WT:Requests for adminship/Anomie#Keepscases oppose

Anomie, can you please list out some of your controversial edits? I'm combed through your contributions, but couldn't find any. I think having some experience in controversial matters is good and detrimental to being an admin. Thanks Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

: My content edits have been on the whole uncontroversial; I generally prefer talk page discussion to establish consensus before making potentially-controversial edits. But there was quite a bit of controversy surrounding anybot, see Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 4#Request for deflagging and blocking of Anybot. Then there was Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 4#Another speedy approval, and speedy approvals and community input in general, and Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 4#Quick approvals without community consensus or discussion, and Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 4#Waiting time - set one, and Community consensus: get it, and Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 4#Moving forward?, and Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 4#Query. And that's just one page's archive. You might find more controversy in WT:BAG archives, some BRFAs, and maybe even some policy talk pages if you want non-bot stuff. If you want to go further back, I did some WP:3O work a few years ago. Anomie⚔ 02:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

moved from RfA Worm^TT · (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose I hate to oppose a candidate with these nominators, but questions shouldn't be ignored. Keepscases (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
2. :I think it shows that Anomie has a good sense of WP:DENY. If you are trying to see how they would respond if confronted with a question like that, then I think they responded in the best way. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
3. ::A better thing to say would be "sensible questions shouldn't be ignored". AD 18:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
4. :::I am not interested in essays that have to do with vandalism, nor do I care about what someone thinks would have been a "better thing to say". Keepscases (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
5. ::::Ridiculous. I fear that the issue of whether Keepscases may continue participating in RfA in this manner will have to be revisited, especially given that this sort of nonsense now represents the majority of his total editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
6. :::::Comment retracted at request of Anomie. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
7. :I'd just like to remind everyone that Keepscases question was optional - as are all additional questions by users. If the question was directly regarding Anomie's abilities or how Anomie answered the question, I could understand an oppose. An oppose because a question not directly related to the candidates abilities was not answered is not constructive and is disruptive. I trust that the 'crats will treat it as such. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
8. :There is quite a serious side to the question of editing and using administrative tools with a terminal illness. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
9. ::There is quite a serious side to the question of being put in a position of unchecked power with a terminal illness. Adminship is a few extra maintenance tools to help administrate the project better that a slightly trained chimpanzee can use adequately, it's not the nuclear football. Trusilver 22:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
10. :::And that may very well be a good answer to the question asked. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
11. ::::Worm--I did not intend my question to be optional, and am not aware of any policy that states it must be considered as such. Keepscases (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
12. :::::Keepscases, in the first place, it would be both presumptuous and ridiculous for anyone to claim to have posted a "mandatory question"—even if it were a serious question, much less if it is an inane one. In the second place, you've stated in the past, in prior discussions of your RfA questions and !votes, that your questions are always optional. (Example, drawn from this discussion of the same issue three years ago: "For the love of God, every question I post is clearly marked as optional, and the candidate does not need to answer it if he or she does not want to." Granted that the section heading for additional RfA questions may have changed, but the philosophy behind them hasn't.) If you're now not only going to ask inane questions, but claim it's a requirement of the process that candidates answer them, then action is certainly going to have to be taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
13. :::::Keepscases, I've followed your questions at RfA for some time, and as NYB correctly points out, you yourself stated they were optional. As far as I am concerned - every question at RfA is optional, though declining to answer something which is pertinant to the candidates request, would be... unwise. I am unaware of any policy which makes your question mandatory. If you can explain why your question - specific to this candidate - is necessary for him to answer, I'd appreciate it. Remember, this is not a "job interview", his entire wikipedia history is available for you to look at and come to your own conclusion. Perhaps you should be doing the legwork, rather than asking "probing" questions. Worm^TT · (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
14. ::::::It seems to me to be the height of dishonesty to take a comment I made years ago and apply it to an issue today. And if it's not "necessary" for the candidate to answer the question, it's certainly not necessary for me to support him/her. Keepscases (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
15. * IIRC another editor was formally requested to refrain from posting moronic questions in RFAs in the past. This should certainly be Keepscases' final straw in that regard. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
16. ::There have been a couple, but the one I usually think of is Kurt and his boilerplate opposition to all self-nominated candidates. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
17. :::Heh...Kurt...that takes me back....Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
18. ::::I think this is an appropriate juncture to leave some spam here for the project at WP:RFA2011, where Keeps ironically registered himself as a task-force member. Bringing official pressure to bear on senseless participation at RfA would also send a clear message to RfA trolls. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
19. :::::I strongly agree with Kudpung. To suggest such a pointless question is mandatory shows such a disrespect for RfA and for the intelligence and dignity of the candidate. Why do we continue to let Keepscases treat RfA as his personal playground? I bit my lip and kept quiet when others, including admins, have defended Keepscases' quesions as "fun." For goodness sakes, surely the fun is over. His presence here and on WP:RFA2011 demeans the project. Enough. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
20. ::::::In almost all RfAs where he makes a zen-koan comment, Keepscases's opinions are ignored by the closing bureaucat, I would guess. Ignoring Keepscases sends a clear message of tolerance for eccentricity and also exemplifies maturity. Banning him from RfAs would unleash hateful statements from some of our participants, again.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
21. :::::::As a point of order, Keepscases did not say the question should have been answered, he said the question should not have been ignored. To a large measure, I agree. If a person intends to not answer a direct query, ignoring the query is the least effective response. It is certainly reasonable to presume in the course of adminship, Anomie will undoubtedly face off track questions and comments. I hope they will find a better response than to ignore. My76Strat (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
22. :::::::: Replying gives him what he wants. If this were a borderline case I may well have been swung by Anomie's ability not to get drawn into replying. The ability to resist getting drawn into unproductive matters is another virtue of good admins (and editors in general). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

:Why aren't we just ignoring Keepscases again? Is his bizarre questioning actually disturbing anything? It's not like anyone pays attention to them or to his opposes. When a candidate has 150+ supports, jumping on the 2nd opposer is just silly. Danger (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

::For the record, I easily support at least half of the RfA's in which I participate. I'm no serial opposer. Keepscases (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

:: "Ignore him" works when everyone gets the message. It doesn't work in an open community where we have an unlimited number of editors who could respond to anything. Much like there's always someone happy to spend an afternoon discussing off-topic crap on ANI with Baseball Bugs, this nonsense always manages to attract a bite or two (or worse, as here). Secondly, by not doing anything about it we're implicitly condoning it, which runs the risk of copycats. God knows we don't want RFA to become any more of a beauty pageant than it already is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

:::Keepscases, I like you. Many times your questions at RfA, while not entirely relevant, are at the least entertaining. And sometimes creative answers to your questions can reveal a certain amount of wit or other good qualities about the candidate so sometimes they do help. But you remember what kind of controversy you've had in the past with your questions, and while the community seems to have become tolerant of them since then, by being too pushy here you're not doing yourself any favors. You came close to being banned from RfA before, I'd hate to see that it actually happens this time. I suggest that you either withdraw your oppose, or rephrase it in such a way that you're opposing for a more substantive reason than because Anomie ignored an optional question that you asked. -- Atama頭 16:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Danger makes an excellent point: "When a candidate has 150+ supports, jumping on the 2nd opposer is just silly." This isn't North Korea, it's perfectly OK for a great candidate to earn "only" 99% of the vote. How we treat the other 1% says a lot about us, in my opinion. 28bytes (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

: If the oppose was for a valid reason, sure. In this case it is indicative of the problems with RFA, where a candidate who has all-but-unanimous support amongst editors acting in good faith still gets opposed simply because someone wanted attention. This is not a democracy. It is not an exercise in free speech. It is a project to create an encyclopedia, and Keepscases has been wasting the community's time in this manner (and thus distracting people from that goal) for literally years. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

::: The only people whose time is "wasted" are those who insist on arguing with him. Ignoring someone takes no time whatsoever. Personally, I looked forward to the Keepscases question in my RfA, and I know I'm not the only one who often finds the candidates' responses to be a good insight as to how they would deal with an unexpected situation as an admin. 28bytes (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

:::: Flatly false, as in this case more time has been wasted by Anomie ignoring Keepscases (forcing him to be even more annoying to get attention) than if he'd just given some banal answer in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

::::: You act as though participating in these meta-arguments is somehow compulsory. It really isn't. Over 100 of the 150+ supporters of Anomie have managed to not have their time "wasted" in such a matter. Just ignore the question and/or vote you don't like, and voila! No time wasted. Or you can argue about it here if you like; just don't pretend anyone is forcing you to do so. 28bytes (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

::I agree with 28bytes, but "the mob" will do what it does and so my caution to Keepscases was for his own sake in case people want to escalate this. Frankly it won't affect the outcome of this RfA so I don't really care, personally. It's not like a 98.7% support is going to make Anomie any less of an administrator than a 99.3% support. (And yes, by my math that's the only difference this single oppose makes on the numbers.) -- Atama頭 18:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

:::I have switched to neutral. Keepscases (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

::::I think that was a very considerate move on your part and I hope the pitchforks can be put down now. :) -- Atama頭 20:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

::::: The issue is primarily the stupid questions, not the oppose. It's settled only inasmuch as that no action is required should it now stop. If it happens again I very much doubt the community will be so sanguine as to request voluntary disengagement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::Well actually there has already been an RfC on this very issue. It failed. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I think in general the community's pretty good about distinguishing eccentricity from actual disruption. 28bytes (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::::Could someone provide a link to this RfC? —WFC— 22:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Keepscases Keepscases (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::Keepscases, I'd appreciate your response to my last comment above (the one beginning "Keepscases, in the first place..."), which you haven't addressed. In fairness, it may not have been conspicuous in the threaded discussion and you may have overlooked it, but I believe it raises a new point that had not arisen at the time of the RfC and hence was not discussed there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::Your question is clearly (although perhaps not to you) based on a false premise. Keepscases never said the question was "mandatory". Nor did he "claim it's a requirement of the process that candidates answer them". Keepscases' (notably very polite) oppose is based on the candidate's ignorance of the question. The candidate could have (politely) declined to answer the question and explained why, rather than (perhaps impolitely) ignoring it.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::I see a direct contradiction between Keepscases' two comments over the years. However, I also see that Keepscases did respond to my comment from yesterday, which I didn't notice a few moments ago because other discussion intervened, so I withdraw my request that he respond to it now. My view that Keepscases' participation in RfA has become a substantial net negative stands. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thanks for the info? Keepscases (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::::: The community sucks at "distinguishing eccentricity from actual disruption". Or more accurately, for every disruptive user there's a pack of enablers opposed to doing anything about the problem because it personally amuses them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::::: Well, if anyone ever makes a persuasive case that quirky RfA questions and/or the occasional ill-advised oppose vote actually disrupt the encyclopedia in any way whatsoever, I'm sure this so-called "pack of enablers" will reconsider their position. 28bytes (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::: Wasting the community's time is disruptive. Annoying people is disruptive. For at least three years these questions have done both. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::: Ah, how interesting things would be if it were acceptable to sanction as disruptive anyone who annoyed me. 28bytes (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} That time has been vested that could have produced better fruit, is fairly undeniable. That Anomie could have mitigated much of this by demonstrating their leadership, through actionable prose, is not a stretch to imagine. In any case, the best this discussion can achieve is introspection, and I hope each person drawn to comment, will also feel compunction to consider their own motives. --My76Strat (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is worse than asking how many people it takes to change a lightbulb. —WFC— 12:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• I am sure there is a page somewhere explaining how many wikipedians it needs to change a lightbulb. Agathoclea (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• One to make the change, one to put the broken one back in because it wasn't discussed first with WikiProject Lightbulbs, one to raise it on ANI, one to fully protect all lightbulbs in the area to make sure it doesn't happen again, and half a dozen onlookers cheering on every different faction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Here...EngineerFromVega^Discuss 15:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for !voting on my RfA. And especially thank you to those of you writing serious supporting statements; I had no idea that so many people already thought I was an administrator! Anomie⚔ 13:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)