Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Moralis

message: === Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis ===
Two things; First: User:Thebainer removed vote tallies from all RfAs active. Some of them have had the numbers restored, though not this RfA. Subsequent to that, and with the blessing of the nominee, I refactored this RfA removing support/oppose/neutral sections and chronologically sequencing the comments by people. 
Second: To date , all of the people in opposition to this nominee are basing their opposition solely on editcountitis and/or timeitis. Reality; user has been affiliated with the project for 2.5 years. His edit counts are not high, but this does not speak to the candidate's trustworthiness. Given the recent willingness of bureaucrats to disregard some votes based on certain grounds, I'd like to see the bureaucrats have the courage to ignore the opposes to this RfA that are based solely on editcountitis/timeitis considerations. --Durin 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Deep breath) As one of the many users who cited a concern about the user's experience, I don't understand when that stopped being a legitimate reason to oppose an RFA candidate.  Most unsuccessful RFAs have some people opposing because of inexperience overall or in a particular namespace.  Durin is welcome to disagree with my opinion, but I think he is trying to deligitimize it, and I don't think that's right. YechielMan 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: These are not "come back with 10,000 edits" oppose votes. In the case of an editor who has less than 1000 edits on an account, oppose votes based on edit count are meaningful. They convey the idea that the breadth of contributions is insufficient for the purpose of assessing what the candidate would do with administrative tools. Thus, such a vote does speak to the level of trust the community has in the candidate. Time invested is likewise an important factor. An editor who has only invested a month or two in an account is less likely to care about the eventual reputation of that account; the number of editors who will try to game the system by acting nice for two months, and then go haywire, is much lower than the number of editors who would be willing to spend a year under the radar. Both types are rare, but not nonexistent. I don't personally question the good faith of Moralis, nor have I voted in his RfA, but these are valid points to make. Dekimasuよ! 05:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both YechielMan and Dekimasu. I can't "trust" someone with <100 edits to Wikipedia space. That's strong grounds for an oppose !vote. Deriding that as "opposition solely on editcountitis" is demeaning and unfair. I don't care about someone 'serving their time' before 'deserving' becoming an admin. I think carefully before responding to RfAs. You can disagree with me with my pleasure (I've shown often enough that I listen to disagreement and will change my mind in response to a good argument); but don't denigrate my opinion. --Dweller 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To turn that on its head, though: would you automatically trust anyone who had more than 100 edits in the Wikipedia space? Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not. If a user has made a contribution, it's possible to review their contributions. --Dweller 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe Redux implied that he would like the experience of closing one in this format on WT:RFA. I don't have an exact link... -- nae'blis 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from [[WP:BN]] 

message: Two things; First: User:Thebainer removed vote tallies from all RfAs active. Some of them have had the numbers restored, though not this RfA. Subsequent to that, and with the blessing of the nominee, I refactored this RfA removing support/oppose/neutral sections and chronologically sequencing the comments by people. 
Second: To date , all of the people in opposition to this nominee are basing their opposition solely on editcountitis and/or timeitis. Reality; user has been affiliated with the project for 2.5 years. His edit counts are not high, but this does not speak to the candidate's trustworthiness. Given the recent willingness of bureaucrats to disregard some votes based on certain grounds, I'd like to see the bureaucrats have the courage to ignore the opposes to this RfA that are based solely on editcountitis/timeitis considerations. --Durin 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Deep breath) As one of the many users who cited a concern about the user's experience, I don't understand when that stopped being a legitimate reason to oppose an RFA candidate.  Most unsuccessful RFAs have some people opposing because of inexperience overall or in a particular namespace.  Durin is welcome to disagree with my opinion, but I think he is trying to deligitimize it, and I don't think that's right. YechielMan 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: These are not "come back with 10,000 edits" oppose votes. In the case of an editor who has less than 1000 edits on an account, oppose votes based on edit count are meaningful. They convey the idea that the breadth of contributions is insufficient for the purpose of assessing what the candidate would do with administrative tools. Thus, such a vote does speak to the level of trust the community has in the candidate. Time invested is likewise an important factor. An editor who has only invested a month or two in an account is less likely to care about the eventual reputation of that account; the number of editors who will try to game the system by acting nice for two months, and then go haywire, is much lower than the number of editors who would be willing to spend a year under the radar. Both types are rare, but not nonexistent. I don't personally question the good faith of Moralis, nor have I voted in his RfA, but these are valid points to make. Dekimasuよ! 05:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both YechielMan and Dekimasu. I can't "trust" someone with <100 edits to Wikipedia space. That's strong grounds for an oppose !vote. Deriding that as "opposition solely on editcountitis" is demeaning and unfair. I don't care about someone 'serving their time' before 'deserving' becoming an admin. I think carefully before responding to RfAs. You can disagree with me with my pleasure (I've shown often enough that I listen to disagreement and will change my mind in response to a good argument); but don't denigrate my opinion. --Dweller 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To turn that on its head, though: would you automatically trust anyone who had more than 100 edits in the Wikipedia space? Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not. If a user has made a contribution, it's possible to review their contributions. --Dweller 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe Redux implied that he would like the experience of closing one in this format on WT:RFA. I don't have an exact link... -- nae'blis 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis]]