Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:12, 13 October 2015

This is an RfA talk page. While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy. Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs. Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere. Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed. Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Discussion on Eric Corbett's oppose

The following discussion 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.

Note: Per an Arbitration decision, Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) is not allowed to participate in actual RfA discussion (only voting), so he is unable to reply. Esquivalience 20:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I will not ask how old the candidate is, I will simply say that I believe that schoolchildren should be focusing on their schoolwork, not wasting their time as administrators here. Eric Corbett 17:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What evidence led you to the conclusion that Thine Antique Pen is in school? clpo13_(talk) 17:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you this candidate's parent or guardian, Eric? If not, why would you take it upon yourself to dictate how the candidate spends his time? I am certain he does not need your help to manage his time, and adminning certainly doesn't take up more time than content writing. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric can't comment further, folks, he can vote but not engage. Old story. Montanabw 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That seems counterintuitive. Shouldn't voters be able to defend or clarify their position when asked? clpo13_(talk) 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I'm confident the crats will ignore this "oppose", as it deserves. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Eric is banned from doing so. It's notated here (under his prior username, Malleus Fatuorum). Epic Genius (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric's comment is more likely to be an WP:OUTING. But again, I'm pretty confident that no admin will dare to warn or take action against Eric. Jim Carter 18:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric is allowed, like any other editor, to state his opinion on a candidate and you should respect his views. Frankly as a parent I make a point of getting my kids away from the computer every day for a time so they aren't socially isolated, so I see where he's coming from. Now drop it. Ritchie333 18:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note that we've had a 13 year old Bureaucrat before, much less a 15 year old Admin. Apparently worked out fine. Some people are more mature at 15 than others are at 51. --GRuban (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, what do you know? Turns out this has happened before. Now will I be the next editor to be criticized, because I'm 17? Epic Genius (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, Epicgenius, not until you do something daft like running for Admiship with 116,000 edits under your belt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not allowed on Misplaced Pages, Eric. You cannot ask personal questions of other users. All of us have the right to remain anonymous. Also isn't he banned, it says here. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

He is allowed to !vote, just not to engage in threaded discussion. And he didn't ask a personal question; he said "I will not ask ..." --Stfg (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Does the Arbcom decision applies only to RfA pages? If people want to ask Eric to explain further the reasoning behind his vote, can't they simply go and ask him on his own Talk Page? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

He is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Misplaced Pages. He's made his vote, this discussion needs to end, it's unfair on both him and the candidate to carry on further Worm(talk) 12:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on Andrew D.'s oppose

1. Oppose I check the candidate's contributions for April and find he only made 5 edits. I check May and find he didn't make any edits at all. I check June and find a big splurge of automated/mechanical edits. Judging by the topics – easy, rote stuff like beetle species – I get the impression that he's still hat collecting – just going through the motions to level-up. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

   I've checked your contributions to RfA (and those as Colonel Warden) over the years and find that of your over 100 votes you oppose over 75% of the time, and that you are only correct about 44% of the time. Just na observation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   This is not a prediction game, Kudpung. Samsara 00:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   TBH, I thought he opposed all of the time. clpo13_(talk) 00:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   Thank you for actually agreeing with me, Samsara. It's partly about having genuine reasons for participating on an RfA based on actual research of the candidate and reaching a fairly equitable conclusion rather than on obscure impressions, lookig into a crystal ball, or throwing a dice that has 'oppose' stamped on 4 of its 6 sides. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   I do not roll dice or use a crystal ball. Kudpung's more serious criticism is based on a concept of correctness which seems debatable. For example, I supported the recent RFA candidate Montanabw. That position was the most popular one (128/86/13) but she failed to attract enough support to pass. Was this a "correct" !vote or not? In other cases, such as Wifione, my opposition was a minority view but was subsequently vindicated when the person was subsequently banned. Was this a "correct" !vote or not? My view is that we should avoid groupthink and so dissent should be encouraged. Andrew D. (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   we should avoid groupthink and so dissent should be encouraged. Amen to that. Samsara 13:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   I tend to agree that dissenting opinions should be encouraged and sought. I've never been persuaded by RfA opposition citing a lower-than-average percentage of "correct" AfD votes, for instance, and it seems similarly unfair to criticize an RfA voter for high oppose rates/low accuracy rates. I'm all in favor of calling out frivolous votes and rote oppose rationales, or whatever the case may be, but numbers themselves are rarely of any good use. – Juliancolton |  13:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   Julian, a below-average understanding of our notability and deletion guidelines is a perfectly valid reason to oppose an RfA candidate, especially if the candidate proposes to work in closing AfDs and other XfDs. These are core WP guidelines for any admin. I would also suggest that deletionist/inclusionist tendencies that are significantly outside mainstream opinion also signal potential trouble for an admin. That said, I have reviewed TAP's AfD contributions and!votes and they are well within the range of acceptable understanding and mainstream opinion. He started within an okay understanding of the basics and has demonstrated growth in sophistication over time; I would trust him to close all but a few AfDs, and he will learn from experience as most do. I see no evidence of him having only voted in easy cases, he's made a few mistakes, and seems to learn from them. To my way of thinking, that's all we can ask. As for RfA participation, it is far more subjective than AfDs, which should be based mostly on the guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   At the risk of getting too far off-topic... notability and deletions policies (and indeed guidelines) are all open to interpretation, which is why we have deletion discussions in the first place. There's an entire gulf between not understanding policy and taking an unconventional view of policy in a low-stakes environment like a week(s)-long debate. More often than not, dissidence enriches the discussion and yields a more meaningful decision, even if failing to change the outcome; an AfD populated by half a dozen "*'''Delete''', fails ]." votes is only marginally more worthwhile than one with no participation whatsoever. If a prospective admin is shown to have a deficient understanding of inclusion/deletion standards, that's all the reason we need to delay their promotion, but I don't believe that can be demonstrated with statistics. – Juliancolton |  14:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Follow-up to this tangent on Julian's user talk page, because we are cluttering TAP's RfA. In summary, TAP's AfD stats are good, and closer scrutiny of his AfD participation shows him to have a good understanding of the guidelines, and not merely racking up "me too" !votes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   Without wanting to "badger" the opposes, can I just address the low edit counts? I believe that Thine Antique Pen is willing to take a break when his real life workload increases and the maturity to know when real life is more important and when to stop focussing on Misplaced Pages makes him more mature than the vast majority of editors. It is that maturity that makes it absolutely crystal clear to me that his age should not be taken as a factor. Finally, I'm unsure how you can say that someone with ~60k edits and multiple good articles is "going through the motions" Worm(talk) 07:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   Myself, I have worked on an eclectic variety of topics. The candidate seems to have focussed on species articles which seem quite formulaic. Perhaps this is related to his participation in the WikiCup? Anyway, this narrow approach seems too mechanical and so does not convince me that the candidate has the range of experience and knowledge which I expect of an admin. If he has long breaks due to other demands then this seems contrary to the requirement that admins be accountable and so readily available. If the candidate is as young as suggested here then they will have a long life ahead of them. There will be plenty of time to be an admin for years when they are more experienced and settled. Andrew D. (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   We're all impressed by your DYK history, yes. – Juliancolton |  13:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   Since his age has been discussed at length, I would venture to say that at 15, he quite sensibly focused on exams, projects and papers at school in April/May. By sometime in June, the worst would have been over and he could return to his Misplaced Pages duties, which he seems to take quite seriously. Rhondamerrick (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   "I've checked your contributions to RfA... and find that you are only correct about 44% of the time. Just na observation." - Kudpung. That statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the RfA process. Just an observation. Axl ¤ 10:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

2. Yes, a fundamental inability to get anywhere close to realistically assessing a candidate in order to make a constructive, objective vote. It's the kind of participation that puts people off from wanting to run. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)