Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Eagle 101

message: Please note I will be on a vacation starting August 24. I will be active right up to the time that I leave. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

message: :What's wrong with Wikivoter? Have you tried it? alphaChimp laudare 14:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it should be renamed to WikiDiscusser. —Centrx→talk • 15:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, from that very page: "The title of said program is not meant to be taken literally. Articles for deletion is not a vote process, but is a primary method of finding consensus in discussion." Let's not split hairs over a program's name. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really encourage any of the critics of WV to try it. It's a really neat little program that eliminates a lot of the difficulties associated with loading the entire AfD page at once. It also simplifies the process of researching articles. It's a great idea and certainly not automated. alphaChimp laudare 17:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me some credit, please, Dan: it's not just the name (although thinking that such a name was a Good Idea is definitely a point in Eagle 101's disfavour).  Perhaps someone could tell me what this screenshot is showing (since Eagle 101 is clearly Cluey enough not to have written program which shows the tally, which, as we all know, is utterly irrelevant).  AbsoluteDan's comments on the WV talkpage about the program not actually making it easier to ignore the quality of a Google search in favour of simple numbers are encouraging, but I note nobody's answered the concern that it makes it easier to discriminate against the views of new or non-logged-in users.  As for using WikiVoter, well, I might give it a go later in the week, if I get time ... although I doubt I could trust it to help close discussions. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 17:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can still get a tally without Wikivoter from User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary/All, and all that WV adds to that is a user interface for voting and some research tools, and soon some assistance for closing votes discussions.  The edit count feature makes it much easier for the closing admin using the program to detect socks, for example is he has 10 keeps all with one edit, he can tell that they are clearly socks and take appropriate action.  As for the name - I feel that it is approiate - it's short and snappy and easy to remember - especially as lots of Wikipedia users think of AfD etc. as votes (as opposed to discussions), probably a remanent from when the process was called VfD - votes for deletion - which is all it really is - to this day.  In a lot (maybe majority) of AfDs, there is little discussion and much more apparrent voting - is writing "keep per nom" a discussion?  Unless AfD (and XfD, RfA etc) have a lot more discussion, I feel that the name of Wikivoter is perfectly valid.  I would urge you to use the tool and see what you're missing out on - wikivoter really does make AfD easier! Martinp23 19:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't use User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary/All for closing AfDs or "voting", nor do I know anyone who is silly enough to do so, let alone actively encouraging its use.  Martin, if 20 people sheep vote "delete" and one person says (truthfully), "keep, he is the Prime Minister of Kuwait, won the Nobel Prize, and once climbed Mount Everest naked whilst smoking a pipe", how would you close?  My worry is that someone who uses WikiVoter — you'll laugh when I tell you this, but it's really something I've considered someone might do — would actually close it as delete!  Can you believe that?  What assurance do we have that WikiVoter makes it clear just how little the tally matters?  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 19:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fuddlemark: Very well understood, yet no issue you raise stops users from doing the same thing already, without WikiVoter. And this tool doesnt outright tell you to troll an AfD or make a decision for you. It merely provides statistics and information to help make a decision, not dictate it. As for the screenshot, the green color means you voted already, so dont vote twice, the long blue line tells you which AfD discussion you are currently on, and the grey box shows a closed discussion. We have no way of knowing how someone will vote on AfD, with or without WikiVoter. We rely upon users in good standing to be the better judge. That and good reasons to delete, keep, merge, etc. You get the picture. SynergeticMaggot 21:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As well as Dragon Flight's tool (which I'm sure some people use), there are some other tools on-wiki for closing AfDs - namely this js (on Cyde's user space).  Wikivoter uses C++ code similar (in functionality) to this js for a number of its functions, making it no more dangerous or whatever to the existing tools.  Wikivoter does rely on the ability of admins to use the tool properly in closing debates, and for this reason there is an approved list which a user is required to be on before they can use the AfD closer (in future versions of wikivoter).  Wikivoter is an off-wiki version of a multitude of other tools, bundled together with a few added - but one which requires a form of approval before use of certain functions - which the on-wiki programs don't offer.  The wikivoter user lists are also constantly policed by the team of wikivoter moderators, who have the power to ban sockpuppets and those who may intend to do harm using wikivoter - even able to ban socks before they get the chance to use the program at all.  Wikivoter is, therefore, a securer version of those systems already available, with added functionality.  Martinp23 19:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiVoter 

message: Harrassment of Users because of their additions to this discussion is inappropriate, and I request that it end.  User:Zoe|(talk) 05:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you referring to? -- tariqabjotu 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think its bad form to oppose an RfA based on a tool which is clearly meant to help, and not hurt. Weak oppose comments are subject to retort, in my opinion. If you have an opinion which you are willing to share, dissent is not the same as harrassment. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 17:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's bad form to continue to harrass a person who has made a perfectly legitimate oppose discussion on an RfA.  My opinion on the subject is as valid as anybody else's, and if you disagree with me, that's fine, but continued harrassment is not.  And in response to tariq, I'm referring to repeated challenges on my Talk page over my right to voice my opinion.  My opinion still stands -- Eagle's creation of the tool shows his lack of what it takes to be an admin -- understanding of consensus and discussion vs. voting.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe anyone here is challenging your right to voice your opinion; quite to the contrary, we're curious as to your opinion and your reasoning behind it. You speak of this tool, a tool not too unlike scripts such as AfD helper and the like, as if it were an application that hacked into Wikipedia's user tables and retrieved the passwords of every administrator, bureaucrat, steward, and developer and emailed them off to Willy on Wheels. You've made some highly dubious and outright offensive claims, yet you've failed to support your claims with any evidence, any cases where such abuse or disruption of the current AfD process has occurred, any real reasoning or solid logic, and not even any out-of-context Jimbo quotes. Thus, it would be much appreciated if you would either support your claims or altogether retract your unfounded assertions which serve only to demean and antagonize Eagle_101. I'd further encourage you to appologize to Eagle_101 as well--he created this tool in the very best of faith, with the benevolent intention of improving the AfD process (and many believe it will); thus, claiming that all of his work is evil and he should never be forgiven for it is not only in violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Be nice, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and the thousands of other policies and guidelines which protect good faith editors from such harrassment, judgment, and unconstructive criticism, but it's simply unnecessary, rude, and indecent. You also appear to have launched a crusade against all that is or ever was associated with Eagle_101--wheel-warring over the WikiVoter page against consensus, nominating every page associated with the project for deletion, etc., etc. Now, I don't understand what your issues are--do you have something against Eagle_101? Against WikiVoter? Against automation in general?--but in any case, the harrasser in this situation is most certainly you. Please stop trying to play the victim. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, here. SynergeticMaggot 16:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean "hear, hear." Newyorkbrad 17:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense.  I never said all of his work is evil, I never compared the WikiVoter to mass retrieval of passwords. Your hyperbole doesn't address my concerns, which I have already explained, and is yet again another attempt at harrassing me into removing a perfectly valid "vote".  User:Zoe|(talk) 20:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet again you fail to see the Issue. you atemped to delete a valid tool to assisit Wikipedians in WP:AfD. If you had ever even looked at the program which you havent unless you have a sockpuppet you would see that this valuable tool doesn't "automate" anything it is a tool that brings together the process of discussing a AfD. It allows you to quickly bring up the page in question along with the AfD page, upon viewing the page if you have questions you can search several differt search engines and load those while still letting you keep the pages up. please try to look at the tool before you decide that it should be deleted. and you still havent addressed the WP:CIVIL questions. Betacommand 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Harrassment