Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi. I'm considering a possible future RfA bid and have been spending some time preparing Q&A material. I'd be grateful for any feedback you might be willing to offer on what I've written so far (see here). I'm asking you in particular because you were, to a limited extent, involved in some of the discussions we tried to have about Illegal immigration to the United States (at a point where we got sidetracked over the activities of one multi-IP anon editor). Thanks. Richwales (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on RfA but I would offer some advice and point some potential areas of difficulty....

• • User:Richwales/Drafts/RfA Q&A has a couple of issues:
    • It's far too long; you will get a "tl;dr" response from some people.
    • Many editors come to RfA and look at a candidate's statement and contributions for a reason to oppose them. It's a regrettable approach, but it's the way it is. Consequently, the more detailed your statement, the more likely you'll say something the will be mis-interpreted, badly phrased or just be contrary to some random editor's pet cause. Keep it short, precise and leave no room for ambiguity. The question on Ignore All Rules and what you say about unregistered editors are especially risky in this regard.
    • Drop the phrase "fighting vandalism" for something less aggressive. Also, the phrase "hacker skills" makes you sound silly; pick a phrase like "computer knowledge" or somesuch.
  • Given you have highlighted dealing with vandalism in Q1, you will be challenged on your lack of reports to WP:AIV; if you want to retain Answer 1 as it currently is, you should start patrolling Recent Changes.
  • Further to the above the shortness of this might cause some problems.
  • In Q3 and Q5 you should more prominently highlight the Dispute Resolution processes you engaged in.
  • Some general advice on RfA:
    • Sometimes you will be asked a question on a current "hot" topic (a current example would be Flagged Revisions; previous, but recurring, examples have been BLP and Admin Recall). This is often an editor using RfA make a point; from your perspective, it will often be the case that any detailed statement of your opinion is going to get you opposed by a significant minority no matter how you answer. Either don't answer the question or combat politics with politics and simply state that you will follow whatever community consensus decides.
    • Some questions (e.g. What is the difference between a block and a ban?) are not there to test what you know, as such, but whether you are sufficiently diligent to find the right answer. Getting this kind of question wrong is bad not only because it demonstrates a lack of knowledge but, more importantly, that you were not familiar enough with policy and expectations to go look up the right answer.
    • Get someone to nominate you. Some editors will oppose purely on the basis of self-nomination, even if they do not give that as a rationale.
    • Greater weight tends to be given to more recent activity so try especially to highlight good recent editing.
    • RfA is not the place for bold statements, florid rhetoric or, worst of all, opinions. Try to be conservative; you'd be surprised what can get people's backs up.

CIreland (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Richwales (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CIreland. You have new messages at Giftiger wunsch's talk page.
Message added 06:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thank you for that close. That was pretty much my conclusion on looking into it last night, but given the history of the topic area I was not sure if a warning or some less formal guidance would be needed. Good work. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:_Wittsun_reported_by_User:_Stonemason89_.28Result:.29? Since you posted your last comment, Wittsun has made one more reversion to Reverse Discrimination, and since all four reversions were within a 24-hour period, he has just violated 3RR. You might want to reconsider your Decline decision.

This case seems almost like a classic case of Freudian projection; Wittsun keeps accusing me of edit-warring and POV-pushing, even though it is obviously he who is the one doing these things. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like B (talk · contribs) took care of it. CIreland (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for declining the speedy. I've added a bit. The Argentine films need a lot of work, there is only so much one has time for... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fellow Editor, I have not reverted on Vegetarianism and Religion as you have implied on my talk page, but restored references and fact tags which other editors have tried to remove. If you look at their talk pages, I have issued appropriate warnings for this behaviour. Please remove the warning from my talk page, as I believe you have been misled in this instance. Thanks--Sikh-History 10:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I am tryig to get edits discussed, but my discuss tags keep getting removed. Thanks --Sikh-History 10:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ What a sanctimonious statement by User:Sikh-history. He penned undue warning on my talk page and then whines when he is handed over one. Giving a fact tag with illogical assertions to a referenced statement is what he considers proper behavior. Arjun^codename024 10:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm Arjun, please Assume Good Faith, and please do not make personal comments. Thanks--Sikh-History 10:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CIreland. Thank you for tagging an article as a stub. I noticed that you used the {{stub}} template. In the future, it would be greatly appreciated if you could sort the article to a subcategory by using one of these templates instead. For example, you can use {{US-novelist-1960s-stub}} for an American novelist born in the 1960s. Of course, if you can't find a proper category, you can always use the {{stub}} tag and someone else will sort it for you, or you can propose a new stub template or category here. Thanks!

^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 16:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is not really valid as a close statement. In fact it is not really valid at all in the Lar/WMC case as you appear to have little knowledge of it. Polargeo (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base your assumptions concerning what I have knowledge of? CIreland (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No basis except you have not applied consensus. Polargeo (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to pile it on, but if being an opposing party in an ArbCom case does not make an admin involved with respect to another user, what does? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all the evidence and workshop suggestions for the arbitration case. Simply being named as a party does not make one involved, but you wrote opposing party - could you clarify the basis for that? CIreland (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it. Could you provide evidence to why you feel fit to individually overrule? Polargeo (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two admins are asking you not to make a unilateral descision here, please have the decorum to defer to the due process. Polargeo (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overrule who? Wordsmith and Bozmo, commenting in the closure section were both of a similar mind. CIreland (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Re. to CI) I think the fact that WMC calls for Lar to be desysopped, and that Lar calls for WMC to be banned (and topic-banned), and KDP to be topic-banned makes it fairly clear. I don't think the fact that Lar also want's me de-sysopped has tainted my vision too much - or the fact that he wants someone who has voluntarily dropped the admin tools years ago and who is generally one of the calmest voices of reason to be preemptively blocked from regaining admin status... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, advocating sanctions or giving an opinion on editor behaviour does not make one involved - consider the implications of what that would mean elsewhere on Wikipedia if it did. Review some of the past requests at Arbitration Enforcement for examples. CIreland (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: Lar is not an independent observer, he is a named party in this case and in the earlier "Stephan Schulz and Lar" case that was merged into the current case. In both cases, his claimed status as an uninvolved and unbiased admin is the reason he was named. I've commented in a few ArbCom cases, and it never was acceptable for one party to act as an admin against another party. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)That is a misrepresentation of Bozmo's argument. But would it have hurt to leave it open? Answer, is no. Does it hurt to close it before people have a chance to comment? Answer yes. You waded in with a close and a closing summary based on your own ideas and not those of others. That is not acceptable. Polargeo (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it would very much have "hurt to leave it open". Enforcement requests are already left to fester far too long. Moreover, if my closure had been significantly out-of-step with the remarks BozMo or Wordsmith I would not have closed it in such a manner, if at all. CIreland (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply simply shows a lack of familiarity with the issues. Polargeo (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have made it clear that you do not like my closure. I do not think your suggestion that I acted against consensus has merit. There are procedures for appealing closures detailed at the probation page, if you wish to pursue this matter, you should follow one of those procedures. CIreland (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I agree. But in the normal manner of these CC things this is now being used as a stick to beat me with. I would appreciate some input from you that this is just a disagreement and not some major admin war. Polargeo (talk)