Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/The wub 2

Closed as successful Brian | (Talk) &#124; New Zealand Portal 04:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

— adminship
Hi there. I'd quite like to have the mop again if people are okay with that, it's frustrating seeing spammers about when I'm online and not being able to do anything! Within the next few weeks I should have a lot more time for Wikinews too, and would like to work on some appearance/usability/accessibility improvements (with discussion of course). Admin rights would be really helpful for that.

Stats

 * Previous requests: RfdA · RfA

Questions and comments

 * I see you became a reviewer just a week ago and are applying for sysop role. Do you have any prior experience? (Just wondering) Cheers, Gryllida 03:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * TheWub used to be an administrator on this site some time ago, but resigned/retired due to stress and disappointment, if you look at his contributions. So yes, I'd say he has considerable prior experience. Tempodivalse [talk]  15:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I used to be both an admin and reviewer, but retired in August last year due to disillusionment with the project. You can see a record of my admin actions here. I've written more than 50 articles for Wikinews (listed on my user page) and have also been an admin on Wikipedia for over 5 years. the wub "?!"  15:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I initially was as concerned as the opposes below, further comments from The Wub have clarified things and I still suppout xyr. Xe and xyr is for people who don't care if you're male or female because it isn't relevant to a discussion. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, personally, I'm annoyed when people call me "xe", even after I've asked them not to. It makes me think of some amoebic blob. :b If it's not that important, why not just respect personal preference? But, not a big deal, I suppose ... *shrug* Tempodivalse [talk]  00:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That would involve memorising what your personal preference was. There's a lotta editors to do that for. Of course, half the time I end up using he/his anyway... Ultimately, using xe reminds me I'm concerned about a person's mind, not the contents of their underwear. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 01:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As you will. But I find it borderline insulting, especially after repeated requests not to address me with it. I guess one can't please everyone. :b Even singular "they" sounds nicer imo. But we're digressing off-topic. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm agreed with Tempo on this (in fact I've been drafting an essay "xe considered harmful"). But this isn't the place to discuss it anyway. the wub "?!"  09:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A quite innovative, balanced candidate who knows what to do and what not to do. He carefully weighs and observes what's happening and makes decisions. His writing style is clear and expresses exactly what he means. I don't see any issues with the (friendly!) comment discussed in the opposes below, because it does represent an sensible view on the matter. Gryllida 08:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * ; user is around a lot, and quick to spot span and such which required admin action. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Has my ongoing . Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Competent, and actually wants the job despite knowing what xe's getting into? Is this a trick question?   --Pi zero (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears from recent comments that the nominee both has, and is unable to recognize xyrself as having, deeply negative feelings about the project. That makes me uncomfortable with the nominee as an admin, and when I'm actually uncomfortable about it, the morally correct action for me to take is to vote in opposition.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you've read my response to BarkingFish below, it may help clarify my thinking and the comments you refer to.
 * On the contrary to what you say, I have very positive feelings about the project and especially its potential. That's what eventually brought me back - and what makes me so passionate about it. I must admit that I sometimes find certain attitudes here frustrating, but that's part and parcel of a collaborative site. I expect and accept that other people might find my opinions frustrating as well.
 * My natural writing style is rather terse, and I appreciate that sometimes my thoughts can come off a little negative. Let me assure you that I think everyone here has sincerely held beliefs about what is good for the project, and is only speaking and acting in that regard - some people call this assuming good faith.
 * (On another note, I am male, and happy to be identified as such. No need for the xe-xyr-xoo stuff) the wub "?!"  22:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, xoo. I still trust the wub to do things fine. Comments may be well taken out of context, it has happened before. アンパロ Io ti odio! 23:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The wub, I had read your response to BarkingFish below. And I've reread it since.  What seems clear from it, and from your comment above, is what I said above: you have deeply negative feelings and you are unable to recognize that you have them.  (Note that this is not contrary to what you contrast with it above.)  My lead question on the other page was whether you could see that your post was trolling, and it was clear from your reply that no, you could not see it.  An inability to see your own biases is deeply troubling in an admin on a news site, and only more so when those biases pertain to the site itself.


 * (I'll try to remember, for the future, what gender of pronoun can be used for you when social circumstances seem to call for one. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't see any negative remarks about the project by the wub on this page. To the contrary, he appears rather optimistic about the future, perhaps more so than existing admins. Could you point me to some comments you felt were unacceptably negative? No, we aren't professionals, in the strict sense of the word. It's not "trolling" to say that we are amateurs (sense 2, in other words "volunteers"), it's quite a correct assessment actually. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * An interesting fork. If I detail what's offensive about The wub's comments, it also makes me look like the aggressor.  And if I don't go into detail, I appear to be making unfounded accusations.


 * I was presented with much the same predicament before, on the other page. It was tempting to give a bulleted list of what was wrong with The wub's post, but in contemplating that I realized that (1) it would be observationally equivalent to feeding a troll, and (2) The wub ought to be able to see what was wrong with the post xyrself, at least once alerted to the problem.  So first I asked whether xe could see it was trolling, hoping thereby to encourage self-reflection, and then replaced the potential bulleted list with an observation that there were multiple fallacies in it.  I didn't even mention anything worse in it than mere fallacies.  It's symptomatic of the problem that The wub apparently failed to take my concerns seriously, and thereafter treated the post as if the only difficulty with it were a misunderstood reference to amateurs.  --Pi zero (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you picked up something subliminal and subtle that I couldn't see, but after rereading the comments several times I fail to understand what was so offensive/dire about the comments. The "this is hilarious" remark, apparently, is the most concerning (?) but it has nothing other than a bit of irked sarcasm thrown in. Wikinewsies allow themselves that liberty sometimes to let off steam. From a logician's perspective it's not a sound argument, but I've seen much worse logical fallacies being made on a daily basis, and make them myself. I respect your opinion, but frankly it seems to be a flimsy concern to base an oppose on. Tempodivalse [talk]  02:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Tempo, I'm not really surprised you wouldn't see it, as you have somewhat related un-self-diagnosed bias. Nothing to do with subtlety.  --Pi zero (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "troll, noun, /trōl/ - 3. An e-mail message or posting on the Internet intended to provoke an indignant response in the reader" (my emphasis). I'm not sure how I can be simultaneously trolling, yet completely unaware of the fact, it seems like a contradiction in terms. If you see logical fallacies in an argument of mine, that's another matter and I would welcome them being pointed out. the wub "?!"  09:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Intention without awareness is commonplace. (Did I ever not know that?  Perhaps, when I had several decades less experience of human nature.)  It's also especially unfortunate in the news media.


 * Your comment on the other page, and some of your comments here, evidence underlying disrespect for the opinions of others; you're rather AGF-ishly pleased with yourself for thinking others are (to be blunt but, alas, only somewhat hyperbolic) well-intentioned fools. Nor does it matter just what percentage of truth there is in that &mdash; there's some, and the ideal outcome here is that you raise your level of self-critical awareness.  --Pi zero (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My point on the other page was that Wikinews doesn't exist in a vacuum, and the opinions of experienced others outside our usual editor cadre may contain something of value too. I certainly do not think others are fools, nor have I ever meant to imply that.
 * I welcome this RfA as a chance for others to give feedback on how I might improve, and for me to reach a greater awareness of my weaknesses - in fact that it has attracted your opposition in some ways makes it a more valuable process. But this discussion is baffling me. When I ask precisely what you think is so wrong about my post on the other page, so that I can learn from your thoughts, you are evasive. You claim to be concerned at a perceived "underlying disrespect for the opinions of others", yet in this thread you have continued to openly dismiss my own opinions as "trolling" and Tempo's as the product of "un-self-diagnosed bias". the wub "?!"  11:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tyrol5 (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ditto. アンパロ Io ti odio! 21:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * — Mike moral  ♪♫  03:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Wubby! --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * user can be trusted. -- Nascar 1996  (talk • contribs) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * , of course. DEN  DODGE  16:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to see someone with some enthusiasm. I'm glad you're back. Not going to post my boilerplate question about AGF&etiquette since Peter has already made his views known. Tempodivalse [talk]  18:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Gopher65talk 02:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi for all! Can i vote to this request? have not any limits?
 * Anyone is welcome to vote in requests for permissions. — μchip08 19:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * yes. thank you μchip08 for attention :) --Sahim (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Gryllida 21:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * - If this is what you think of us - "All on the pronouncement of a few amateurs (emph. mine) about what they feel is news?" - I would dread having someone like you in an administrative position. If you don't think we're capable of deciding what's news and what isn't, trust me, you need to take a walk and come back later. It's obvious to me with a comment like that, that you're clearly STILL disillusioned with the project.  BarkingFish (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant amateur in the sense of unpaid (and apply it to myself too of course), as opposed to professionals who have been doing this as their livelihood for years. It's certainly not a judgement on talent or work on the whole, despite being amateurs we regularly produce better work than many professional journalists who are barely worthy of the name. That doesn't mean we should totally ignore what the best of them are doing and saying though.
 * Of course I think we should be able to set our own standards. However that should be by community discussion, taking into account the standards of other organisations and the technologies and systems we have available. What I object to is individuals declaring "This is not news, and all those other people and groups who have been doing it for money for years know nothing" and claiming that's the end of the discussion. the wub "?!"  21:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but as mentioned elsewhere, we exists to provide an alternative to the mainstream. If everyone else published the old "london bus found in antarctic", we wouldn't follow. I think there's more than one of us who've said the same thing. BarkingFish (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We might publish it. Not because everyone else is doing so, but I hope we'd assess the story and the evidence for it on its merits, just like we do for every story. That's what makes us alternative (although thankfully the mainstream media still has a few good, critical journalists who don't just jump on bandwagons too.) What we wouldn't do is let someone shout "London buses in the Antarctic are never news because I said so!" on a talk page, and go along with that uncritically - just as we wouldn't do the reverse. the wub "?!"  21:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issues with the above.  — fetch · comms  19:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No issues here for me at least. Perhaps it is only me, but I cannot really understand the reasons cited in the opposes. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)