. The criticism of the lead of an FAC which the community promoted would be more appropriate at WT:FAC than WP:RFA. As Luke points out, this has all the trappings of an editor trying to cover their ass after making a bad decision. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)