Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Wikidudeman

message: Wikidudeman's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

message: :this was moved here by EVula as it didn't seem to be an actual !vote
Comment
I find it remarkable that those who oppose this RfA have brought together much evidence to support their decision, and further must defend their decision with yet more evidence and argumentation, while virtually none of the supporters have been compelled (either by themselves or by others) to provide evidence to justify their vote. Surely the burden of proof should be on they who would confer greater powers and authority on an editor! I can't see how the objections that have been raised can be dismissed - and the issues raised in these objections do not only relate to events of "8 months ago" (there are other more recent examples that have been or could be given). A further note on the Barnstar issue that Pedro raised: An Admin should not only be fair and honest in her/his dealings, but should (with scrupulous care) be seen to be fair and honest. A flurry of Barnstar-giving in the latter days of June, leading up to this RfA, is not an example of good judgement under the circumstances. Pinkville 14:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Perhaps this is because there are over 40 support votes, and just over ten oppose. A vocal minority is still just that, a minority. And not all of them raise any legitimate unresolved issues (here I'm thinking of Davkal's wild accusations of a "scientific agenda"). As to the concerns about the AAVE discussions; this is one discussion out of hundreds of other heated discussions on controversial topics. As Zivko puts it so well above, A user's controversial opinions on select subjects or particular sociopolitical views, so long as they can make neutral decisions and respect consensus, should have no bearing on their capacity to use the suite of administrative tools. In my view, this is the exception that proves the rule of Wikidudeman's utterly suitable comportment for admin status. VanTucky (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Davkal's "wild accusations" as you put it, are that, Wikiduedeman claimed he could find no evidence of edit warring re certain parties when those parties had been edit warring day and night for weeks on end - that pretty much takes care of your nonsensical claim that he is alright "so long as [he] can make neutral decisions". That is, he can't, end of! That nobody defending Wikidudmena has even chosen to address this extraordinary bias/dishonesty/stupidity (I don't really care which one you choose), but have instead chosen to simply bandy about insults about me and my motives goes a long to showing that the second half of my argument (the one you regard as wild) probably has some merit. That is, why are you so keen to get an obvious incompetent (or worse) into the admin chair - will he really make SUCH a positive difference to Wiki or are other factors at work here.  For sure, Wikidudeman has been playing the UN peacekeeper for a few weeks now, but so what; look at the evidence of what he did before and justify that.Davkal 23:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Interesting count you've got going there.  And BTW, no one needs to defend their decision.  Period. •Jim62sch• 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *I don't see why the numbers of votes one way or the other should affect the principle that evidence should be provided to support one's vote - particularly when the question is one of conveying substantial powers to an editor. Power must be justified. - The AAVE is one discussion, the Anabolic steroid discussion is another. More recent examples include Nordic Theory and Masculinity, both of which display further errors of judgement on Wikidudeman's part. A pattern becomes discernable, so that AAVE seems less an exception than simply another type of his involvement in Wikipedia. Zivko's point misses the point. The objection is not (only) to Wikidudmean's views or opinions, but more fundamentally, to his comportment, judgement, knowledge and use of WP policy - all of which came into question in the AAVE and other discussions. Wikidudeman did not respect consensus at AAVE, nor make neutral decisions. Pinkville 15:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *To put it mildly, I disagree that these more recent "mishaps" you name qualify as such, much less establish a pattern of disregard for policy and consensus. Masculinity for example, is a perfectly civil debate over basic definitions and principles in writing the article, but all are arguing for what they feel best exemplifies a neutral point of view. A disagreement over content as a contributing editor is not a failure to act as a neutral arbiter of the community consensus,   in that instance Wikidudeman isn't even acting in an administrative capacity. The ability to be a neutral and fair administrator doesn't mean staying away from content contributing (and the inevitable disagreements) altogether. Zivko's point is relevant; it means that your personal views on content do not prevent you from adminship if you can demonstrate a reliable capacity to be fair and neutral when the occasion calls for it. I absolutely think WDM can, and has, done this. And I wasn't saying that a large majority of keeps automatically invalidates yours or any other dissent, but that - from the trend of the voting - most users don't feel that your concerns counteract Wikidudeman's generally-good history significantly enough to disqualify him. VanTucky (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I still think all of these discussions should be moved to the discussion page, but maybe it's too late.  VanTucky, I'm not sure it really matters what the vote numbers are.  One could state that 16 (as of right now) well written opposes constitutes a lack of consensus.  Or not.  It doesn't matter to me.  You are fighting hard for this applicant, and I'm not so sure that's very useful.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I understand and agree about moving this to talk if we can. I don't really have more to say as it stands. But even though it is a bit unusual for anyone but the nominated party to defend the subject in an RFA, I feel that it is appropriate in this case considering that I co-nominated Wikidudeman. My reputation as well could be affected by allowing (what I feel) are untrue or exagerrated criticisms to go unchallengend. And as a side note: I think it's rather presumptuous of you, if not outright uncivil, to tell me what is and is not my business to comment on. If Wikidudeman feels I'm being too vociferous, and sometimes I am, I'd like to hear it from him. VanTucky (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I believe RFA's are ideally supposed to be discussions to gather consensus. Oppositions should be replied to and answered and if the opposer is content with the reply to his/her criticism then they can change their vote respectively. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with the main thrust of what Wikidudeman is saying here, though for his "should be" I'd say "may be". And people are entirely within their rights to defend Wikidudeman. (Actually I myself have a kind of gut inclination to make a partial defense of those comments of his on parapsychology that so irritated others; but (i) I do concede that he went over the top, (ii) there are fewer than 48 hours in my day, and (iii) surely nobody wants all of this reexamined either within this RfA or in the article's talk page.) -- Hoary 23:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment (moved here from the RfA)