Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Vassyana

message: Vassyana's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 09:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

message: What wikipedia factions do you identify with, Vassyana? Mathiastck 10:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike any broad generalization. However, I would say I varyingly sympathize with m:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, m:Antifactionalism and m:Incrementalism. I hope that helps answer your question. Vassyana 11:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Factions 

message: Black Falcon, what I spoke was not sarcasm. It's honest query. I don't know where his arbitrary cut off point is, and I'm confused as to what would constitute a valid level. Alabamaboy's vote is highly confusing. He hates to oppose, seems to think Vassyana is great, but opposes anyways...and uses an apparently arbitrary number to decree that Vassyana can't be trusted with the tools. Standards have risen, but as you note an edit is an edit. If Alabamaboy thinks Vassyana can't be trusted, I'm wondering how he could think he could be trusted but Vassyana could not. I don't see any presentation of diffs to support the idea that Vassyana is not ready for the tools. The vote is confusing at best and I'm asking for clarification. If it comes off as sarcastic, c'est la vie. It's not my intent. --Durin 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a fair point but please don't push it. He's entitled to his opinion, just like you and I. There's no requirement to explain one's "vote". An editor would even be free to use a completely arbitrary criterion (not saying that's the case here) to determine if a candidate is suitable or not (like, say, has a user ID that starts in 'y'). You made your point and I'm sure the closing bureaucrat will take it under consideration. Oh, and thanks for taking this to the talk page. Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 20:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since RfA is a discussion and consensus gathering mechanism, I am every bit within my rights to question his vote and request an explanation. How can we reach consensus if we do otherwise? --Durin 23:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That we can agree on. Taking the other stuff to a more appropriate venue. -- Seed 2.0 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Durin, thanks for your response. I certainly understand your point and I apologise for having misinterpreted your comment. I agree that any arbitrary cutoff point for edits is problematic. I could understand withholding support if there were too few edits to be able to discern a pattern of either good or bad editing (e.g., a total of 20 edits), but I think 750+ is sufficient in that respect. But, that's a statistical issue (and, at present, a hypothetical one) which I won't bore anyone with ... . Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No no! Please bore me? --Kim Bruning 14:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Durin: If you look at my history of votes in RfAs, I tend to voice support the majority of the time. As you state at admin voting standards you look at the entire editing history of anyone up for an RfA. I do the same. Vassyana seems like a good editor but I feel the lower level of mainspace edits, and the short time he's been actively involved here, are reasons for concern. I should also add that I was involved in Wikipedia for 7 months before my RfA, while Vassyana has been actively involved for only 5 months. When this is factored with how standards have risen in recent years, that concerns me. I'd rather an editor up for RfA have a lower number of edits across a longer period of time than a large number of edits in a short time. --Alabamaboy 14:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  People often state such numbers, but so far I have seen no one directly argue any correlation or causation (that they've been able to prove, at least) . Would you be the first to do so? If so, what is your specific argument? --Kim Bruning 14:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You have not yet shown correlation or causation between these numbers and experience levels. However, skipping that, what (other) indicators of experience level do you use? --Kim Bruning 15:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a good faith effort to assess my comfort with giving the mop to Vassyana. I've stated my reasons several times. As I'm sure you know, even professional-level researchers can have difficulty determing correlation or causation. How I could prove the same thing to your satisfaction with something as nonscientific as Wikipedia is beyond me. As with almost every RfA discussion, the best we participants can do is to search through an editor's history and edits to see if they can be trusted with the admin tools. When I finished this search, I wasn't totally comfortable with supporting (but, as I said, if Vassyana continued for a few more months at this pace I would support). What more do you want? I am not an editor who opposes every RfA for an arbitrary reason. I make a decision based on each candidate. In general, though, I prefer candidates who has devoted a great deal of their time here to actually building this encyclopedia. For example, I just voted to support User:Reedy Boy's RfA b/c Reedy Boy is a terrific editor, as evidence by devoting over 3/4 of his edits to mainspace. Yes, this doesn't prove Reedy Boy will be a good admin but it makes me extremely comfortable with supporting. Vassyana has devoted under a quarter of his edits to actually building the encyclopedia. While taking part in talk page discussion and mediations is important, I place a higher value on actually creating content. --Alabamaboy 20:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alabamaboy's vote and Durin's response