www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/0xDeadbeef

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

Oppose count not correct[edit]

Could someone please figure out why the count for the opposes is one short? I attempted to figure it out, but could not. Steel1943 (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone has fixed the issue, I see 26s across the board. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments borking count?[edit]

Believe the comments in #51 support are borking the total support count. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legoktm fixed it, right before I fixed it better. (CC RoySmith.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh, Tamzin. This response was clearly not a minor edit, but you marked it as one. Pretty sure that means you are not qualified to be an administrator, right? HouseBlastertalk 21:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Darn it. You caught me. But you see, since I recently was desysopped for a month, that counts retroactively as my penance for this. (FWIW a Pavlovian reflex from writing the word "fixed". I noticed it as I clicked Publish, and wondered if anyone would notice.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoglophie's oppose[edit]

  1. Have some more experience as an editor for becoming an Admin. Edits like 7000 are too low for any candidate to have a Mop. Edit count reflects the time you have devoted in this Encyclopaedia, and I believe you should come here again after some time. I opposed Shushugah's nomination for the same reason. zoglophie•talk• 06:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deadbeef spends time designing and operating multiple bots that don't reflect in their edit count, but are a significant time investment in Wikipedia. I've spent hours working with them on one of these bots, which ends up counting for 0 edits to their account. So if you want to evaluate how much time they've contributed, you should absolutely add in some of the 7k edits from DeadbeefBot and 23k from HaleBot. We should not be looking down on people for going through the bot approvals process instead of, e.g. sitting there clicking through an AWB run. Legoktm (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I present GoldenRing's 2017 RfA. The requirements weren't that much lower six years ago, but they passed with an edit count of 2370. Edit count isn't everything. Just saying. Schwede66 05:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To the people above, I know it could be difficult for having to accept a different opinion about a candidate you personally favour, but it is equally fair to have a different opinion and thoughts about the process. It's not surprising that some support and some oppose, so you need to respect what they are thinking and what they expect for a typical admin to possess. I'm not the only oppose here, so you need to stop WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion which I think is happening in the oppose section now. zoglophie•talk• 07:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You were the very first oppose, and your opposition is based entirely on edit count, not mentioning any other factor, as if that is the only thing you looked at and that was all you needed to know. It isn't "bludgeoning" to point that out. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This exactly what Bludgeoning is. You may need to re-read the policy for better. Also, my oppose stands as it is because it's also one of the most important factor. No more replies to this thread are desirable as I will not reply to any of them. Please opine yourself in the general comments. Thankyou. zoglophie•talk• 06:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes's canvassing[edit]

I'm quite shocked with Lourdes's unusual activity at this RfA. She has been responding to a large number of Oppose or Neutral !votes with personal pleadings to support the nominee. In some instances, Lourdes's messages seem like a demand to reciprocate a favour:

  • Because I remember having acted on your complaints at ANI a few times, and on the basis of that connect and support that I gave you, I am requesting you to reconsider your stand [1]
  • my friend, for all the support in the past, do please reconsider [2]
  • Several more in a similar style.

This is truly extraordinary behaviour. The first quote above feels most shocking, as it leaves others with an uneasy feeling that an admin "acting on someone's complaints" might only be making a favour and may demand a repayment one day. Yet an RfA, philosophically, is supposed to be a place where editors, admins included, express their honest opinions of the candidate, and not try to please their fellow admins; at least not so openly.

I have highly respected Lourdes to-date and so I have no idea what to make out of this sudden behaviour. Can she be at all trusted with her admin decisions, or they are all part of some give-and-take game?

I'm intentionally not posting this on other boards, and would appreciate if someone here could clarify to me whether such canvassing at an RfA is appropriate. Thank you. — kashmīrī TALK 00:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is as valid as people giving personal or emotional reasons to oppose a candidate.
  • I recall only a single interaction with the candidate that left me with a poor impression...
  • Strong Oppose per Mr rnddude, and Bbb23's silliness in defining a personal attack.
  • Wow. Moving now to 'Strong oppose, if this is what the candidate's friends look like.
There are people who both either oppose or support the candidate based on such reasons. Heck, the impression I get is that "per [user]" votes are not just because someone agrees with the other person's reasoning, but simply because that person is their friend and they are following their lead. So again, simply a personal reason.
Likewise there are people who vote without giving any reason at all. Do you think we should be throwing all these unexplained, emotional and personal votes away? This still will not remove the personal aspect of it at all. Someone might give a reasonable explanation for their vote on paper, but their motivations might be very personal or emotional. We cannot quite measure that or prevent that from happening. In fact I appreciate this honesty of people openly stating their motivations.
I believe the first quote you gave is more benign than it seems - Lourdes does not demand a favour, but rather she mentions the fact that she is an outstanding and supportive admin. And she did throw her support behind 0xDeadbeef; someone she knows well taking the opposite stance does mean dismissing or questioning her judgement.
I agree with your regarding what RfA is philosophically... But it is just that - philosophically. Realistically, nobody is going to remove personal and emotional factors from their vote - they will only hide it behind genuine concern. So it becomes a choice between allowing people to be honest about their motivations or demanding everyone to be clouding their true motivations with objectively-sounding arguments. I do prefer it to be the former.
I will end my reply with saying that I am just a random person with a little over 1k edits. I do not know any of the admins. I have no connections, although I would love to make some friends here. I do find myself knowledgeable enough on Wikipedia's inner workings to participate in RfA. And I did vote for 0xDeadbeef because I find them to be a great candidate. Brat Forelli (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri: Replying to many people who already participated here isn't canvassing. The appropriate word you would be looking for would be WP:BLUDGEONING. Canvassing would be going to someone uninvolved in a discussion and asking them to either support or oppose whatever is being discussed. Usually, the person being canvassed had already expressed a view on the topic at some point and said action is done to taint the consensus towards a specific outcome. Just thought I should make that clear. This is rather concerning though and may run afoul of WP:GAMING since the implication of that quote is Lourdes is trying to skirt the consensus-building process here by calling in favors. It's certainly very unbecoming of an admin to say the least. Noah, AATalk 02:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Noah: I think you refer to the most common type of canvassing, however the WP:CANVASSING guideline is much broader and describes such behaviour as we witness here. in general, canvassing on WP includes any non-neutral notification posted on any venue, be it through messages or even such tricks as a custom signature.
Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way.
The guideline then offers a handy chart showing inappropriate notifications.
So, there are two problems at hand. One is Lourdes's selective messaging (only messaging editors who did not support a particular stance), which being WP:VOTESTACKING directly flouts the behavioural guideline. Two, Lourdes turns what should essentially be a merit-based discussion into a personal favour marketplace.
I have no problems with either support or oppose votes, and I regret I cast a vote as I'm now seen as involved. However, Lourdes's behaviour seems very inappropriate to me and a questionable way of swaying the discussion her side. I wonder what has prompted an otherwise respected admin to go to such lengths, including policy violations, to promote a relatively unknown, low-edit editor. — kashmīrī TALK 11:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this needs to go further, your only means of redress would likely be Arb Com. Noah, AATalk 12:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom would be a waste of everyone's time I'm afraid, but thanks for the suggestion. To me, it will be enough if Lourdes simply reads this discussion and reflects on her behaviour. — kashmīrī TALK 12:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says something about our culture that arguing with or even sometimes personally attacking an opposer is seen as unremarkable, but asking someone to reconsider based on a personal bond is a problem. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: The issue I take part with is not asking due to a bond, but the fact that the quotes above, at least in my opinion, imply "I helped you out and you owe me, so please do this to repay my actions". That's how I took it. Noah, AATalk 03:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a deeply cynical way to look at this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe... but I'm not the only one concerned about this. Hey Bbb23, he's a good guy, as you were when you gave the most important addition to our BLP policy ever. Do reconsider please.... Best... Lourdes 05:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I have absolutely no problem with ones like that. When you start mentioning things like your past support or actions you took for a person as a reason to reconsider, I believe that's where it crosses a line. Noah, AATalk 03:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to that. J947 † edits 08:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both are problematic. The fact that people don't call out argumentative behavior and personal attacks reflects more poorly on our culture. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not canvassing. These are examples of the "making you have to think about our relationship" genre of RfA responses alongside e.g. "I didn't have a Good Article when I ran for RfA -- am *I* a bad admin?" In those rare cases I oppose, I wouldn't care for being given a secondary relationship test, but obviously this is not something we can or should make a rule about. My own hypothetical frustrations aside, IMO it's an interesting experiment, but Lourdes should remember it's probably not going to work on the same person more than once. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless she helps them out somewhere in the meantime, and then can demand gratitude again ;) — kashmīrī TALK 12:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kashmiri, Noah, apologies in advance for how this came out to you. It wasn't intended to be like this. Let this not take away from the worth of the candidate, whose RfA was drowning with few changing their !votes. I know my messages resulted in some editors changing their stance and coming out in support. I would hope they did it for the right reason, than simply their connect with me. Be that as it may, I understand the points you have written and don't wish this to be an issue for the candidate at this point. Absolutely open in good faith to continue this on my talk page. Most warmly, Lourdes 08:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes, with due respect but the community was precisely in the process assessing the worth of the candidate, and !voted based on their assessment as is the tradition here. Yes, the candidate's editing profile and experience obviously did not tick all the boxes for many participants. Here, we focus on your attempts to influence fellow admins to !vote based not on the assessed worth of the candidate but on personal favours.
Your emotional attitude to the candidate (not seen in any previous RfA), transpiring even from your response above, may be another matter of concern given that you are an admin. Are you uninvolved with regard to 0xDeadbeef's editing? — kashmīrī TALK 08:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This complaint is nonsense.
Canvasing would be going out and bringing editors into the discussion who were not there already to stack the vote there way.
All they did was discuss points that individuals who were already in the discussion made in their !vote. Discussion is not canvassing, advocating for a position with people already in the discussion is not canvassing.
This personal attack above is outragous "Lourdes turns what should essentially be a merit-based discussion into a personal favour marketplace" and should be addressed.  // Timothy :: talk  10:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An "interesting" follow up of your today's unsuccessful report to AN3. What else to expect. Meh. — kashmīrī TALK 13:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I brought this up at WT:RFA. The complaint is not nonsense. Personal experience with an editor i.e. I recall good interactions is one thing, forcing your personal opinions on others is not what RfA is for. I'm disappointed in these replies by Lourdes as it also reads of tit for tat (I won't act on your reports again...) Star Mississippi 20:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Discussion of an oppose or neutral vote is one thing, but these all look like someone essentially saying "if you like/support me you'll vote for this person because I asked you to." There's no mention of the candidate at all. Just a direct appeal to change a vote based solely on a personal connection with the author of the comments. And that it was extended to Neutral votes as well is also concerning to me. Intothatdarkness 21:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may ask, where is the discussion? I can't seem to find it. Fermiboson (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can go to WT:RFA and do a ctrl+F search for "Lourdes". Skip to the second and third mention. You'll find it. Lourdes 06:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lourdes I'm quite disturbed by your entreaty of GiantSnowman. I'm trying to AGF, but I can't find anyway where this isn't transactional politics. You did somebody a favor (I haven't figured out if you actually performed some admin action, or just generally supported their side in an argument, and I don't plan to go looking) and now you're calling in your marker to get somebody to change their vote on an unrelated issue. That's unseemly in the best of circumstances. Particularly so for an admin. RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, Intothatdarkness, Star Mississippi, and others, as mentioned above, my apologies with no qualifications whatsoever for how this may have come came out and swayed a few editors to change their votes and some others to add supports than oppose. Do be assured that I have taken heed of all the points above. The candidate's RfA has passed successfully and we have a great admin added to our team, thanks to the community's trust and perception of their capability; and also the opposers who have left good points for the candidate to review. While I keenly celebrate the community's trust in the candidate, and hope you do too, I leave this page once again conveying my apologies for the way my statement(s) may have come came out to sway a number of voters, either directly or indirectly, especially when the chips were down. I don't want to belabour this point, but please do feel free to drop into my talk page to leave further messages if required. Thank you, Lourdes 08:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Sad that you still see nothing wrong about your actions, only about how they "may have come out". Also, no, we don't have a "great admin" – we have a newbie admin with no track record at all (although I do hope that they will be a great admin sometime). Your promotional language wrt the candidate is quite concerning, and I wonder whether you should not be asked politely to disclose any off-wiki links with them. A sorry state of affairs... — kashmīrī TALK 09:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I see the issue with "may have", which perhaps leaves ambiguity. I have revised the same and hope it conveys more definiteness. Akin to Deadbeef, I leave this discussion here with this final comment that neither of us has any relations with each other outside Wikipedia :) I know, silly point to clarify, right? :) See you around and thank you all, Lourdes 06:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Please don't cast aspersions. No, we do not have any off-wiki links, and I'm quite surprised you would think that. I'm not sure how to think of this situation, but given that Lourdes has already been trouted and apologized above, I think it is best that we leave this discussion here. If you have any questions about me, I'd be happy to answer them on my talk page. Thanks :) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
0xDeadbeef, no aspersions have been cast, unless you mean wrt your recent entoolment, and that's a simple statement of fact which may change over time. Regarding the gist of the case, Kashmiri has rightly identified problematic behavior, raised it on talk, and is probably surprised and concerned that, rather than an acknowledgement of an issue, it has been responded to with a non-apology suggesting his perception is at fault. Serial 18:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the query about meatpuppetry. Perhaps they weren't actually making an accusation and I was just overreacting. I'm not sure if this discussion is constructive at this point so I'm going to leave this discussion. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any attempt to 'canvass' me by Lourdes failed, as I did not change my !vote. I viewed it as them being passionate about the candidate, nothing more. No need for apologies, and the AN thread was unnecessary. GiantSnowman 18:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@0xDeadbeef, nobody suggested meatpuppetry; rather, my question was about off-wiki friendship, etc. And no, no aspersions have been cast. Please don't assume bad faith. — kashmīrī TALK 08:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Peeps in this thread may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Gaming the system#Proposal for an additional point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/0xDeadbeef&oldid=1183276621"