Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Werdna 2

Werdna's edit stats using wannabe Kate tool as of 12:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC):

Category talk:	1 Category:	1 Image:	6 Mainspace	821 Portal:	28 Talk:	72 Template:	31 User talk:	1002 User:	393 Wikipedia talk:	108 Wikipedia:	1106 avg edits per article	1.99 earliest	01:53, 25 July 2005 number of unique articles	1789 total	3569 2005/7 	3 	2005/8 	74 	2005/9 	32 	2005/10 	7 	2005/11 	80 	2005/12 	86 	2006/1 	702 	2006/2 	87 	2006/3 	513 	2006/4 	374 	2006/5 	389 	2006/6 	207 	2006/7 	154 	2006/8 	107 	2006/9 	355 	2006/10 	244 	2006/11 	25 	2006/12 	58 	2007/1 	72

Weird diff
I'm wondering what was going on with this diff. I reverted it, and then reverted back when I saw that an oppose was being added in the diff. But Konstable !voted with his main account, not with Konstablesock. And I don't know why those comments were removed. Grand master  ka  23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He must have edited an earlier version or something. (On a side note: my Konstable account was not accessible during the time when I made my first comment, now it is, so I changed the sig to avoid confusion)--Konst.ableTalk 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Problematic question
To those not yet aware, this question has unfortunately caused a lot of trouble for some people (though not Werdna himself it seems) - there has been a huge over-blown discussion on WP:AN/I along with 2 blocks to established users over revert wars on this RfA.

Well Werdna has actually replied to me off-wiki and agreed that these are indeed legit logs of him on ED. He replied not too long after I had asked him, but I had already slipped out, and as I have not been a regular on IRC in months, I have not received this message until just now. (I wish I had checked it sooner, it would have saved the mess on noticeboards.) As I had already come to this conclusion, Werdna says that he was venting frustration and has never really had such intentions. Also a note that though the page was created in December, the logs are from a "very long time ago" as Werdna puts it. I personally do not consider anything serious in this particular case - I trust that Werdna is not participating in anything of the sort on Wikipedia, and venting frustration off-wiki is not a crime. It is regretable that such a small issue has spawned an angry discussion taking up half of WP:AN/I.--Konstable 06:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Trebor
With respect to the "Trebor" oppose vote, it's an obtuse joke in reference to Wizardry IV: The Return of Werdna. Sorry about the confusion.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved discussion from WT:RFA
Hopefully the bureaucrats are watching this one. The closing of Werdna's RfA is sure to be controversial, no matter which decision that crats make. There's still 2+ days to go, but it's very likely going to fall into the "judgment" zone. ChazBeckett 02:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of note is that the raw percentage has been falling, from 80 to 76 to less than 71 as of this writing. Some earlier supporters referred to a 'landslide'; of course, there's more to it than numbers, but... -- nae'blis 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if someone like Ryulong can unilaterally be promoted at 69%, I don't see why Werdna can't.... — P ilotguy (radio check)  03:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any way that a closing 'crat could decide any other way than no consensus to promote. The oppose voters give some very compelling arguments about ongoing civility issues. Werdna could save a lot of strife by just withdrawing his self nom. Could this be the first RfA that failed despite getting >100 support votes? &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs) 02:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. Metros232 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it couldn't. Trebor 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) No. See WP:100. Newyorkbrad 15:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have an uneasy feeling...&mdash; Deckiller 19:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So you have based your vote on irrational fear, rather than sound judgement? --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon? I just said I have an uneasy feeling, because there might be some controversy that may surround this closure. It had nothing to do with my vote, nor is it a matter of fear. &mdash; Deckiller 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * On top of the concerns expressed by the "oppose" voters (myself included), many of the "support" voters have provided the illogical rationale that Andrew should be made an admin because he's a good developer and deserves to be rewarded. —David Levy 20:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice to see your cabal here backing you up. But note that "sysop" is no reward; it is simply giving him the tools he needs to make further improvements.  You seem to be misreading the humorous supportive comments.  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 20:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Adminship shouldn't be considered a reward, but it often is. In addition, a fair percentage of users have the view that developer > admin > editor. This leads to the belief that all developers deserve adminship . However, Wikipedia admin is not a technical position; it's centered more around social interaction. Thus, someone such as Werdna can be a great developer, but still make a poor admin. ChazBeckett 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, your "cabal" remark was uncalled-for. I oppose clique-based editing as much as anyone.
 * Secondly, while some users have expressed the opinion that Andrew needs the sysop bit to aid in MediaWIki development, others have simply said that he deserves to be an admin because he's done such a good job as a developer (which is analogous to saying that a good automobile mechanic should automatically be rewarded with a position as a bus driver). Others are of the belief that "developer" is a rank somewhere above "admin" and are astonished that we even need to discuss this.
 * Thirdly, Andrew, doesn't need to be a Wikipedia sysop to make software improvements (obviously). He can experiment on a different MediaWiki wiki (such as a private wiki or test wiki).  —David Levy 20:44/20:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For #1, I apologize. Elsewhere, there is cabal-based hostility; yours is an excellent reminder not to over-generalize into thinking innocent bystanders are also party to those abuses.
 * For #2: The comments above made broad sweeping judgements about all support votes. However, I was merely stating that my Wiktionary sysop "status" is much less desirable than one might imagine.  Having a mop, means you are the one who has to mop the floor: that is what I meant by "no reward."
 * For #3: Sortof, but no. Wikipedia has custom extensions and an uncountable myriad of Wikipedia-specific "tweaks" that no one has much hope of replicating on their home server.  I can't even replicate Wiktionary 100% on my home server, nor on toolserver.
 * --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Apology accepted. :-)
 * 2. I made no "broad sweeping judgements about all support votes." I explicitly referenced "many of the 'support' voters" (new emphasis), not all.
 * Yes, you and I are well aware of the fact that the role of sysop (which I am here) isn't a status above or below that of any other wiki contributor or a reward to bestow upon people that we like. Unfortunately, numerous supporters of Andrew's RfA believe otherwise.  That's my point.
 * 3. Please elaborate. What's so difficult about duplicating Wikipedia's underlying code at another MediaWiki wiki (such as the Wikipedia Test Wiki), particularly with the resources that developers have at their disposal (including Wikimedia server access)?  Andrew obviously manages to get stuff done.
 * Regardless, I wouldn't oppose Andrew's adminship request based purely on my belief that he doesn't need the sysop bit. I oppose it primarily because of behavior unacceptable for any editor, let alone an administrator.  —David Levy 03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Plus, some of them aren't addressing the true reasons that we are opposing; some feel that we're opposing based on editcountitis. &mdash; Deckiller 20:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But then some of the opposes say that a lack of article-writing means he hasn't contributed to the encyclopaedia, which is also dubious. I'll leave it up to the 'crats. Trebor 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely; let's trust the people who we agreed we could trust. &mdash; Deckiller 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrew has contributed to all Wikimedia projects, but that doesn't mean that he should automatically be made a sysop on all of them. The point is that someone with little experience in the article namespace is less qualified to evaluate and intervene in disputes that arise there.
 * Personally, I'm more troubled by his frequent incivility (which is unacceptable for any user, let alone an admin). —David Levy 20:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the main reason why I shifted from neutral to oppose. All of the cases mentioned have occured since Andrew's last RfA, which is the key concern of them all. &mdash; Deckiller 20:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved to the talk page of Werdna's RfA. In fact, it should have started there, not on the RfA talk page. &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs) 02:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You might be right, but I posted it here because its likely going to fall in the same general range as Ryulong's and I thought some discussion before the RfA closed would be better than after. If someone prefers to move it to Werdna's RfA talk page, no problem. ChazBeckett 03:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the nomination as unsuccessful. After reviewing the nomination I didn't see anything extraordinary that would lead to promoting from below the typical threshhold. There wasn't significant sockpuppetting, etc. - Taxman Talk 13:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)