Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/WBOSITG 2

Edit Count
User:WBOSITG
 * run at Tue May 6 21:40:21 2008 GMT

Category: 38 Help: 1 Image talk: 2 Image: 56 Mainspace 4798 MediaWiki talk: 4 Portal talk: 8 Portal: 1096 Talk: 601 Template talk: 19 Template: 118 User talk: 3773 User: 416 Wikipedia talk: 26 Wikipedia: 1244 avg edits per page 1.76 earliest 16:42, 5 August 2007 number of unique pages 6924

total 12200

2007/8 41   2007/9  12   2007/10  10   2007/11  108   2007/12  910   2008/1  1522   2008/2  3015   2008/3  4336   2008/4  1854   2008/5  392

Mainspace 254 Aberdeen F.C. 189 Aberdeen Grammar School 158 Bloc Party discography 60 Bloc Party 52 List of Christmas number one singles (UK) 39 List of Arctic Monkeys awards 26 Fly (pentop computer) 20 Torchwood (series 1) 19 Bitesize 17 Petr Čech 15 Infinite Jest (album) 15 Supernormal 15 List of Aberdeen F.C. players 14 Ashley Road Primary School 13 Glossary of philosophical isms

Talk: 31 Main Page 22 Aberdeen F.C. 20 Aberdeen Grammar School 9 Assassination of Benazir Bhutto 5 Middlesex 5 Thayer School of Engineering 5 Open source 4 Bloc Party discography 4 Glossary of philosophical isms 4 List of Torchwood episodes 4 List of Aberdeen F.C. players 4 Google's hoaxes 4 Henry Gratiot 4 E.O. Green School shooting/Archive March 1, 2008 3 Bloc Party

Category: 4 Scottish football articles by importance

Image: 8 AberdeenGrammarLogo.jpg 4 Handball stub.svg 4 Chelsea emblem FA Community shield 07.jpg 4 Bobpaisley1.jpg 4 Torchwood-Series-One-Cover-UK.jpg 3 WBOSITG.png 2 Yogurt.jpg 2 Jimmy Philip.jpg

Portal: 77 English football 37 English football/Did you know 20 James Bond 17 English football/Birthday/Layout 14 English football/Birthday/Calendar 13 English football/Featured content 12 English football/Did you know/2 11 English football/Intro 10 English football/Table 10 English football/Selected article/1 9 English football/Did you know/4 8 English football/Selected quote/1 8 English football/Selected article/3 8 English football/Did you know/3 8 English football/Selected article/4

Template: 12 Vandalism information 5 Premier league table 2007/08 5 GA number 4 Clickext 3 Bloc Party 3 WPSF nav 3 Randomquote 3 Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars/Welcome 3 Footnotes 3 User Standard Grade student 2 User mainspace edits 2 PI featured article 2 9-11 Ribbon 2 Sports portal browsebar 2 Handball-bio-stub

User: 67 WBOSITG/Admin coaching 62 WBOSITG/Status 36 WBOSITG/monobook.js 24 WBOSITG 19 WBOSITG/Awards 14 Sharkface217/Award Center 9 WBOSITG/Rule-breakers 8 WBOSITG/Articles 8 WBOSITG/Wdefcon 8 WBOSITG/Patrol 8 WBOSITG/sandbox 8 WBOSITG/Coaching 6 WBOSITG/RfA Report 6 WBOSITG/StatusTemplate 6 WBOSITG/monobook.css

User talk: 152 WBOSITG 69 Police,Mad,Jack 68 Milk's Favorite Cookie 53 WBOSITG/UPS 52 WBOSITG/Notices 47 WBOSITG/Header 41 WBOSITG/Userpage 36 WBOSITG/Border 25 WBOSITG/AFC 22 Peanut4 21 WBOSITG/Links 20 WBOSITG/Ubx2 19 Nousernamesleft/archive2 19 WBOSITG/Archive 1 18 WBOSITG/Babel

Wikipedia: 95 Administrator intervention against vandalism 77 Help desk 36 Articles for creation/2006-10-06 29 Articles for creation/2006-10-17 27 WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Drive/33 26 Huggle/Whitelist 20 Requests for adminship/WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden 20 Usernames for administrator attention 18 Good article nominations 18 Articles for creation/2008-02-22 16 Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive 16 Articles for creation/2006-10-07 13 Motto of the day/Nominations 13 Motto of the day/Nominations/In review 12 Featured article candidates/Aberdeen F.C./archive1

Wikipedia talk: 4 Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive 3 AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage 2 Not every IP is a vandal 2 WikiProject Life on Mars/Welcome 2 WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Drive 2 Criteria for speedy deletion 2 WikiProject Schools

Articles for deletion/Fanz TV
I didn't want to make it seem like I was dragging to oppose vote/conversation out any more than it already has been, but I've added discussion to the AfD and I agree with WBOSITG. If anyone wishes to comment on it, it can be done here. If not, thats fine too. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was exactly why I suggested a G7 speedy. Thanks for taking this to the talk page rather than clog up the RfA, very considerate of you.  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  12:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The AfD has been deleted. Just thought others should know. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, speedy deleted, per G7 as I suggested. =P  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  13:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Kurt
Well, at least it’s a new rationale this time. I think that DHMO makes some very good points here which I recommend reading before complaining. Cheers! — Travis talk  15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to complain. I think he's entitled to his opinion; I might not agree with it but I'm just going to assume good faith and let him be bold.  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  15:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely predicted this kind of response almost verbatim at WT:RFA.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Conversation on Kurts oppose

 * No argument here, just a request... can you fit Prima Facie somewhere into that? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be prima facie because it takes a couple steps of inference to reach the conclusion. xenocidic (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a request to add to the opinion, not an inference. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC) And more probable, a joke in my opinion. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not go overboard moving stuff to the talk page. This was fairly harmless stuff here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually do not think it was useful in any way to the RfA. Plus, you went around a kind request that discussion should take place on the talk page. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that it is a great pity that Kurt has tended to make the same oppose comment to every self-nom, because he does have a perfectly valid point. The difficulty, which he may not see (Kurt, I am happy to discuss via e-mail) is that it does not apply, or should not be seen to apply, to every single self-nom without exception. Surely, a number of editors join wikipedia just so as to be admins. Some apply without more ado, and of course get immediately seen off the RfA page. Some wait longer, and fail on on of their edits. But there are some people who seriously want to help the project, and learning how to edit and then learning how to be an admin should surely not be automatically seen as the wrong way to do it. And I do not see how learning how to be an admin, and then being nominated by your instructor, can be wrong. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we can see the reasoning. It's just whether or not you agree with said reasoning. Unfortunately, I think it's nonsensical to oppose simply for even an inkling of a desire to edit and eventually be an administrator.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Admin coaching" does not teach you to be a good admin. It teaches you to be a politician for the purposes of passing RfA.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I probably agree with this analysis to an extent, although I don't think it negates every person that goes through it, maybe just though who look like they wouldn't be able to pass without it. I noticed, Kurt, you didn't use prima facie in this oppose. Is it because you wouldn't automatically oppose a candidate who was admin coached? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

&larr; as I mentioned above, prima facie wouldn't apply because the conclusion isn't self-evident (it takes a couple steps of reasoning). xenocidic (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It could certainly still apply, I am trying to see if Kurt sees it that way. e.g. Admin coaching = power hunger, the same way self-nom = power hunger. There could be several steps, or not. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I promised myself I would stay out of any debate arising from any RfA, but I think that admin coaching, if it going to be readily opposed in RfAs, should be scrapped. You hardly ever see self nominations now for a similar reason.  Why suggest a process when you're going to get punished at the end of it?  It doesn't make any sense.   weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  17:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I was thinking on this today, but it's likely that the positive effect that came from the admin coaching will outweigh the negative from one member's boilerplate oppose. xenocidic (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a major problem because of opposes over it. Wisdom's recent RfA had mention of it, but it was clearly from people who would have opposed anyways. The issue concerning admin coaching is some don't considerate it a net positive for the project, but just for one person's goal. Many disagree. Web, it looks like 1 out of about 100 voting editors had an issue with it specifically in relation to you getting the tools, so I wouldn't worry. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wasn't thinking specifically about myself, but I do hope its not going to scare users away from admin coaching by forming a pact of editors who will oppose at will about that. I'm not saying it's a big issue now, but that it may become an issue in the future.   weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  18:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(untab) I have been following this debate with some interest. As only a recent entrant on RfAs, I must confess that although, it is but ONE vote by Kurt, it affects people who vote, nonetheless. In fact, I formed an opinion about admin-coaching after seeing his comments, and it tends to 'colour' my votes in general whenever I come across a candidate who has been coached. This vote definitely affects the process of RfA. At least for this sake, it is worth warning potential coachees about such possibilities, just like it is worth warning self-noms of such possibilities. That said, I must declare that I agree with Kurt on this issue, but disagree with self-nom, for the simple reason that the nomination page itself encourages self-noms. My biases in this issue would be my failed RfA, which however, was not visibly affected by Kurt's oppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanthns (talk • contribs) 18:36, May 8, 2008 (UTC)
 * Pedro has thought of a workaround for admin coaching if you're interested. It's a really good idea, and doesn't require a power hunger =D  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You do realize, WBOSITG, that calling Pedro's attempt at a solid and well intentioned mentorship program a "workaround" will no doubt cause Kurt to mistrust it, therefore opposing because of it?  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh...how about "alternative"? =P  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  18:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would go as far as to say "improvement", but alas, that's probably just my POV. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, has Kurt ever supported an RFA? xenocidic (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, many times. I don't have the diffs, unfortunately. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, he just supported a self nom recently, here Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Amusing, but any serious supports? xenocidic (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of... that's the first in a long time.  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Every one of his opposes or supports is serious, he means it when he says it, and he defends (as do many others) his right to say it. This thread is proof of how serious he is.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and there is no questioning that right at all. But, shouldnt this lead to a disclaimer on the page advising self-noms and in admin coaching?Prashanthns (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that would be a good idea. The major criticism of admin coaching is that its not about user's becoming better editors, but rather just doing whatever it takes to pass the RfA. If there is such a disclaimer, it would reinforce this, kind of saying "We know you are here to pass an RfA, this might hurt". If said user thinks it is making them a better potential admin (which should be the goal) then such a disclaimer would be pointless. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...which makes me all the more want to (hurfully) agree with Kurt then on the coaching issue at least. It is of course not the same rationale that applies to self-noms, and both are not prima-facie anyways. Prashanthns (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By serious, I meant, not simply supporting an RFA that was already snowballing towards failure/withdrawal to make a point. xenocidic (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm so glad I took this to the talk page. =P  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)