Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Two points.

If this fails, I will not nominate myself again, and I would have to think for a very long time about accepting a nominatin by someone else. If it passes, then I will not have my tools removed voluntarily again.

Additionally, I do not plan on delivering thank you notes to the people who supported this application. I hope you understand that I do appreciate it, however; consider this an all-purpose thank you. --SB | T 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thinking

I wish you all the best! In the meantime, I am thinking over the matter. --Bhadani 14:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The sum total of Sean Black has prompted me to repose my confidence in him. I wish him all the best in his enterprise here. --Bhadani 13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Sometime, like in real life, one faces real difficulty to decide issues pertaining to virtual life. The same dilemma haunts me here. Basically, I do believe that every human being is a nice person, and he/she deserves the best. However, in a virtual community, the issue of civility takes a paramount position as we can not function unless we respect others. I am, therefore, constrained to revise my stand. For the sake of good order, I would like to re-affirm that civility is paramount. I wish Sean Black all the best here, as also in his real life. I also thank all other fello-wikipedians who asssited me through their "in-putting" to me and others on this issue. Regards. --Bhadani 13:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elucidating upon this morass.

I didn't want to make any more comments here, but I doubt it will make much difference at this point. I readily admit that I have made mistakes, and that I have, at times, been overly rude or "incivil", as is the popular word in Wikipedia jargon. I readily admit that I have done things that I have regretted.

However, I do not accept the reasoning behind much of the opposition. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, and most importantly, is that the purpose—the only purpose— of a request for adminship is to evaluate the suitably of any given editor to use administrative tools; as such, one would think that my request, would be based on my use of them previously. As anyone can see, this has not been the case; as far as I can tell the only specific abuse mentioned is the block of Glad2DoSumGood (talk · contribs). The objection to this is baffling, because if anyone is even remotely familiar with the user known as the "ANI troll", they would clearly be able to identify this editor as a reincarnation. In addition, looking at the relative history of ANI, similiar posts can be seen from other sockpuppets of the same user who were also blocked, largely by InShaneee (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). To me, this suggest a lack of research into the situation before making a statement.

Secondly, "inciviltiy". As above, I fully acknowledge that I have done and said things I've regretted. Most of the things presented are things I would have done no matter what, but perhaps have used a less hostile edit summary or somesuch. Specifically:

  • "Useless crud". No one has yet to say that the template should not have been deleted (indeed, it was endorsed more or less unanimously at deletion review), only taking issue with the summary. Granted, it was perhaps not the most diplomatic choice of words, but to be honest, I hardly think that it such an egregiously offfensive comment that I should be barred from using maintenance tools because of it.
  • I really can't be bothered to explain all the other diffs presented, but I would appreciate it if those who are looking to comment on this RFA would actually read the edits in question, and see if you do, indeed, find them unacceptable. I certainly don't; if I did, I wouldn't have made them or used the edit summary that I did.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.--SB | T 23:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that RfA doesn't measure your suitability to use admin tools; it measures your acceptability to the community. Adminship is today a reward given to acceptable people, rather than a responsibility allocated out to people who we reasonably believe can be trusted to use it responsibly. In short, adminship is not, and has not been for some time, "no big deal". Kelly Martin (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur with most of that. I'd have to demur on one point, though. People care about civility not simply because of "acceptability" but because the ability to communicate with some degree of kindness about how you've used the tools is in fact a vital part of using them. Even if we somehow removed the perceived "bigness" of adminstrators, it would still be important for them to be able to engage in polite disagreement. Something I have always observed Sean to do, but we're talking more generally here aren't we?
brenneman {L} 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What concerns me most is that there's no discussion of his ability to use the tools. I fear that someday we're going to have a corps of administrators who are "civil" (a nebulous and subjective concept) but are grossly ineffective at the drudgery that we carry on every day. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, and most importantly, is that the purpose—the only purpose— of a request for adminship is to evaluate the suitably of any given editor to use administrative tools; as such, one would think that my request, would be based on my use of them previously. Suitability to use admintrative tools can based on many things besides previous use of the tools. Although not all evalutions are equal, if there is a large enough sampling of people with their individual standards we should be able to come to a reasonable conclusion. I personally no longer have time to examine people's contributions so I only give my opinion when I have had actual experience with people. I believe that if my opinion ends up in the minority it simply means my experience was a fluke, not that my judgement was based on an improper basis. In fact I had hoped that Sean would regain adminship and that my particular situation was proved unusual. Being an adminstrator is not just pushing buttons; it means making questionable decisions because if the decision was clearcut someone else would be able make it. How can I not oppose someone whose judgement I distrust? I really dislike the idea that those who oppose are using the "wrong" standards, just because people have different opinions about what is important in admins does not mean one is "right" and all others wrong. And I find veiled comments to the effect that the opposition should be discredited disheartening. Please people challenge the particular reasoning you disagree with. I am glad to see Sean himself worked to break up the opposition above and comment on the reasoning behind it. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Since some of Sean's comments above addressed my comments, I feel I should reply. With repect to the ANI vandal, I obviously had no way of knowing that this person was a repeat vandal. Specifically, I said, "Blocking a user without a single warning seems odd ... maybe he was a reincarnation of a banned user ... I don't know ... but if so, the block summary should have said so." The fact that this individual is a persistent vandal could have been communicated in the block summary, or, failing that, in response to my comments. Your explanation is reasonable. Assuming good faith, I accept your explanation. Simply communitcating that explanation would have been sufficient. With respect to this comment - "I really can't be bothered to explain all the other diffs presented" - honestly, that's part of the problem. Administrators, like everyone else, ought to be able to explain their actions. There is one further edit that I would love to have an explanation for that I'm sure I'll probably never get. There was a page at User:Kelly Martin/B that contained, among others, virtually everyone who opposed this RFA. After I posted a link on WP:ANI and asked the reason for a list that could have very few good faith uses, I was blasted for asking questions. You were one of the early editors to the list. Is there any chance you would be willing to tell us what the list was for? BigDT 06:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've often wondered myself. I think a greater question is how this list has any apparent bearing on his fitness as a sysop? To turn the question on its head–what would that list have to constitute, and to what degree would Sean have to be involved with it, for it to demonstrate unfitness as a sysop? Mackensen (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the last versions of the list included the name of every individual who had opposed this RFA. Sean was an early contributor to the list (albeit long before this RFA). I think it's reasonable to ask for a reasonable explanation from him (and everyone else who was involved). BigDT 05:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Given that Sean's involvement predates the RfA, the question seems tangential (as you've admitted). I don't see that asking Sean would do much good. You haven't answered the bulk of my question. Mackensen (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the only identifiable criteria for inclusion has been RFA votes. Even before Kelly Martin added everyone who had opposed this RFA, another user had been added and when they asked why, Kelly responded by linking their vote on an RFA. Kelly said that the list was to be used "by myself and certain others to benefit our decision-making processes" [1]. To me, that means vote stacking. So if Sean participated in what he knew to be vote stacking, that would demonstrate unfitness as a sysop. If Sean had never edited the page, he wouldn't have been a party to it - he has no control over what other people do ... but the fact that he edited the page is something that deserves an explanation. If there is a good faith reason for this list, just say what it is and get on with life. BigDT 06:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I tend to subscribe to the general thrust of that argument, which he why I felt it important enough to pose the question to the candidate on the project page. I still hold some hope that he will opt to answer it, genuinely and comprehensively. El_C 07:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's fair to expect him to. It's not User:Sean Black/B. The list is Kelly's not his. As far as I can see, Kelly has declined to give any further information, which is her right, as there was no policy violation (even though I can see why people would want to know why they were on that list). Since Sean added to the list (just once), it seems likely that he knows what it was for, but why should he be pressurized into revealing the purpose of KELLY'S list if Kelly herself doesn't want it revealed? The list existed long before Sean's RfA, and has, in my view, been given a greater importance than it merits. I don't endorse harassing Kelly over this list, but I do feel that the decision to give or withhold further information should be her decision and not Sean's. AnnH ♫ 08:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Whereas I am for minimal accountability. I am not interested whether it was a (Sean) Blacklist or not; for me, the issue has arose in and been entangled with this RfA, and I expect some answers, at least with respect to to his own edit involving the the addition of a respected editor and admin to such a cryptic inside-joke-is-on-us, at best, list. And regardless of the fact that I appear on this non-(Sean) Black list, I would still say the exact same thing. Finally, I am disheartned & distubred by this seeming apologism on your part of this whole needless drama, Ann. Do you know something I don't? I have far less patience than usual for these seemingly cliquish games. El_C 08:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, El C. I don't mean to offend anyone, and certainly not you. I have no inside knowledge of this list, and wasn't even aware of its existence until the matter was brought up here and at WP:ANI. I just feel that if questions are asked, they should be addressed to Kelly. Yes, Sean contributed to the list, once, adding the name of an admin that I think very highly of. (I'm always impressed and moved when people with obviously hugely different POVs treat me with the respect that Xoloz does.) I can understand you think that Sean should account for his very minor part in adding to that list, but supposing he can't do that without revealing something confidential which isn't his to reveal? If Kelly doesn't want to say what the list is for, and if a statement from Sean about the reason he added Xoloz to this list would show what the list is for, then I think it would be more honourable for him not to say anything. Assume for the sake of argument that Sean was doing something wrong in adding to that list (though that may not be the case at all), well, if I were in a situation where I couldn't own up to a minor misdemeanour without breaking someone else's confidence, I'd just keep my mouth shut. AnnH ♫ 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
To quote Cyde, "don't be ridiculous," I'm not going to speak to Kelly Martin who, as we speak, continues to disrupt Wikipedia with her silence; she made her questionable stance ("in the best interests of Wikipedia," as it were) clear enough. Sorry to see this place degraded during my absence so that these games are tolerated. At least it has less so than where I came from. A small comfort. El_C 14:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you think of the editors who feel harassed because they're included in that list?  Grue  08:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not anyone elses fault but yours if you are unable to assume good faith. --Gmaxwell 10:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I do think of the editors who are on that list. Several of them are people that I like and respect. And I can understand that they might feel a bit suspicious and resentful knowing that they're on a "secret list", but I don't think they really have reason to feel harassed. They're not being harassed, are they? Is Kelly, or Sean, following them around, abusing them, reverting their edits, reporting them at admin noticeboards? I think not. But it's interesting that you should use the word "harassed", because I do know of cases where Wikipedians have been really harassed, when sick people discover the real identity of certain editors, start contacting their employers, start posting their personal details on Wikipedia pages and other websites, start sending them threatening messages, etc. And I know that Sean, when he had the block, delete, and protect tools was one of the very, very, very best, kindest, most helpful administrators in such cases. I don't think there is anyone who can approach him in that regard among the 63 opposing voters, though some of them are people I respect in other ways. Depriving Sean of the admin tools is going to make Wikipedia a safer place for stalkers, and a less safe place for their victims. I'm sorry, but I just don't think that the fact he used some naughty words, added a name to a secret list, and didn't break someone else's confidence is a reason to withhold the tools that he never, as far as I can see, abused. AnnH ♫ 14:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to AGF but I still think he should answer ElC's question. It's a reasonable question and should be very easy to answer. --Guinnog 10:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if it means breaking someone else's confidence? AnnH ♫ 14:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Assume good faith is not a license to behave badly. In fact, WP:AGF is right on point here, "Yelling 'Assume Good Faith' at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith." If anyone would actually give a reason for the list, I would be willing to assume good faith and accept their answer. AGF is a two-way street. You can't undertake a questionable action, refuse to explain it, mock those who ask for an answer, play WikiLawyering games when asked for an answer, and expect people to believe you are acting in good faith. BigDT 12:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to assume a sinister motive behind the list. Perhaps it is there for a good reason. Perhaps it is frivolous and embarrassing. Either way, if the purpose of the list is confined to a handful of people, it is unlikely to damage Wikipedia. And if lots of people get to use it, its use will not be secret for long. I'd be inclined to let people organise their thoughts how they wish, and keep an eye their actions if you are worried. FWIW, my name is on the list, so being on the list must be good ;-) Stephen B Streater 13:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is no sinister motive behind this list; see a comment by Cyde. However, because it'a not sinister at all, I'm perplexed as to why the reasoning behind the list can't be revealed. And why is this on the talk page for Sean Black's RfA? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It is on the talk page of SB's RfA because he is running for adminship — we have no such leverage over the list's other contributors; perhaps they think they can continue to treat the rest of us with contempt without suffering the consequences. El_C 14:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am one of the five opposers not on the list. I think people really need to take responsibility for their actions here. Anyone who was involved in the list should be willing to explain what they believed it was about without mocking those who ask. Everyone must clearly realize the existance of such a list without any explanation is intimidating. Whether it is meant to be intimidating or not, it does feel that way. People will now question whether they should just keep their mouth shut and ignore an RfA rather tell their true opinion and be blacklisted. Honestly, when I heard of the list and before I knew I was not on it, I felt as if I was being blacklisted. I believe those involved first obligation is to try and placate such feelings for those that were listed. They do no deserve to feel intimidated, and it has nothing to do with good faith. I do not believe the authors were meaning to intimidate anyone. However sometimes your actions have unintended consequences, and you are still obliged to do your best repair the damage. Please give an explanation and let this be put in the past. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I opposed and am on the list and I agree with your reasoning. What was the list for? It should be the work of a moment for someone involved in the list to answer that question honestly. --Guinnog 14:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I must say being included on a list never made me feel harrassed, and I'm on Daniel Brandt's Hivemind page for pity's sake. Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's mildly interesting/topical, but this after all is Wikipedia, not one of Daniel Brandt's webpages. I expect better, from you as well. El_C 14:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't condone the list myself; I confess that I really don't understand its purpose and am as puzzled as everyone else. In the same vein, I don't grasp the concern over it. If it's a shitlist then it's inappropriate; if it's a blacklist then it's a joke, because Wikipedia does not lend itself to blacklists. Mackensen (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been very curious about the allegations that I might be keeping a "blacklist". I have no ability to blacklist anyone anyway. If you think I am in a position to blacklist anyone, you've been drinking too much of the cabal kool-aid. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You need to conduct yourself in a more straight-forward, less confrontational manner. El_C 19:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if harrassed it quite the same as intimidated, but I am glad hear not everyone was affected. I can only say how I felt on learning of the list and speculate that I was not the only one. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The concern is people acting in a way that neither appears straight forward nor geared toward advancing encyclopedic ends. El_C 16:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I echo that concern. Why do all editors have to be aligned in a political for and against wikipedia (or more to the point, for and against the friends of admins in wikipedia). This seems like a oversimplification of the strengths that different editors bring to the encyclopedia. And if being an admin is not a big deal why would not being an admin be a big deal too? It works both ways.David D. (Talk) 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
If not being murdered is not big deal (it happens to 6 billion people every day), why would being murdered be a big deal? Makes no sense. --Cyde↔Weys 18:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
So being an admin is the same thing as being murdered? Remind me to oppose all RFAs from now on. ;) BigDT 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what your are trying to say. Maybe it is time for you to realise that there are people who will disagree with you some of the time. And those people are not neccesarily enemy number one. Does wikipedia not encourge free thought? David D. (Talk) 22:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope this isn't off-topic, but what are these lists? User:Kelly Martin/The Spectrum and User:Kelly Martin/Q. The second one was apparently deleted (it was listed on WP:AfD and speedied) and then recreated. The first appears to be a reference to "blacklisting", as the users on it are color-coordinated. I assume good faith, but why the continued creation of these types of controversial lists? Sorry if this seems impertinent.--Firsfron of Ronchester 19:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I speedy deleted both pages as per WP:NOT. El_C 20:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
And it was recreated with a suggestion to go to Encyclopedia Dramatica perhaps by a vandal [2]

We should know more about these lists and the math isn't right on this (159/63), it's not equal to 75-80% like it says on the requests page. Does that mean that it takes less than 75% to become an administrator?--Ávríl 20:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yuy... I went on Wikibreak and the first thing I see is this discussion and the successful RfA despite not meeting the standard 75% support... What have I missed? Is there a lower standard for editors who were previously admins? What are these Kelly Martin lists about? This is a sign that I really have to get away from RfA for a while, but can someone enlighten me on all of this? Grandmasterka 20:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Long story, Grandmaster. See Danny's statement regarding the closing and the outrage over the closing. Now the list... it was something Kelly Martin created on July 3 to keep track of something, but few people know what. Kelly Martin stated it was for her benefit in making certain decisions. Someone (BigDT, I believe) noticed that all but five of the oppose voters in this RfA were in this B List although they weren't added by Sean Black (they were added by Kelly Martin). BigDT and many others presumed this B List was a blacklist although Kelly Martin says it's not and Cyde is laughing over the fact that Mailer diablo gave out Defender of the Wiki awards to those who uncovered the list. Sean Black did, however, add a name, Xoloz, on July 3, well before this RfA. And so some (or rather many) people want an explanation for the list but neither Cyde, Kelly Martin, or the other participants want to reveal what it's about. Now we have Kelly Martin's Q list, which Mackensen thought may have been a parody, and the Spectrum list (I haven't seen that one). In short, lists galore. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict)From reading this it's a good guess that all the opposers will be on a list somewhere. The total was 69.7% by my math which falls short of at least 75%. Different strokes for different folks evidently. As oppose voters do we now become watched? Not a good thought.--Ávríl 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sean was a good admin before, nobody produced any credible evidence that he had abused admin tools, he requested desysopping, resysopping should be a formality. I don't think we should even have had a vote, since there was no reason to desysop him other than his own request. To my reading (based on a quick survey) a number of the Oppose votes were sour grapes from people against whom he'd taken (well-founded) actions. This might be a sampling error, of course. Anyway, User:Danny made a fair case I thought. I invoke the No Big Deal clause, myself. Just zis Guy you know? 20:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence he will abuse the tools. Re-appointement will obviously bring out all the sour grapes, as one disagreement can often outweigh many good but uncontroversial decisions in the minds of the recipients. It's good the consensus point was reduced. It was also a good opportunity to point out some possible improvements. If Sean Black had replied to my comment about not communicating I would have changed to Support. Stephen B Streater 21:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
What comment? The one above burried in the mess here and left a few hours ago when Sean was probably asleep? He hasn't even been online since then... --Gmaxwell 22:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about my opposing comment in his RfA. I would expect someone with a close RfA to read the oppose votes and one which says the reason for opposing is failure to communicate to receive a reply. He hasn't replied in around five days. Stephen B Streater 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough... My opposition, and I think the opposition of the other established editors, is based around the idea that admins should be able to communicate well based on their use of the tools, and (in my opinion) be role models to the community and to newcomers. I don't care quite as much anymore and I'm just glad it's over, but that "B-list" thing is unfunny at best. Also, we need to agree on standards for re-adminship so there are less hard feelings the next time a controversial editor is resysopped like this. Grandmasterka 21:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I gave two diffs that showed, in my view, that Sean Black is of the opinion that consensus is not needed if he thinks something should be done. This is not how Wikipedia should operate. Knowing that there will be consensus and using common sense to bypass a pointless process, or maybe discounting a few people's opinions because they're based on what most would regard as egregiously faulty reasoning given the goals of the process in question, is one thing; not caring whether there's consensus is another. That is why I opposed his RFA, as I clearly stated. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Guy, you wrote "nobody produced any credible evidence that he had abused admin tools". My oppose vote was not based on his use or misuse of the tools. My oppose opinion was based on the fact that he seems to bite people in the process of using the tools. If someone had made any effort to defend my olppose on this basis I may well of reconsidered my vote. Instead there was quite an ad hom campaign against those that had expressed this opinion. Such comments are not reallly the best way to try and change someones opinion. On top of that my opinon was further cemented when Sean wrote:
"I don't. I compose edit summaries to inform whomever may read them what the edit I'm making is. They sometimes express frustration, because I am sometimes frustrated. They sometimes express humour and good cheer, because I am sometimes happy. They sometimes express apathy, because I am sometimes apathetic. They sometimes express rudeness, because I am sometimes rude. They are sometimes blunt, because I am sometimes blunt. They always express humanity, because I am always human. I see no reason to pretend that I have no emotions under the guise of being "civil"; if my emotions are extreme to the point that I will do something I will regret, then I cease editing." [3]
I would be more comforted to see him stop editing before he becomes rude, as well as before his emotions become extreme. I look for admins that can stay cool in stressful situations, count to ten before writing the edit summary or recuse themselves from the situation. He may be human but i'd rather not see the worst traits of humanity being expressed from the wikipedia admins. Everyone is always talking about community but how can we have a community if people express all their negitivity when people disagree. An admin should be able to reason with those that diagree. I have no problem with admins being firm but i want to seem some sensible rationale too.
Finally he ignored the very valid question from El C with regard to the B list; El C asked:
"I notice that the contents of User:Kelly Martin/B (Deleted revision as of 3 July 2006) features the following [list of people]. Then, the next edit by Sean Black features the following addition: Xoloz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) My question, then, is what was meant by that addition, and if you have time, maybe a hint as to the purpose behind the entire thingy." [4]
Why wouldn't he answer such a question if the list was a joke or something trivial. This kind of backroom chatter and list making has no apparent purpose for the benefit of the encylopedia. What ever happened to AGF? It is quoted ad naseum at those that question the existence of the list. So where is the good faith of those editors that created the list in the first place? Seriously, a list of those that oppose you in an RfA. What good could possibly come from such a list? ElC deserved an answer to this question.
So, overall, my oppose that start off as quite weak grew stronger and stronger. I am now sure i made the right choice. David D. (Talk) 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Sean never edited a list of people who opposed him in RFA. And RE: 'staying cool', one or two examples doesn't show that he doesn't stay cool. He's been an admin for a long time, almost since before you began your involvement with Wikipedia. In all that time, people were only able to find a couple of things to complain about even though it's obvious that some folks combed most of his edits. --Gmaxwell 00:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
So what was this edit summary 11:30, 3 July 2006 . . Sean Black (Talk | contribs | block) (yeah...) about when he added Xoloz to the Kelly martin B list?
Do you think that Sean has the power to see the future? That edit was weeks before Xoloz opposed. --Gmaxwell 01:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Good point i didn't look at the date, just the fact he had been a contributor to the list. So at least he was not adding people who opposed his RfA while it was occuring, this is a good thing. Others did add his opposers to the list though. Or was there some other reason that I got added to the list? David D. (Talk) 02:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
With regard to him doing a good job for a long time (i don't see how my length of time here is relevent). When I first opposed i was kind of sitting on the fence. If i had seen some constructive rebuttals i think i might have changed to support. Instead, it turned ugly quite fast, and that, if anything made me shift to an even stronger oppose. Those that tried to help sway the oppose voters did it in exactly the wrong way. Belittling peoples votes is never going to get people to change. Creating lists is never going to cause opposition to take anyones opinions seriously. Why couldn't people have just come in to the RfA and made a case for why Sean was a good editor and why these examples were not a good example of his editing in wikipedia. Who tried to do that? David D. (Talk) 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to look more carefully at timestamps, because you appear to be getting the order of time confused. --Gmaxwell 01:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You're seriously trying to raise a stink about an edit summary of "yeah..." ?! I don't see anything remotely objectionable (or interesting) in that edit summary. Hell, I'd be more upset with a blank edit summary than "Yeah..." --Cyde↔Weys 01:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The edit summary is irrelevent. It is the fact he is part of what ever this inside joke (assuming good faith) was all about. Remember, what you think is funny may fall very flat with others. David D. (Talk) 02:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the "inside joke" was an attempt to entrap those on the list into WP:ABF which itself, ironically, assumes bad faith. Oh the twisted webs we weave. Themindset 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps offtopic, but an assumption of good faith does not require an assumption of sanity, or an assumption of intelligence. There are more reasons than bad intentions that people would engage in bad activities. We advise people to AGF because intentions are difficult to measure objectively and because observations based on other more concrete factors are sufficient for our purposes. Rationality and quality of judgment are examples of more concrete factors.--Gmaxwell 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


How on earth was this successful? Is the bar lower if you bitch about "trolls" a bit on IRC or something? Grace Note 05:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently smart alec admins is now the in thing. Who knew? David D. (Talk) 07:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)