Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ragesoss

Edit summary
Edit summary from http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Ragesoss&site=en.wikipedia.org

User:Ragesoss run at Fri Apr 20 04:32:41 2007 GMT Category talk:	24 Category:	126 Image talk:	3 Image:	32 Mainspace	2821 Portal talk:	124 Portal:	734 Talk:	801 Template talk:	36 Template:	97 User talk:	617 User:	573 Wikipedia talk:	263 Wikipedia:	1112 avg edits per page	 2.31 earliest	22:20, 4 July 2005 number of unique pages	3185 total	7363 2005/7	5	2005/8	2	2005/9	0	2005/10	5	2005/11	0	2005/12	176	2006/1	1126	2006/2	832	2006/3	477	2006/4	244	2006/5	956	2006/6	345	2006/7	314	2006/8	98	2006/9	227	2006/10	253	2006/11	166	2006/12	468	2007/1	536	2007/2	193	2007/3	601	2007/4	339	(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 178	Johannes Kepler 168	History of biology 38	List of people known as father or mother of something 27	Epaminondas 24	History of science 24	19th century 21	Military funding of science 21	Thomas Hunt Morgan 20	Frank Macfarlane Burnet 19	Science wars 18	History of model organisms 18	History of geology 17	Scientific Revolution 16	Galileo Galilei 15	Dmitri Mendeleev Talk: 41	Intelligent design 33	Scientific Revolution 26	Johannes Kepler 16	19th century 14	Relationship between religion and science 12	History of biology 10	Cold War 8	G. Ledyard Stebbins 8	Women in science 8	Nuclear weapon 8	Science wars 8	List of people known as father or mother of something 7	Noah's Ark 7	CIA leak scandal (2003) 6	Galileo affair Category talk: 12	History of science 3	Manhattan Project 2	Science in society 2	Historical geology Category: 5	Science writing 3	Science in society 3	Science bloggers 3	Sociology of science 3	History of science 3	Tree of life 3	History of science stubs 2	Science blogs 2	Obsolete scientific theories 2	American naturalists 2	Science experiments 2	Hybrid organisms 2	Historiography of science 2	Science books 2	Science and culture Image: 4	Wright Alchemist.jpg 3	Haeckel Chiroptera.jpg 3	Tate Modern irony.png 3	Tate Modern irony.jpg 2	Inherit-the-Wind-poster.jpg 2	Tesla, tuxedo cat.jpg Portal: 58	History of science/Picture 54	History of science/Previous pictures 46	History of science 32	History of science/Opentask 28	History of science/Topics 24	History of science/Article/2006 archive 21	History/Subportals 19	History of science/Article 19	History of science/Did you know 12	History of science/Intro 12	List of portals 11	History of Science/Article 10	History of science/Categories 10	Science/Subportals 9	History of science/Portals Portal talk: 61	History of science/Picture 13	History of science 12	Science 7	Biology 6	History of science/Did you know 4	Technology 3	List of portals 3	Music 3	History of science/Article 2	Biology/Archive 3 2	Box-header

Template: 15	HistSciAnnounce 8	History of science 7	Announcements/Community bulletin board 7	HistSci 5	HOSCOTMprev 5	Browsebar graphic 5	Nuclear weapons 3	In-universe 3	HOSCOTMcur 3	Browsebar 2	Science Fiction Project 2	Copyvio 2	FPCnom/init 2	Wikiportal:History of Science/Picture 2	Progressivism Template talk: 16	Infobox Scientist 8	Copyvio 2	Pnc

User: 157	Ragesoss 130	Ragesoss/sandbox 43	Ragesoss/template 40	Ragesoss/Haeckel 36	Ragesoss/monobook.js 25	Ragesoss/template/box-header 20	Ragesoss/history of science 11	Ragesoss/Manifesto 9	Ragesoss/HIST 236 9	Ragesoss/Quotes 8	Utestudent/Survey 8	Ragesoss/History of biotechnology 7	Ragesoss/Embryo drawings 6	Ragesoss/Assignments 6	Linuxbeak/Wikimania 2006/Wikipedian Survey User talk: 18	Ragesoss 12	SteveMcCluskey 11	Linas 9	Fastfission 9	Samsara 7	Logicus 7	Ddp224 6	PDH 6	NCurse 6	LinaMishima/Experts Problem 5	Nunh-huh 5	Cyberjunkie 5	Pengo/archive 4 4	Rusty Cashman 4	DonSiano Wikipedia: 190	WikiProject History of Science 29	WikiProject History of Science/scientists 26	Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions 25	WikiProject History of Science/Collaboration of the Month 14	BJAODN:The Next Page Title 14	Article Creation and Improvement Drive 13	Wikipedia Signpost/2006-07-31/Listserv 12	Featured article candidates/Johannes Kepler 11	WikiProject History of Science/Collaboration of the Month/History 11	Featured picture candidates 11	WikiProject History of Science/Collaboration of the Month/current 10	Sandbox/Wikistory (Sentence) 9	WikiProject Science Fiction 8	Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-26/Wikipedia and academia 8	Admin accountability poll Wikipedia talk: 60	WikiProject History of Science 35	Manual of Style (writing about fiction) 12	Stable versions now 11	WikiProject Pseudoscience 10	WikiProject Tree of Life 9	Portal 7	Neutral point of view 6	WikiProject Portals 6	WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft 6	Notability 5	Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew 5	WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Header poll 4	Articles about fictional concepts 4	Featured picture candidates 4	Article Creation and Improvement Drive

- Alison ☺ 04:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
I suggest that the bureaucrats may wish to ignore opinions opposing promotion on the sole stated grounds that this candidate has failed to answer optional questions. --Tony Sidaway 02:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow ... just, wow. First of all, you misrepresent the opposing opinions. The candidate has not only refused to answer the 3 standard questions (which alone is not a big deal for me), but has also refused to answer particular questions posed by editors. Secondly, your comment is incredibly insulting. The fact that the candidate currently has 89% support makes it seem plain spiteful. It's not something I would have expected from an editor like you. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)I suggest that the 'crats always ignore people that try to claim the right to tell them which opinons to ignore. In this case, this is also a perfectly valid basis for opposition.  It takes a certain attitude to refuse to answer any questions, and it is quite reasonable for someone to conclude that an editor demonstrating such an attidute is totally unsuited to be an administrator, where they will be called on to explain their actions, and by virtue of being an administrator be perceived as an exemplar for proper behavior and/or a representative of the community/encyclopedia.  GRBerry 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To Black Falcon, I'm sorry that my suggestion seems spiteful. In my opinion failing to respond to optional questions is, well, an option.  In response to GRBerry, I give no orders to bureaucrats, merely a suggestion.  I disagree with your suggestion that it's ever reasonable to decide that a person who chooses not to respond to optional questions is "totally unsuited to be an administrator".


 * However, the question of whether the bureaucrats heed my suggestion is beside the point, really. It's clear that, whilst this editor has had quite a bit of opposition from editors who raise  this objection, he's had a much less grueling time of it than those who get dragged into the silly mess that the question-and-answer format has become.  Thus failing to answer the questions is established as a viable proposition, and perhaps a preferable one. --Tony Sidaway 02:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, ignoring questions (even those posed by editors) is an option, but I cannot see why you would argue that opposing a candidate who has ignored inquiries by you and others is not a valid option. For the most part, bureaucrats ignore comments by sockpuppets. Your suggestions seems to indicate that those opposing Ragesoss' candidacy essentially belong in the same class. Also, although I am sure that you did not write your comment out of spite, it certainly "seems" that way because it is completely unnecessary ... the candidate has >90% support. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't claim that it isn't a valid option, and I don't claim that those chosing to oppose for that reason are sock puppets or anything akin to them. I do suggest that their opposition should be ignored.  The degree of support is immaterial; the question is what to do with trivial reasons for opposing. --Tony Sidaway 03:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What you consider a trivial reason, I may consider a capital sin. I believe that ignoring other editors is unacceptable behaviour for an admin (it's your prerogative to disagree). It's more than slightly disrespectful to call for certain opinions to be ignored just because you disagree with them. It's even worse to assume that you know under what conditions other editors should trust a candidate and to try to impose your standards on everyone else. I don't know which of the two is the case here, but either way, I find the situation rather distateful. Also, your comment that Ragesoss has "shown great initiative in ignoring the stupid questions", made at 03:50 21 April 2007, also appears less than civil considering that three editors had posted non-standard questions before then. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I find Tony's suggestion unnecessary, unhelpful & disruptive; this debate will not end with the conclusion of this matter, no matter which way this request is closed. As I write, there are enough support votes to allow any bureaucrat closing this nomination to approve this request & ignore this issue; the answers people most want about Ragesoss are surfacing due to the efforts of the people who support his nomination. If the bureaucrats decline it, then I hope that a statement is made whether they have accepted the custom of answering some -- or all -- of the questions asked is now part of the RfAr process. In any case, I doubt everyone will be happy with the outcome. -- llywrch 19:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda hoping that this candidate will continue to coast this nomination, but that doesn't stop me continuing to examine his history of edits. If I find a trend of abuse, you can be assured that I'll be very quick to switch my opinion. Refusal to pander to the stupid brawl that most requests for adminship have become is absolutely not a reason to oppose, unless you think that a disgusting rabble that repels good candidates is a good thing. Let this institutionalised bullying die a quiet death, miserable, unloved and unmarked. --Tony Sidaway 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The answers people most want about Ragesoss are surfacing due to the efforts of the people who support his nomination. Yes, precisely.   Here's your free clue: we do not deny adminship for stupid reasons because that would harm Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that you believe that IAR can be used as an excuse for incivility and personal attacks, in conjunction with your expressed view that a significant number of editors as nothing more than a "disgusting rabble", lead to me conclude that there is no use in continuing this discussion, if it can be called that amongst your calls for ignoring other editors. But, then again, why wouldn't one want to ignore a disgusting rabble, right? You must forgive me if I'm not particularly convinced by your claim that you wish to avoid harm to Wikipedia or, at the least, by the methods you use toward that end. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please stop this? I'm not attacking anyone and I'm not being uncivil. I'm defending a person who has decided not to pander to the stupid brawl that Requests for adminship has become.  If you think I've attacked anyone, you're imagining it. If you think it's uncivil to oppose an institutionalized cockpit in as many words, you're wrong. --Tony Sidaway 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it not uncivil or an attack to call a group of editors a "disgusting rabble"? Please explain that. In addition, the person you're defending has not just chosen to "not ... pander to the stupid brawl" that you claim RfA has become, but has also ignored repeated questions by multiple editors. Is it civil to ingore other people when they ask you questions? If you think the answer is yes, then we have a monumentally different understanding of civility. If I have somehow fundamentally misunderstood the intent of your statements, then please clarify what you meant. If I have interpreted them correctly, and you cannot believe that people can genuinely disagree without one side or the other necessarily being "right" or "wrong", then we really have nothing to talk about here anymore. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Tony, free clue: Black Falcon has you there. I understood your response to me as a personal attack, & I'm offended. So offended I "Saved" my previous response before calming down -- which I rolled back. -- llywrch 22:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Disgusting rabble" is perhaps an ambiguous description of the process. "Cockpit" is better.  I apologise if the earlier term was misunderstood as describing personal characteristics rather than grossly unsuitable behavior. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some historical perspective
All this "question" business is nothing new&mdash;nor is the fact that some people don't like being questioned. Candidates are not applying for a job, they are offering us something (their time, and the willingness to help with housekeeping). I still stand by my comments from 2004 made here and here, in the context of my own admin nomination. Don't forget that we all are volunteers. Cheers, Lupo 08:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tally
I've taken the liberty of removing the tally, which I think misleads a lot of editors into believing that RFA is a vote. --Tony Sidaway 10:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a vote and it requires a certain percentage to pass (75% give or take a bit according to concessions I believe). Removing anything which facilitates participation is a grave error I feel as it inhibits participation. Did the nominee request this? cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 10:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm.......Hey Ragesoss care to give some input on how you want your RfA to run? Tally or no? cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 10:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Casliber, your reply reveals the problem: that you incorrectly believe it to be a vote and you even go so far as to cite a required percentage. --Tony Sidaway 10:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The bureaucrats have been working very hard to make people believe that RfA is a vote (by the way they close most RfAs). If you want to change that, please change the behaviour of the bureaucrats instead of claiming that RfA is not a vote when it behaves like one. Kusma (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The bureaucrats don't determine whether Requests for adminship (RFA) is a vote of not, although on numerous occasions they have indicated clearly that they believe that it is not.   It is a tool for deciding the consensus of the community on the suitability of an administrator candidate. --Tony Sidaway 10:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah...and numbers help decide what consensus is. The nearer to %100 the nearer to absolute consensus. In any case it is one thing to withhold a vote but another to substantially and unilaterally alter the format. cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 10:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)