Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sir Sputnik

Edit count link
Hi, the link to the edit count does not seem to be working on Sir Sputnik's RfA page. I had to go via their contributions to access the correct link. Orphan Wiki 17:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They all look working to me. Not that they are really useful IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It comes up as "The requested user does not exist" when I click on it. Nothing major, but just thought I'd point that out. Orphan Wiki  20:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Y'all were using different links. The one in the RfA/RfB toolbox worked fine, but the fist links via usercheck-short bugged out on the space in the username.  It should work for now. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 00:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that, yes that seems to be working fine now. :) Orphan Wiki  10:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Eli355's oppose

 * 1) Oppose, This user has added very little content added to the mainspace. Looking at their mainspace contributions, almost all of them are removing content. This user has created a lot of articles (208), but almost half of them are stubs (92), and only two of them have a higher rating then "start". — Eli355 ( 👄👄👄👄  •  📜📜📜📜  •  🍩🍩🍩🍩 ) 21:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of what I meant by people considering content creation so heavily in RfA in this comment. SemiHypercube ✎ 21:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Moved to User talk:MusikAnimal. SemiHypercube ✎ 21:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And even with them mostly being stubs, a couple of C-grades with all of the others gives more than enough experience to demonstrate knowledge of the process, attachment to articles and surely everything that is necessary for an admin who will mainly not be working in a content-creation area (DYK etc)? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The mainspace is the most important part of Wikipedia, since most people who use Wikipedia use it for factual information, not to read things in the project space, such as sockpuppet investigations. — Eli355 ( 👄  •  📜  •  🍩 ) 00:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And sockpuppet investigations are not particularly important since most sockpuppet accounts are not edited with. — Eli355 ( 👄👄👄👄  •  📜📜📜📜  •  🍩🍩🍩🍩 ) 00:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , this claim is extremely inaccurate and blatantly false. Sockpuppet investigations are one of the most important forms of combating abuse and organized vandalism, especially among LTA's and users who utilize many accounts to bypass blocks. Furthermore, sockpuppet accounts, by definition, are edited with. Vermont (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * While I've always been against "badgering" opposers in RfAs, I would like to point out,, that most users who are reported at SPI have edited. If they didn't edit at all, nobody would suspect they're a sock because there wouldn't be behavioral evidence to determine whether they are one or not, just their username. And it is an important part of the project, as it stops disruptive to the encyclopedia.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter. These edits are good faith Hhkohh (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be some minimum amount of experience required to !vote here (or more so than there is now), so that contributors here will know there is far more for admins to do here than "contribute to mainspace". There are numerous maintenance areas where admins are required. Besides, content creation is not a pre-requisite for adminship. But I have to ask ; do you really believe strongly enough that Sir Sputnik will abuse the admin user-right, or otherwise be so grossly incompetent with it, that you just have to oppose them getting it? - wolf  20:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. My own main space contributions dropped after I picked up the mop. There's an endless load of mopping to do as an admin even if I never again made another main space edit. Participating in main space is important, because that's where one learns the value of content, collaboration, and the processes of dispute resolution &mdash; all of which are necessary for an administrator. But I don't see that failing to add content recently, or creating a lot of stubs in the past, is a deal-breaker. Admin work isn't about adding content. Anyone can do that. Admin work is about preventing disruption to the content. Can he be trusted with the tools to block users, protect articles, delete and restore articles, and modify certain rights of other users? That's the point of an RFA, not to judge based on content contributions. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Everybody cannot add content!!! Adding content requires expertise. It requires hard work. It requires an understanding of our policies and procedures. And yes, it requires admin tools. Anybody can do maintenance work, apparently. Perhaps there should be a minimum amount of content creation required before you can !vote here so people would understand what we are about.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Content creation requires admin tools"?! It doesn't, and that's why it might not be as important in RfA, since you need the bit to block vandals, but not to write good articles. SemiHypercube ✎ 22:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've written 276 good articles and I know it does. Clearly, you regard content creation as unimportant, and tangential to important work like SPI. Should we require SPI work in order to become content creators?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, you create content without being an admin. You don't need admin tools to create content. And yet, you keep insisting you need the tools to create content. That's clearly false. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No it isn't clearly false, because (1) I still have access to some elements of the admin tool set and (2) I can petition admins to do part of the content creation process for me.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Plenty of editors create good content without needing admin tools, and without needing admin assistance. Just because you happen to have some tools doesn't mean that they are necessary to create good content. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Name three who've written more featured articles than I have.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, I question this user's question for the candidate that has nothing to do with the candidate. Pinging for making the question. Semi<b style="color:#099">Hypercube</b> ✎ 22:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I took it as "what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?" ... which should receive a similar answer. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha! I thought the exact same thing when I saw that. I think Sir S. should counter with: "Well, that depends... is it European copernicium or African copernicium?" - wolf  03:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And the real answer could get you a bonus point on QI (in the appropriate series). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since copernicium has only been produced a few atoms at a time, and its most stable known isotope has a half-life of just 29 seconds, the answer is obviously not experimentally known; you'd have to run quantum chemistry calculations to even predict it. So we can think even bigger: I suspect that finding the answer would take enough work that you could probably get it published as a journal article (copernicium should have one of the more interesting chemistries among the superheavy elements, and this may be of some interest, especially if we then compare it with the relationship between coefficient of thermal expansion and melting point given at Thermal expansion). ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

btw
My question still stands,, so if you wouldn't mind answering it, not only would I appreciate it, but I think the candidate and possibly some others here may as well. Again, my question was; do you really believe strongly enough that Sir Sputnik will abuse the admin user-right, or otherwise be so grossly incompetent with it, that you just have to oppose them getting it? Thanks - wolf  03:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , do you really believe that you are competent enough to be judging candidates for adminship? If you do, then please read this too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, that is what I was somewhat alluding to with my initial comment above. This user has just under six months on and ≈1,675 edits. How can anyone make an informed, knowledgeable decision to judge someone else's competence to be an admin with that amount of experience? Eli355 posted an "oppose" !vote supported by; "This user has added very little content added to the mainspace."[sic], about Sir Sputnik, an SPI clerk, with ≈10 years on, ≈112,000 edits, which includes 63,000+ edits to mainspace, along with numerous articles created. How can anyone, particularly a bureaucrat, take this !vote seriously?


 * My question to still stands; do you really believe strongly enough that Sir Sputnik will abuse the admin user-right, or otherwise be so grossly incompetent with it, that you just have to oppose them getting it?. I believe that if Eli355 cannot provide a compelling answer to that question, or refuses to answer it altogether, then his !vote should be struck. (Really, he should just remove it now, as it is only blot on what otherwise appears to be a very strong RfA. JMHO) Thanks -  wolf  10:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think at this point perhaps you guys should just drop the stick. One oppose vote isn't going to make this RFA fail, bureaucrats are perfectly capable of assessing the value (or lack thereof) of oppose votes. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  09:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, asking questions about this !vote at this RfA will hopefully have some impact on future !votes like this at future RfAs. This is a broken process in need of repair. IMHO - wolf  10:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In 11 years the mob's badgering of spurious oppose votes hasn't done diddlysquat, so I am doubtful this will be the time it all changes. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  12:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not so sure about that. My purely unscientific eyeballing shows one would be crazy or a masochist to oppose !vote on an RfA. Kind of hard to put up with all the badgering. I suppose this lack of oppose !votes is what Wolf is referring to as a "broken process" Clearly, they can't be referring to a 130/2 !vote as broken because of too many oppose !votes :) --regentspark (comment) 14:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel this candidate will use the admin tools properly, and his mass creation of stubs is a separate issue. — Eli355 ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So why did you oppose !vote if you think he won't misuse the tools? <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><b style="color:#099">Hypercube</b> ✎ 15:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering my question (and fixing your sig). I now hope that you'll answer 's obvious follow-on question, in light of your response. -  wolf  02:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to ask, just what do you guys define as "badgering"? Should people not be able to ask questions at all of those posting !votes? (Whether it be 'support' or 'oppose'? Or a 'neutral' comment?) Or should there be some limitations? I see people complain about "badgering" from time to time, but don't believe I've seen it defined, nor any solution for it offerred. (That is, if it's really a problem that needs a solution...) Cheers - wolf  02:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say any page where someone has been pinged 10 times about the same issue is badgering. Asking a question is fine. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  08:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends on the "issue" though. Asking a question is fine, but to expect a reasonable answer in this matter is also fine, and the subject of said badgering has so far failed to provide a reasonable answer. Orphan Wiki  09:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say repeatedly asking for an answer, questioning the competence or capacity of the editor to make the oppose, using the oppose as evidence that the "process is broken", talking about the oppose being a blot on the RfA, all count as badgering because they're appear to be designed to back the editor into a corner until they withdraw their oppose. Frankly, I don't see why we need RfA's with a 100% pass and I'm not even sure that's a good thing. A few opposes are healthy for the process because they force us to think about what makes a good admin and we should not want the process to be a rubber stamping process. My superior mathematical model says that a ~90.91% support level is the perfect pass point for the perfect admin! --regentspark (comment) 12:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Concurring with  you in  principle,,  we don't  need 100% passes, and among  the opposes at  any  RfA are often ones from seriously  motivated and experienced users although  they  may  be in  the minority. It  does not  change the fact however,  that  inappropriate  questions, silly votes, and turning  the entire process into  a drama, are the main  reasons why  so  few users of the right  calibre can be bothered to  go  through  this process in order to  access the tools and be very  good admins. This is what  makes it  a 'broken process'.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * People look up to admins as role models, and when they see that an admin has mass-created stubs, they might think it is acceptable to make stubs and never edit them again. — Eli355 ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say you pretty much negated your right to a serious response with that absolutely farcical comment you posted after "oppose" #4, but I suppose I'll humor you for a little longer. You weren't asked to opine about why "people look up to admins", you were asked why you posted an "oppose" !vote when you just stated that you believe this "candidate will use the admin tools properly"? And in light of fact that you went on to say that "his mass creation of stubs is a separate issue.", I really have no idea what you're going on about in your last talk page post (though the concept of stubs seems lost on you). You could've just as easily posted your concerns about content creation (and now, apparently, abandoned stubs) with a "neutral" comment. My point is, you didn't appear to have a reason to actually oppose, though with your latest RfA post, perhaps you do, and it's just one we're not aware of and you don't care fo disclose. /end humour session - wolf  20:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You missed one crucial point: RfA is not a vote. There is no reason why "support" and "oppose" should be treated the same. IMHO, the RfA process is based on the premise "innocent until proven guilty" - i.e., anyone can be an admin unless this would cause problems. So, only those who doubt in the nominee's capacity should substantiate their negative opinion; in lack of this, "pass" is the default outcome and does not require special justification. Take it or leave it, this is I believe the process. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  23:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This. RfA should be just as Kashmiri has said. But unfortunatly, we treat it like we're hiring police officers, and just like real life, many qualified candidates can't be bothered with the intense hiring process, while some of the others that make it through, act like cops (yes, I mean that pejoratively). Jimmy had it right when he said that being an admin shouldn't be considered "special". We should also do something about the "rip n run" tactics of some of the 'opposers'. As long as it's done respectfully and with civility, people should be able to ask 'opposers' to expand upon or clarify their !vote comments. I don't see how that equates to "badgering". As I've said before, changes are needed. - wolf  02:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Different people have always reacted differently to 'oppose' votes with which they disagree. Some are inclined to politely state their disagreement. Some are more persistent, seeming to 'demand' the opinion be justified to their satisfaction. Some may berate the 'opposer', even suggesting they should be blocked for the way in which they stated their opinion. Some, upon noticing the user due to their vote may nominate some of the opposer's articles for deletion, etc... Some, perhaps mindful of Ms. Streisand, will read the 3 or 4 out of c.200 votes, decide how much weight they personally give them, and leave it at that. There's no absolute right or wrong in any of that, depending on circumstances - and each approach will have different results - some positive, some negative. Those whose reaction is creating massive threads to debate to death every oppose vote with which they don't personally agree, or 'chastising' the voter, think that this will make things better. Those who think that such behaviour is completely counterproductive, having the opposite effect of making things worse, are sincere in that belief too. Good luck trying to impose any sort of 'beneficial' 'conformity' on this range of human reactions... -- Begoon 11:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree that by default anyone put forth as a candidate should pass by default. As I said in a previous discussion, in the interest of efficiency, I believe nominators and supporters have the responsibility to save the community time by presenting a well-reasoned case for granting administrative privileges. Given the large time investment being requested of all the commenters in total, I think this is a reasonable expectation. isaacl (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't want to belabor the point but it is worth considering the effect of excessive questioning of oppose !votes. The obvious effect will, at least at the margins, be to discourage people from opposing an RfA, especially if they lack company. And, that's not a good thing because we do want to see some opposition both as a confirmation that we're not merely selecting admins on likability as well as a barometer for what the community thinks are good admin qualities. (And, it also helps add a helpful dose of humility to the new admin!) Clearly some editors think that any oppose vote is a sign of a "broken process" but I would posit the opposite. Nobody is perfect so, when we start seeing passing RfAs at the 99% level, then that would be the sign of a broken process because that would imply that we've scared away the few opposes that should have been there. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)