Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/GB fan
Username: GB fan User groups: ipblock-exempt, reviewer, rollbacker First edit: Oct 03, 2008 17:36:33 Unique pages edited: 12,564 Average edits per page: 3.14 Live edits: 35,545 Deleted edits: 3,930 Total edits (including deleted): 39,475 Namespace Totals Article 23536 66.21% Talk 3444 9.69% User 187 0.53% User talk 5757 16.20% Wikipedia 2442 6.87% Wikipedia talk 133 0.37% File 4 0.01% Template 21 0.06% Template talk 2 0.01% Help 4 0.01% Category 8 0.02% Portal 7 0.02% Month counts 2008/10 1492 2008/11 2410 2008/12 1760 2009/01 1747 2009/02 2774 2009/03 2367 2009/04 1714 2009/05 1298 2009/06 556 2009/07 295 2009/08 351 2009/09 426 2009/10 859 2009/11 942 2009/12 915 2010/01 975 2010/02 1779 2010/03 973 2010/04 1348 2010/05 1181 2010/06 519 2010/07 614 2010/08 565 2010/09 661 2010/10 923 2010/11 730 2010/12 577 2011/01 842 2011/02 427 2011/03 531 2011/04 712 2011/05 624 2011/06 535 2011/07 505 2011/08 447 2011/09 171 Top edited pages Article 236 - List_of_dog_breeds 168 - List_of_social_networking_websites 122 - 0 109 - List_of_assassinated_people 76 - Michael_Vick 76 - December_25 73 - Joke 73 - Synthetic_cannabis 71 - Gooch 71 - Articles_of_Confederation Talk 93 - Main_Page 56 - George_W._Bush 49 - List_of_social_networking_websites 47 - Nick_Jonas 45 - Dog 37 - Jonas_Brothers 20 - Theodore_Roosevelt 19 - Cat 19 - WDTN 19 - George_Washington User 44 - GB_fan 20 - GB_fan/Helpful_Links 14 - GB_fan/vector.js 9 - GB_fan/User_Boxes 5 - GB_fan/vector.css 5 - GB_fan/monobook.js 3 - GB_fan/huggle.css 3 - GB_fan/monobook.css 3 - Pip2andahalf 3 - ANG99/sandbox User talk 329 - GB_fan 22 - Since_10.28.2010 8 - 99.63.245.4 8 - UnTrooper 8 - Podstallahassee 8 - 85.198.140.215 7 - 128.208.32.177 7 - Derpaderp 7 - Ehsi18 7 - ASTeng Wikipedia 564 - Help_desk 101 - Editor_assistance/Requests 98 - Requests_for_feedback 88 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 80 - Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed 78 - New_contributors'_help_page/questions 52 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention 48 - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard 40 - Requested_moves 38 - Village_pump_(policy) Wikipedia talk 31 - Articles_for_deletion 25 - Sock_puppetry 8 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion 7 - Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages 6 - WikiProject_Biography 5 - Requests_for_adminship/A_new_name_2008 4 - Help_desk 4 - Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC 2 - Requests_for_feedback 2 - Village_pump_(policy) File 1 - JAGcoin.png 1 - Jimmy_Eat_World_-_The_Middle.ogg 1 - Kanye-West-grabs-the-mic-2009-vma.jpg 1 - Longlife_Logo.gif Template 4 - Persondata/doc 2 - Pizza_chains 1 - Lists_of_Band_of_Brothers_veteran_deaths 1 - Es 1 - JAG_television 1 - Ethnic_groups_of_India 1 - Infobox_actinium 1 - Shades_of_blue 1 - Broadcast_television_networks_in_the_Philippines 1 - Jimmy_Eat_World Template talk 1 - Infobox_actinium 1 - GalvanicCells Help 1 - Reverting 1 - Watching_pages 1 - Minor_edit 1 - Job_queue Category 1 - Bisexuality 1 - Recipients_of_the_Legion_of_Merit 1 - Photography_museums_and_galleries 1 - Skyscrapers_in_Beijing 1 - 1733_in_Canada 1 - Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia 1 - Khojaly_Massacre 1 - Taiwanese_opera_singers Portal 2 - Current_events/2010_May_23 1 - Geography 1 - Society 1 - Contents/Portals/Religion_and_belief_systems 1 - Current_events/2008_September_2 1 - Mind_and_Brain
— Kudu ~I/O~ 23:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose 1 Surturz
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.
- Oppose (Sorry!) Candidate will not undertake a term limit, reconfirmation or recall. Also seems to have problems saying "No" :) No other concerns. --Surturz (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Honest question, can you explain that last part for me (about saying no)? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is getting to be purely disruptive. Please comment on the candidate, not the process. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Everyone is allowed their opinion. It is up to the crat to decide whether it is a valid one about the candidate, or a gripe about the process that will be stricken. It's obvious that this person has an agenda, as many people have come to RfA in the past with, it's been my experience you just need to consider their point, then move on.
Also... he comes from an extremely exclusive club of concerned editors[1]. Trusilver 16:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)- Below the belt.... Wifione Message 17:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are right, struck the snarky part of my comment. But while I do agree with his sentiment, someone's RfA isn't the place to set up your soapbox to talk about procedure. The current voluntary recall process is useless, and it's totally up to the recalled admin to decide if they are even going to carry out their recall pledge, and at there have been incidents of admins says "oops... changed my mind" when faced with one. Trusilver 17:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Below the belt.... Wifione Message 17:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, while I disagree with this litmus-test, I don't think it's worth heckling this editor every time it is applied. This editor feels the current de-sysopping procedure is not good enough, and feels voluntary AoR/etc are helpful, so is only comfortable with admins who have agreed to it. While again I disagree with the particulars, I think this is legitimate and certainly not disruptive. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Everyone is allowed their opinion. It is up to the crat to decide whether it is a valid one about the candidate, or a gripe about the process that will be stricken. It's obvious that this person has an agenda, as many people have come to RfA in the past with, it's been my experience you just need to consider their point, then move on.
- Sven, I'm pretty sure the "saying no" comment was a response to what Surturz felt was an overly-"diplomatic" answer style: "If the community decides..." blah blah. The answer to Surturz' litmus-test question about AOR was "no", but it almost sounded like a "yes". Perhaps the candidate didn't understand the question at first, hence the confusion, which was cleared up in the supplementary answer. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Actually the answer was "Yes", I will submit to all those processes as enacted by the community. I will not create my own process though. GB fan 17:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Presumably it was interpreted as "no" by this user as there are currently no such community processes in place. (Ignoring RfC, ArbCom etc.) Saying you will abide by the rules (even future rules) should really be a given Jebus989✰ 17:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is a clear "no" to the question "will you join WP:AOR". Suturz probably thought this was clearly implied by the question "Will you agree to ... recall?", since for the question to make sense it would of course have to be something you were volunteering for; you have no choice but to agree to the processes enacted by the community, so that question would have been rather vapid. I'm guessing Suturz thought you knew that and were giving an evasive answer, but really it seems you were answering a different question, and again this was all clarified in the follow-up so all is well. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Actually the answer was "Yes", I will submit to all those processes as enacted by the community. I will not create my own process though. GB fan 17:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is getting to be purely disruptive. Please comment on the candidate, not the process. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Although I am tempted to further justify my vote, doing so would achieve nothing except hurting GB Fan's feelings more than I already have. I'd like to thank GB Fan for putting his hand up to go through this arduous process and wish him well. --Surturz (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- You haven't and can't hurt my feelings. I don't take anything said here personally. If you have more to say I am open to all comments. GB fan 22:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- If these types of opposes continue to pop up at every RfA, I think the best course of action would be to send AOR to MfD. —SW— converse 18:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Snottywong on this. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 08:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- If these types of opposes continue to pop up at every RfA, I think the best course of action would be to send AOR to MfD. —SW— converse 18:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- You haven't and can't hurt my feelings. I don't take anything said here personally. If you have more to say I am open to all comments. GB fan 22:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Let me be the first to say: c-c-c-combo breaker.--Cerejota (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is basically the new "too many administrators currently". As a result, if we're going to allow this, when we need to unban and unblock User:DougsTech. –MuZemike 15:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that is the only reason DougsTech was blocked. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- It actually puts me in mind of the "prima facie" opposes from a particular Colts fan. Not that I'm looking to squelch RfA opinions, but this is a gentle reminder that boilerplate opposes at RfA of this nature are often considered pointy and have led to bans and blocks of editors in the past. I'm just saying that this kind of activism is not a good idea. -- Atama頭 20:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's extreme to even hint at a block. Asking a question and not getting an answer you like is a harsh but fair oppose rationale. It hasn't 'disrupted Wikipedia' (as laid out in POINT); the candidate has responded amicably, and if these isolated oppose !votes were allowed to be made without such a hoo-hah they would probably soon die out Jebus989✰ 20:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I can't rewrite history. Whether or not it's fair, people who make it a habit of opposing every single RfA for reasons that the community disagrees with can eventually face those consequences. It's happened before. I'm not trying to make threats, and in the past these sanctions only occurred after extensive discussions at admin noticeboards, but it does happen. My only purpose in bringing this up is to make Surturz aware of it. The previous incident I was hinting at was with Kmweber. See this report where it was agreed that such actions were considered disruptive (in that case, Kmweber would call any self-nominated RfA to be "power hungry" and oppose). Later, you can see here that he was indefinitely blocked. The block was controversial, and overturned, but you can see how much difficulty this caused for the editor. Others have already mentioned DougsTech, you can see here where there was a proposal to ban DougsTech from RfA after opposing every candidate because there were "too many administrators currently". That ban was not enacted, but DougsTech was later indefinitely blocked for that behavior. Just as before, the block was overturned after a lot of controversy (see here for that particular mess). So again, this is just a caution about the kind of craziness that can result from engaging in a campaign like this. If Surturz wants to continue doing this, knowing what kind of trouble can result, then I'm not going to get upset over it. But I thought it was only fair to forewarn him, again I personally have no desire to take any action against him. -- Atama頭 23:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's water under the bridge at this point, but isn't this the sort of discussion that should be...well, on the Discussion page? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Why not just leave the user alone - he does not support any admin that is not open to recall - that is totally fine - just accept his position and get on with the other business. In this recent RFA - Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rannpháirtí_anaithnid#Oppose - User:Hipocrite opposes because the subject said they were open to recall. Both positions imo are a bit pointy but most of the project is, anyone can edit here. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I can't rewrite history. Whether or not it's fair, people who make it a habit of opposing every single RfA for reasons that the community disagrees with can eventually face those consequences. It's happened before. I'm not trying to make threats, and in the past these sanctions only occurred after extensive discussions at admin noticeboards, but it does happen. My only purpose in bringing this up is to make Surturz aware of it. The previous incident I was hinting at was with Kmweber. See this report where it was agreed that such actions were considered disruptive (in that case, Kmweber would call any self-nominated RfA to be "power hungry" and oppose). Later, you can see here that he was indefinitely blocked. The block was controversial, and overturned, but you can see how much difficulty this caused for the editor. Others have already mentioned DougsTech, you can see here where there was a proposal to ban DougsTech from RfA after opposing every candidate because there were "too many administrators currently". That ban was not enacted, but DougsTech was later indefinitely blocked for that behavior. Just as before, the block was overturned after a lot of controversy (see here for that particular mess). So again, this is just a caution about the kind of craziness that can result from engaging in a campaign like this. If Surturz wants to continue doing this, knowing what kind of trouble can result, then I'm not going to get upset over it. But I thought it was only fair to forewarn him, again I personally have no desire to take any action against him. -- Atama頭 23:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's extreme to even hint at a block. Asking a question and not getting an answer you like is a harsh but fair oppose rationale. It hasn't 'disrupted Wikipedia' (as laid out in POINT); the candidate has responded amicably, and if these isolated oppose !votes were allowed to be made without such a hoo-hah they would probably soon die out Jebus989✰ 20:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- It actually puts me in mind of the "prima facie" opposes from a particular Colts fan. Not that I'm looking to squelch RfA opinions, but this is a gentle reminder that boilerplate opposes at RfA of this nature are often considered pointy and have led to bans and blocks of editors in the past. I'm just saying that this kind of activism is not a good idea. -- Atama頭 20:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that is the only reason DougsTech was blocked. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Y'all miss the point. C-c-c-combo breaking should be against policy and result in topic ban. If you stand alone against, better move it to neutral and that is that. --Cerejota (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Honest question, can you explain that last part for me (about saying no)? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
How about we all stop wasting space debating over this, as it's clear that this one oppose will not have a big affect on the outcome of the RFA. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 23:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
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.