RFA - Greenman

[Jans Hammer]

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... p/Greenman[/link]

[Midsize Jake]

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... p/Greenman[/link]

He'll probably get in. Heck, I've never even heard of him - that's usually a pretty good indicator right there.

[Poetlister]

Nominated by Leftcentreright (T-C-L), who is not himself an admin but as far as I know is a good solid contributor on matters regarding South Africa. So far, 16/1/1 with this oppose from Lourdes (T-C-L):

Oppose CoI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Irrespective of whether his edits are acceptable or not, his continuing engagement with the MariaDB article (his part-time employers) makes it impossible to differentiate what is paid editing and what is not. If you're editing your employer's page, even if you are not getting paid for the edits but are being paid for any other work, the differentiation is but so little. If Greenman confirms he will stop editing the page and go to the talk page for any editing requests, I may reconsider this oppose. I am clear that other editors may not agree with my oppose. Thanks, Lourdes 07:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

[Beeblebrox]

Nominated by Leftcentreright (T-C-L), who is not himself an admin but as far as I know is a good solid contributor on matters regarding South Africa. So far, 16/1/1 with this oppose from Lourdes (T-C-L):

Oppose CoI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Irrespective of whether his edits are acceptable or not, his continuing engagement with the MariaDB article (his part-time employers) makes it impossible to differentiate what is paid editing and what is not. If you're editing your employer's page, even if you are not getting paid for the edits but are being paid for any other work, the differentiation is but so little. If Greenman confirms he will stop editing the page and go to the talk page for any editing requests, I may reconsider this oppose. I am clear that other editors may not agree with my oppose. Thanks, Lourdes 07:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

She appears to have a solid point. Candidate hasn't posted anything yet today, he's going to need to answer questions about this and get in front of it right now if he is to have any chance of success.

[Poetlister]

Now 21/3/5. Lourdes' oppose has started a discussion about whether editing your employer's page is paid editing or just COI. Praxidicae (T-C-L) is opposing for the same reasons as Lourdes. The other oppose is perhaps less convincing.

Oppose Not encouraged by the AfD activities, especially that the candidate wants to occasionally restore deleted articles. Just looking at the votes from 2018 onwards, the nominator has failed to either give a policy/rationale in all of these, used WP:ITSNOTABLE (which is to be avoided), and didn't analyze whether the sources were in-depth/WP:SIGCOV. [7][8], [9][10] (no valid deletion rationale here and per X is also to be avoided), [11] (this one is especially bad in that regards) or the latest one with a non existing rationale that isn't grounded on guidelines/policies [12]. It becomes a bit better in 2017, may move to neutral if question answers are good. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

[Jans Hammer]

22
17
3
now. Doomed

[Poetlister]

22
17
3
now. Doomed

22/18/2. That was a quick reversal of fortune. it's clearly down to concerns about COI editing.

[Midsize Jake]

...it's clearly down to concerns about COI editing.

Normally I don't care much about these RfAs, but this really looks like a knee-jerk overreaction on their part. I've looked at his edits to the MariaDB (T-H-L) article, and practically none of them are substantive - it's all just "gnome" stuff, updating the status of various versions. I guess they're saying he didn't sufficiently disclose it (until just recently), but to me it looks like they just didn't bother to check the actual edits.

[Poetlister]

...it's clearly down to concerns about COI editing.

Normally I don't care much about these RfAs, but this really looks like a knee-jerk overreaction on their part. I've looked at his edits to the MariaDB (T-H-L) article, and practically none of them are substantive - it's all just "gnome" stuff, updating the status of various versions. I guess they're saying he didn't sufficiently disclose it (until just recently), but to me it looks like they just didn't bother to check the actual edits.

I quite agree with this analysis. That's the problem with crowdsourcing; it too often degenerates into mob rule, with people blindly following the leader without thinking or checking the facts.

[Ritchie333]

I've looked at his edits to the MariaDB (T-H-L) article, and practically none of them are substantive - it's all just "gnome" stuff, updating the status of various versions.

Yeah, that's what I concluded as well. There is a moral panic over COI / paid editing at Wikipedia, which is propogated by Jimbo downwards. People don't look at the content or the edits, they just shout "ZOMG PAID EDITING" with all the critical thinking skills of a Sun reader.

[C&B]

There is a Large Question whether Greenmon really understands BLP and V: Both Policy.

[Osborne]

There is a Large Question whether Greenmon really understands BLP and V: Both Policy.

Is there a general expectation of administrators to know and understand policies?
Asking honestly. I don't mean do editors act like there is "a general expectation of administrators to know and understand policies"?
So far more than half of the administrators I met (1-2 dozen) were either oblivious to certain policies, or misinterpreted those in a way, that's either a logical failure (AGF) or an attempt to game the system (ABF). The statistical sample might be small, but includes "high-ranking" editors, with great influence on the community.

[Beeblebrox]

Literally nobody is thoroughly familiar with every single policy. There's just too many. However, there is an expectation that they be familiar with content policies as basic as verification of content through reliable sources, since that's something that's expected of everybody.

I was going to ask a follow up to my question but now it would feel like kicking him when he's down. Currently dead even at 28-28. That's "you should withdraw now" territory if I've ever seen it.

[Poetlister]

Literally nobody is thoroughly familiar with every single policy. There's just too many. However, there is an expectation that they be familiar with content policies as basic as verification of content through reliable sources, since that's something that's expected of everybody.

I was going to ask a follow up to my question but now it would feel like kicking him when he's down. Currently dead even at 28-28. That's "you should withdraw now" territory if I've ever seen it.

Further, many policies are mutually contradictory. But if an admin doesn't have a better knowledge of policies than most editors do, he or she can't possibly do the job properly because part of the job is enforcing the policies and, if there are arguments, seeing who has violated what.

[Osborne]

https://tools.wmflabs.org/apersonbot/vo ... p/Greenman

Oppose, cast on 07:36, 6 October 2019 by Lourdes
Oppose, cast on 07:52, 6 October 2019 by Serial Number 54129
Oppose, cast on 12:39, 6 October 2019 by Jovanmilic97
Oppose, cast on 19:33, 6 October 2019 by Praxidicae

Then the landslide:
Oppose, cast on 00:13, 7 October 2019 by John M Wolfson
Oppose, cast on 00:25, 7 October 2019 by Utopes
Oppose, cast on 01:21, 7 October 2019 by CoffeeCrumbs
Oppose, cast on 03:31, 7 October 2019 by Kudpung
Oppose, cast on 04:09, 7 October 2019 by Robert McClenon
Oppose, cast on 04:18, 7 October 2019 by Jbhunley
Oppose, cast on 04:26, 7 October 2019 by Alex Shih
Oppose, cast on 04:32, 7 October 2019 by OhKayeSierra
Oppose, cast on 04:35, 7 October 2019 by Ched
Oppose, cast on 04:45, 7 October 2019 by ThatMontrealIP
Oppose, cast on 04:57, 7 October 2019 by Mkativerata
Oppose, cast on 05:00, 7 October 2019 by Cryptic

[Poetlister]

Oppose substantially exceeded support for a while but then support increased. It's now 36/37/3, which is clearly withdrawal territory. Voting is rather light, only 76 cast. In Kees08 there are 95 votes cast and it's not been going for as long.

[Beeblebrox]

I suspect, now that it's clear it's going to fail, people don't want to pile-on opposes. He's commented on his talk page that the whole process has helped reveal systemic bias, which he apparently thinks is the only reason his poorly cited articles are suddenly being nominated for deletion. What actually seems to be happening is that users who are good at this sort of thing are swooping in and adding more/better refs.

[Randy from Boise]

I suspect, now that it's clear it's going to fail, people don't want to pile-on opposes. He's commented on his talk page that the whole process has helped reveal systemic bias, which he apparently thinks is the only reason his poorly cited articles are suddenly being nominated for deletion. What actually seems to be happening is that users who are good at this sort of thing are swooping in and adding more/better refs.

This is an oversimplification...

1. PROD being used en masse on stubs created by the RFA nominee instead of AfD because Kudpung is a prick.

2. PROD tags being removed en masse because Kudpung is a prick.

3. New sources being added because of desire to avoid AfD.

RfB

[Osborne]

which he apparently thinks is the only reason his poorly cited articles are suddenly being nominated for deletion.

Did his RfA become a boomerang-cleanup-spree, effectively canvassing deletionists? There is something "systemic" in that

This is an oversimplification...
1. PROD being used en masse on stubs created by the RFA nominee instead of AfD because Kudpung is a prick.
2. PROD tags being removed en masse because Kudpung is a prick.

Meet next years ArbCom nominee.
This "oversimplification" is still more informative, than the previous.

3. New sources being added because of desire to avoid AfD.

Now that's "being here to create an encyclopedia", or solution-oriented, as humans say.

[Beeblebrox]

I suspect, now that it's clear it's going to fail, people don't want to pile-on opposes. He's commented on his talk page that the whole process has helped reveal systemic bias, which he apparently thinks is the only reason his poorly cited articles are suddenly being nominated for deletion. What actually seems to be happening is that users who are good at this sort of thing are swooping in and adding more/better refs.

This is an oversimplification...

1. PROD being used en masse on stubs created by the RFA nominee instead of AfD because Kudpung is a prick.

2. PROD tags being removed en masse because Kudpung is a prick.

3. New sources being added because of desire to avoid AfD.

RfB

That's fair enough, it is a dick move to flood someone's talk page with deletion noms while they are at RFA.

[Poetlister]

I suspect, now that it's clear it's going to fail, people don't want to pile-on opposes. He's commented on his talk page that the whole process has helped reveal systemic bias, which he apparently thinks is the only reason his poorly cited articles are suddenly being nominated for deletion. What actually seems to be happening is that users who are good at this sort of thing are swooping in and adding more/better refs.

It's obvious that if you put yourself in the public eye by having an RfA, people are going to look at your contributions. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will PROD every article they find that they don't like, but, well, Wikipedia editors are Wikipedia editors alas.

[Eric Corbett]

That's fair enough, it is a dick move to flood someone's talk page with deletion noms while they are at RFA.

Quite revealing that my reply to this sexist "dick" nonsense has apparently been deleted without comment, as I suppose this comment will too.

Is there no limit to the double standards on display here?

[Midsize Jake]

Is there no limit to the double standards on display here?

Not in your case, at least when the "c-word" is involved.

Be a mensch, Eric! You can do it! Remember, I have complete confidence in you.

[Eric Corbett]

Is there no limit to the double standards on display here?

Not in your case, at least when the "c-word" is involved.

Be a mensch, Eric! You can do it! Remember, I have complete confidence in you.

I asked a reasonable question, you have provided an unreasonable, bigotted and insulting answer.

Nothing more needs to be said.

[Dysklyver]

This RfA is an absurd example of witch-hunting.

[Poetlister]

Now at 63/49/10, so there has been a surge of support but there seems to be little prospect that it will be a success.

[Vigilant]

Is there no limit to the double standards on display here?

Not in your case, at least when the "c-word" is involved.

Be a mensch, Eric! You can do it! Remember, I have complete confidence in you.

I asked a reasonable question, you have provided an unreasonable, bigotted and insulting answer.

Nothing more needs to be said.

This isn't en.wp and we aren't your little razor gang.


If it's just all too much to bear, *back of right hand held delicately to forehead for great effect while peeking to see if the gesture is effective*, you know where the door is.

Try not to let it hit you where the good lord split you.

[Eric Corbett]

Is there no limit to the double standards on display here?

Not in your case, at least when the "c-word" is involved.

Be a mensch, Eric! You can do it! Remember, I have complete confidence in you.

I asked a reasonable question, you have provided an unreasonable, bigotted and insulting answer.

Nothing more needs to be said.

This isn't en.wp and we aren't your little razor gang.


If it's just all too much to bear, *back of right hand held delicately to forehead for great effect while peeking to see if the gesture is effective*, you know where the door is.

Try not to let it hit you where the good lord split you.

Just as stupidly dishonest as usual. Nothing changes with you.

You don't even know what you're talking about in this case, do you. But then you rarely have even the most fleeting grasp on reality, so that ought not to be a surprise.

[Midsize Jake]

You don't even know what you're talking about in this case, do you. But then you rarely have even the most fleeting grasp on reality, so that ought not to be a surprise.

Look, Mr. Corbett, I think we've all heard the argument that the phrase "dick move" is a form of "reverse sexism" that would be viewed as "gendered harassment" in various modern social venues.

Actually no, I take that back, nobody has heard that argument before because nobody ever makes that argument. (Except, maybe, you.) In spite of that, I remain 100% confident in your ability to rise above such mundane, petty personal concerns and show us all that you really do deserve the respect that comes with your years of personal experience with subjects of concern here. You can do it, man! Tough it out! Control, control, control!

[Eric Corbett]

You don't even know what you're talking about in this case, do you. But then you rarely have even the most fleeting grasp on reality, so that ought not to be a surprise.

Look, Mr. Corbett, I think we've all heard the argument that the phrase "dick move" is a form of "reverse sexism" that would be viewed as "gendered harassment" in various modern social venues.

Actually no, I take that back, nobody has heard that argument before because nobody ever makes that argument. (Except, maybe, you.) In spite of that, I remain 100% confident in your ability to rise above such mundane, petty personal concerns and show us all that you really do deserve the respect that comes with your years of personal experience with subjects of concern here. You can do it, man! Tough it out! Control, control, control!

I recognise and have to accept your dishonesty in this matter. Nothing more needs to be said.

[Vigilant]

You don't even know what you're talking about in this case, do you. But then you rarely have even the most fleeting grasp on reality, so that ought not to be a surprise.

Look, Mr. Corbett, I think we've all heard the argument that the phrase "dick move" is a form of "reverse sexism" that would be viewed as "gendered harassment" in various modern social venues.

Actually no, I take that back, nobody has heard that argument before because nobody ever makes that argument. (Except, maybe, you.) In spite of that, I remain 100% confident in your ability to rise above such mundane, petty personal concerns and show us all that you really do deserve the respect that comes with your years of personal experience with subjects of concern here. You can do it, man! Tough it out! Control, control, control!

I recognise and have to accept your dishonesty in this matter. Nothing more needs to be said.

So, when are you leaving forever again?

[Moral Hazard]

Midsize Jake threw an elbow.
Vigilant saw the response.
Cards & leaves are yellow.

[Poetlister]

73/52/9, so clearly not a success. But he hasn't given up.

[ZettaComposer]

It made a nice comeback from the high 40s, but it looks like this one is going to be a little short of the discretionary range. Even if it got there I don't think the crats would promote.

On a side note, Silktork posted a long rambling oppose vote that is hurting my brain to read. Maybe Greenman owes him money?

[Osborne]

we expect admins to make themselves available in a timely manner to respond to questions about their actions - and during a RfA, which only runs for seven days, we expect candidates to remain alert for that period.

12 hours, SilkTork? What about the polite wp:adminacct question I addressed to Bbb23 in public, in front of the ArbCom, 3 months ago?
I don't remember you giving him a "nudge", to answer those difficult questions.

[collect]

we expect admins to make themselves available in a timely manner to respond to questions about their actions - and during a RfA, which only runs for seven days, we expect candidates to remain alert for that period.

12 hours, SilkTork? What about the polite wp:adminacct question I addressed to Bbb23 in public, in front of the ArbCom, 3 months ago?
I don't remember you giving him a "nudge", to answer those difficult questions.

Politesse and ST are incompatible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... om_Collect

[Poetlister]

we expect admins to make themselves available in a timely manner to respond to questions about their actions - and during a RfA, which only runs for seven days, we expect candidates to remain alert for that period.

12 hours, SilkTork? What about the polite wp:adminacct question I addressed to Bbb23 in public, in front of the ArbCom, 3 months ago?
I don't remember you giving him a "nudge", to answer those difficult questions.

Bbb23 is an admin now. He doesn't have to answer to anyone because it's almost impossible to do anything about him. Someone running for admin is in a very different position!

[Osborne]

Good joke
Here's a reflection, erring on the side of seriousness:
SilkTork is an Arbitrator now. His voluntarily requested responsibility is to ensure the policies of the English wikipedia community are upheld, even by administrators, entrusted by the community.

[Zoloft]

88/59/9 - 60%

[C&B]

Bbb23 is an admin now.

Bbb23 is a troll (now!)

[Randy from Boise]

Is there no limit to the double standards on display here?

Not in your case, at least when the "c-word" is involved.

Be a mensch, Eric! You can do it! Remember, I have complete confidence in you.

I asked a reasonable question, you have provided an unreasonable, bigotted and insulting answer.

Nothing more needs to be said.

Perhaps we should be gender-neutral and refer to Kudpung as an "asshole."

I wouldn't want to melt any PC snowflakes with my misandrous man-bashing...

RfB

[Eric Corbett]

Is there no limit to the double standards on display here?

Not in your case, at least when the "c-word" is involved.

Be a mensch, Eric! You can do it! Remember, I have complete confidence in you.

I asked a reasonable question, you have provided an unreasonable, bigotted and insulting answer.

Nothing more needs to be said.

Perhaps we should be gender-neutral and refer to Kudpung as an "asshole."

I wouldn't want to melt any PC snowflakes with my misandrous man-bashing...

RfB

Works for me.

[Jans Hammer]

Is there no limit to the double standards on display here?

Not in your case, at least when the "c-word" is involved.

Be a mensch, Eric! You can do it! Remember, I have complete confidence in you.

I asked a reasonable question, you have provided an unreasonable, bigotted and insulting answer.

Nothing more needs to be said.

Perhaps we should be gender-neutral and refer to Kudpung as an "asshole."

I wouldn't want to melt any PC snowflakes with my misandrous man-bashing...

RfB

Works for me.

I would prefer to call Kudpung a cunt and that is not intended to be any sort of snide jibe because Eric is here. I have called out Kudpung for years as an absolute utter, 100% twat and I think asshole is too generous. I also fear that this is his year for AC.

[Poetlister]

I would prefer to call Kudpung a cunt and that is not intended to be any sort of snide jibe because Eric is here. I have called out Kudpung for years as an absolute utter, 100% twat and I think asshole is too generous. I also fear that this is his year for AC.

Isn't the English language wonderful? There are so many words to describe someone you don't like.

Anyway, the vote is now 99/64/9 or 61% so support is creeping up. However, with only a few hours left it looks like the support is too little, too late.

Graph

[Beeblebrox]

final tally: 104-66 61%

If he takes criticism on board he may be able to successfully run in 6-12 months, but since he seemed to find all the criticism amusing and rooted in systemic bias he may not.

[Jans Hammer]

It's kicking off at BQ and on DQs talk page. Crat on Crat about dodgy close. Looks like she couldn't wait to be the one to press the button to close as an unsuccessful RfA and folks now demanding it should have been a crat chat.
linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... eenman_RfA[/link]

[Alex Shih]

Yeah, it's not the first time DeltaQuad rushes to arbitrary judgements. A 'crat chat may not have been necessary, but in close situations you need to give a rationale and have the courtesy to ask other 'crats, particularly when 1) there is a similar precedent not so long ago 2) a chance that you may been seen as prejudging the result prior to closure.

[Poetlister]

It was definitely below the normal discretionary range. However, it can always be argued that since RfA is a !vote rather than a vote, anything not unanimous could go to crat chat, whether above or below the range.

[Randy from Boise]

Midsize Jake threw an elbow.
Vigilant saw the response.
Cards & leaves are yellow.

7 / 7 / 7 ???

Are you hai?

Jake threw an elbow.
Vigilant saw the response.
Yellow cards and leaves.

RfB

[el84]

Man people love to find reasons to argue.