Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bishonen

Bishonen on IRC

Comments bishonen made in response to my comments on her RFA which further incriminate her -- she seeks validation with the IRC herd (emphasis mine):

[14:30:28] <bishfreak> sj, did you see Nathan commenting today?

[14:30:37] <_sj_> hmm, where?

[14:30:39] <bishfreak> confirming his vote?

[14:30:43] <_sj_> ctz: thar's plans afoot, son

[14:30:46] <bishfreak> my RFA

[14:30:50] <_sj_> yikes

[14:31:09] * _sj_ finishes a slightly baffled email

[14:31:19] <bishfreak> sj, i don't have to answer every really dumb comment, do I? I'm not sure what the etiquette is

[14:31:32] <cimon> captchas could be used for page move, but not gardeb variety editing

[14:31:41] * Lubaf is trying to figure out what new pieces could be included in Chip's Challenge.

[14:31:47] <CryptoDerk> etiquette on RFA is not to go crazy when replying to people

[14:31:50] <bishfreak> sj, he does such a good job of making himself look bad, i don't have to chip in, I thought

[14:32:04] <Lubaf> A fleer?

[14:32:09] <bishfreak> CryptoDerk: yeah, but is it ok to not reply at all?

[14:32:37] <CryptoDerk> I'd give it a day and if nobody else takes up the cause, feel free, but only if your RFA is in danger of failing or something

[14:32:59] <CryptoDerk> people who sit on their RFA waiting for people to reply make me a bit wary, but I can't speak for other editors

[14:33:10] <CryptoDerk> same with updating the edit count

[14:33:12] <CryptoDerk> er

[14:33:16] <CryptoDerk> not edit count.. vote tally

[14:34:14] <bishfreak> but d'you reckon i'm free to NOT reply?

[14:34:23] <_sj_> yes.

[14:34:24] * CryptoDerk is trying to look

[14:34:25] <bishfreak> IMO nobody need take up the cause

And just 2 hours after that she seeks validation with other wikipedians regarding my edit yet again. This time she decides to go offline in a private medium with kim to spew vitriol so that she doesn't further incriminate herself:

[16:34:33] <kim_bruning> hey bishonen!

[16:34:42] <bishonen> kim, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bishonen&diff=13184258&oldid=13178744

[16:34:48] <bishonen> hey hey!

[...]

[16:38:28] <kim_bruning> bishonen, and do you have an IM client? (like MSN or Yahoo, or AIM, or whatever?)

[16:38:40] <phils> we really don't have many poor here...

[16:38:41] * Joins: iMeowbot_ (~imeowbot@pool-70-22-140-248.bos.east.verizon.net)

[16:38:42] <bishonen> mindspillage: if he comes back for more, it might be worth posting a bit more of the IRC log, if you know what I mean. not otherwise.

[This is followed by insults against me by the #wikipedia herd, but I haven't included them for brevity. She intentionally posted the link a 'second time because she didn't get the insult based validation that she got the first time. In fact, I'm writing this as she speaks, she even pasted the url a third time to make sure more people saw it.]

[16:45:55] <bishonen> nathan, you count very well!

It's not exactly appropriate for her to go seek validation online and encourage the herd to not respond to me just so she can avoid be xpoed for what she is. And as you notice, bishonen is sitting there hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute watching for changes on her RFA as she wantes to be assured that she will get in. This is further evidence of her actively engaging in over-eagerly behavior to ensure admin status--something which is not indicative of objective behavior. Objective administrators don't seek constantly seek validation and work to absolutely ensure that everyone is on their side, nor do they go into private conversations to talk about a dissenter behind their back. -Nathan J. Yoder 20:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Really? I often asked for validation of how I was dealing with things and user behaviour on IRC. I did this to get a second opinion about my actions to see how other, mature and experienced admins thought of things. And I did it privately to try to reduce the amount of offense I caused and to reduce controversy (this said, I always made up my own mind on issues and was very direct with those I had to take admin action against). - Ta bu shi da yu 23:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

You probably missed my comment earlier on channel - posting logs from #wikipedia is against the channel policy - please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_channels -- sannse (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

No, that is a completely dishonest and inaccurate statement. The link you've pasted specifically outlines that there are exceptions. I have already gotten permission from kim to publish his IRC logs and I have no doubt bishonen will have trouble giving permission to publish these oh-so-non-incriminating logs. This is an RFA, permission should not be needed anyway. These are statements directly relevent to her ability to be an administrator and should not be censored simply because you are biased in her favor. Sannse, I suggest you take your POV, and dishonest pro-censorship behavior elsewhere. The one and only reason to issue a warning like this is to censor strong evidence that she would not make a suitable mod. Before contuing further, I suggest you read the Wikiquette, Wikilove and NPOV articles so you can better understand the wikipedia policies that you are violating.

Lastly, I'd like to mention that you issued a warning to Bishonen herself for not being civil on IRC. So it seems even you recognize that she's behaving like a child. However, you didn't issue this warning until AFTER I stepped in to defend myself AFTER many people had insulted me while I was not watching the channel. Even then, you issued a warning to both of us. You didn't issue a warning for her pushing a personal vendetta against me before that nor did you issue a warning to the people blatnatly insulting me. Your bias as clear and if you continue this ridiculous childish retaliatory behavior on both IRC and Wikipedia, I'll get a comitte to come in and review you to have your admin status revoked. -Nathan J. Yoder 22:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Nathan, you are entitled to vote as you will and, IMHO at least, you are entitled to bring this evidence here if you feel it is important. However, you may want to reconsider making what are, at the very least, hollow threats. It does no good to accuse others of lacking Wikilove if you go on to demonstrate something of a want in that department yourself. I suppose that you may discount my comments if you consider me to be part of the Wikiherd, but please also consider the likely impact on any possible support, or even sympathy, for your own position that is likely to come out of the casual tossing around of such labels. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Due to me abiding by an ethic of honesty, I don't pretend in any way that I'm all flowers and daisies and that I'm always nice to people. Unfortunately, the admins on Wikipedia don't abide by this ethic, so they will engage in massive amounts of backpedaling to try to save face when they violate the guideliens they hypocritically violate. It helps that people are actually honeset. And my accusations are not casual, the majority of wikipedians and admins I've seen don't adhere to that label. It's just that admins *usually* are better at being passive aggressive and then playing dumb when they're called on it. That way they can say, with technical accuracy, that "oh but I never explicitly insulted you," even when it's obvious they were being sarcastic. -Nathan J. Yoder 00:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Nathan, you will notice that I'm not a person who is found on IRC. I don't go there. Don't care to. However, it is RfA policy that IRC material cannot be used to support or oppose candidates. The reason is that IRC is not Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this issue has come up repeatedly. If it seems to you that everyone there knows each other, it's because they do. However, in most cases they know each other from Wikipedia before they meet each other on IRC. It's no coincidence that the people who are candidates for admin-ship are well known on IRC, as, if they are good candidates, they have a high profile on the project long before they go up for administrator. Bishonen, for example, has long ago taken on administrative tasks, such as housecleaning and reform of the Peer Review page. Also, Bishonen has created multiple Featured Articles and been an active voter/editor at the Featured Article Candidates. For other candidates, it might be that they've been active at Collaboration of the Week or In the News or (in my case, at the time) Votes for Deletion. So, when someone "famous" from work on the project goes to IRC, no one should be surprised that that person has instant friends: these are people who have interacted for months before. However, IRC is not Wikipedia. Long time editors, administrators, and new users alike will go to IRC to vent steam, to complain, the engage in hyperbole and, often, banter. Folks there are emphatically not speaking "ex cathedra." They're on vacation from the project while speaking with others from the project. IRC is chatty, gossipy, and sometimes all play, and it serves a valuable function as a pressure valve that way; in order to allow it to keep it that way, the ruling has come down from the very top: what happens on IRC is not Wikipedia, so both insults (and, frankly, helpful, happy comments, folks) cannot be considered for either RfA or RfC. Geogre 10:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

That 'reason' is not a valid one. So what if IRC is not Wikipedia? You are quite literally suggesting that meaningful evidence can't be gathered from IRC, without exception. Following your logic, I could find her on IRC saying "bwahahah, I'm going to abuse my admin status as much as possible," and you shouldn't be able to paste it.

They are most certainly not necessarily there on a vacation, on many occassions I've seen poeple go on IRC to talk to an admin to get them to assist with something on wikipedia or to otherwise get others to come support them in an edit war. You are suggesting, and quite wrongly, that what happens on IRC does not affect or in any way indicate what is going to happen or what is happening on Wikipedia. That is absurd. To suggest that what people say in one medium has absolutely no effect on what they say in another makes absolutely no sense and is fallacious reasoning.

P.S. I'm going to murder you in your home. Because I'm saying this on Wikipedia and not in your home, you are not allowed to use it as evidence against me in court. -Nathan J. Yoder 00:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh and you are "emphatically wrong" about them not speaking ex cathedra. I've seen admins speak in an official manner on IRC before, quite a few times. Either you're just plain ignorant about how #wikipedia works or you're just lying through your teeth here. I'm guessing it's more of the latter--everyone on #wikipedia KNOWS, matter of fact, that #wikipedia is used for discussing Wikpedia business, it's not just "shooting the breeze." Dont' believe me? Go take a survey of #wikipedia users and see how many of them agree with your disingenuous view that it's 100% non-serious.

And that's including, but not limited to, the people who come on to the IRC channel specifically to get admin help. #wikipedia is often used as a recruiting point ot gain support. Of course, you're living in some fantasy land where people talking on IRC is magically 100% entirely different and seperate from people talking on IRC. People are totally 100% objective and by all means never let things said in #wikipedia influence what they do on wikipedia, ignoring all the times the admins explicitly said they would do something one wikipedia because of some conversation on wikipedia. I'm sorry, but you have ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION IN REALITY. -Nathan J. Yoder

Njyoder: histrionics and theatricality aside, the policy remains firmly in place: actions on IRC are not to be used as evidence for either pro or con votes on RfA. Please look to your own tone. Geogre 18:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

"I'm right because the policy says I'm right. The policy is right because I say the policy is right." Please go take a look at circular reasoning. You haven't provided a single rational justification for that policy even existing nor have you addressed the fact that the policy explicitly allows exceptions. It seems this illogical policy was created by bad admins solely to protect themselves and other bad admins from really bad things they've said on IRC.

Addition: I'd like to see evidence that this policy actually exists. The only link pasted lists policies of the channels themselves, not wikipedia policies. -Nathan J. Yoder 20:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hum, well, at the event, those IRC logs reveals nothing to me but storm in a teacup. I am the last persons to defend Kim Bruning (for important reasons which go beyond the scope of this), but I fail to see how, according to these logs, he has behaved inappropriately. As for Bishonen, I found her responses mildly amusing and not particularly harsh. Although she did say fuck, luckily she didn't say the much more disturbing flying fuck! (and those who understand what I mean by that reference shall be rewarded with cake!). El_C 11:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

That only makes up a small portion of the logs and is not what I based my initial statement on. See User:Njyoder/bishonen for more of them. -Nathan J. Yoder

That is, in fact, what I refered to when I said "IRC logs, and that (User:Njyoder/bishonen) is where I read these; beginning with your conversation with Kim regarding the GFDL and the events which followed that. I stand by my prior comments. El_C 07:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Nathan J. Yoder is displeased because his vote has been censored? He should have been the one to change it, should he have wished to. The original vote can be found in page history for the project page, perhaps he'd like to change it back the way it was! Kim Bruning 09:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Snuh? El_C 10:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Frankly the kind of "joke" that should be deleted on sight. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

If you can't take it, you're too thin skinned. Why should a thin skinned person be an admin? -Nathan J. Yoder 20:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the thickness of Filiocht's skin but I think that it is appropriate for an admin to believe that a joke about rape is inappropriate in a public forum. I deduce from Nathan's edits in the main space and his discussions on article talk pages that he is both intelligent and analytical so I am surprised that his experiences at amazon.com have not taught him that rape is a sensitive issue offering scope for great offense. --Theo (Talk) 18:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• To Nathan, - As one of Bishonen's more frequent correspondents and a friend (though we have never met, exchanged addresses of photographs), can I say categorically: There is no clique or cabal. Just a shared interest in editing and sharing (often obscure) information; and Yes sometimes a silly joke creeps in. Hundreds of editors (many of whom have voted for Bishonen, me included) have never been on IRC or anything similar. Bishonen is not Mrs. Machiavelli, and she frequently tells most people where they are going wrong. In view of that fact, that almost 100 people are supporting her is amazing, and should tell you something. She certainly does not try to curry favour. Your original comment (which I suspect you regret) was just plain tasteless, so for your own sake and reputation pleased desist from these wild, groundless and libelous accusations. Nothing can stop Bishonen becoming an admin now, so it would be better if you stopped, and everyone else just ignored any further comments you have to make on the subject. Giano | talk 12:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Uh, if you don't think there's a clique, then you're seriously delusional. I'm not even sure you understand what a clique is if you'd put it anywhere near a mention of a cabal. Her IRC logs clearly show her trying to "curry favour" by continually ranting about me on IRC. Please read NPOV before making further contributions. -Nathan J. Yoder 20:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

".....and everyone else just ignored any further comments you have to make on the subject. Giano | talk 12:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)"

PLease read Wikilove Giano, you are violating the rules of Wikipedia by bombarding this page with your personal attacks. -Nathan J. Yoder 02:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

"All seems infected that the infected spy

As all seems yellow to the jaundiced eye."

".....and everyone else just ignored any further comments you have to make on the subject. Giano | talk 12:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)"

RFA and IRC

The beef between Bishonen and Njyoder notwithstanding, multiple people have expressed concerns over adminship nominations being unduly influenced by popularity and/or IRC campaigning.

Obviously these concerns aren't specific to this nomination (in fact, I feel obliged to point out that Bishonen herself was the least happy with the vigorous promotion undertaken by others, and that was long before anyone suggested a negative effect). If there is interest, we should set up a separate page to discuss this, or we could use the main talk page of RFA.

Personally, I think the issue is not likely to crop up soon again, but I do not think it unreasonable to simply forbid (or rather "discourage by peer pressure") mentioning RFAs on IRC—RFAs shouldn't be voting drives. While I know for a fact that in this case, the IRC effect had far less influence than some people are assuming (but I don't expect to convince others, because it's based on personal observation), the mere hint of it was unsavory.

If adminship is "no big deal", we shouldn't turn it into one; if it is a big deal, we shouldn't encourage people to not think for themselves. JRM · Talk 21:34, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Though I fully support most, if not all, policies, they are not meant to force people to apply wikithinking to all of their communication with other wikipedians by other forms of communication. This sounds like a kind of mental instruction creep that I could never approve of. Unless we're talking about obvious slander and shameless campaigning (not just normal socializing) I think we should deal with it when obviously bad cases arise. WikiPolicies belong within the realms of Wikipedia.

Peter Isotalo 21:48, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

JRM, you make a good point, I totally agree that RFAs ought not to be mentioned on #wikipedia while they're ongoing, and since Wikipedia and #wikipedia are formally supposed to be distinct, peer pressure is the way to achieve it. Peter, I appreciate your point, too, but there surely is a grey zone between the channel and the site, and surely there is mutual influence. I hope somebody takes upTacoDeposit's suggestion on the project page about checking out the statistical relationship between a user's presence on IRC and amount of support in the vote (I've written a few words on the page to say I think so). Perhaps adminship candidates ought to stay away from the channel during the vital week? Though that would indeed be raising adminship into a huge deal, and like you, JRM, I'm hoping it soon won't be. Btw, I have to say I think your phrase "the beef between Bishonen and Njyoder" is misleading. It suggests some reciprocity or mutuality of "beefing", where there is none. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Please consider my comment NPOVed into "the incident involving Bishonen and Njyoder", or any other NPOVing of your choosing. I'm not trying to imply anything here. JRM · Talk 22:29, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Does pasting your RFA url numerous times in an IRC channel like Bishonen and others did count as 'shameless campaigning'? If other individuals who are direct friends with her repeatedly paste the URL, while the candidate voices no objection to it in the slightest, count as shameless campaigning? The only reason I can see you being opposed to such a rule is if you relied on candidates you liked/disliked getting voted in/rejected by use of these disingenuous methods. Also, I resent Bishonen implying that I have a beef with her. She's so obviously trying to portray herself as a saint here and the groupthink is just feeding into that. Frankly, her behavior is very dishonest, if it's not a flat out lie. She keeps claiming "oh I don't really want to be an admin," while actively making an effort to paste her RFA url as many times as possible and responding to as many statements as possible on the RFA.

"I hate group think, that's why I 'll paste this url 10 million times over while saying 'OMG THIZ GUY IZ AN ASS'." If she really weren't interested in being an admin, she would have just rejected the nomination from the beginning and there would have been no votes at all. Instead she actively encouraged it while being certain to periodically inject faux-modest statements implying she doesn't want to be one. Frankly, you have to be really naive or seriously delusional to believe someone doesn't want something simply because they say so IN SPITE OF the fact they encourage the thing they don't want. -Nathan J. Yoder 16:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• We have already, as I alluded to above, a policy saying that things that happen and things that are said on IRC cannot be used as evidence for deliberations on Wikipedia. We also have come close to an explicit policy against "spamming" for support of an RfA. (Look through the archives, and you'll see candidacies that were shot down or withdrawn simply for the candidate putting multiple "support me" notices on talk pages, and for even seeming to do so.) It makes sense, then, that by extension any campaigning by a candidate for support on IRC would be disallowed. However, there really can't be a policy against other people speaking on the subject's behalf. That said, people should not vote (and cannot support) for anything said on IRC. For what it's worth, when I went up for RfA, my two Oppose votes came from people who had no experience with me on the project and only came from what they thought they heard me say about deletion on IRC. These two persons, similarly to Everyking, would not explain why they opposed, as there was no actual evidence that I had done the things they believed that I might someday do. Needless to say, I haven't since then, either, as that mutated, mangled, and inconsequential forum of IRC hadn't allowed them to actually read my views. So, yes, I would be in favor of any guideline to IRC use or, even better, channel moderating that discouraged campaigns (not one-on-one talk of support, but campaigns). I wouldn't even mind "Hey, everybody go vote for Geogre!" being grounds for sanction against the advertiser. Geogre 13:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• • PS, since I think up policies a lot (and do nothing about it), the policy change I would make is that if there is evidence of campaigning (addressing the entire channel at once, not one-on-one) for an RfA, the RfA for that candidate should be suspended without prejudice for a period of one week, at which point it would be reinstated, with extant Support and Oppose votes. I.e. there is simply a break, indicating neither a failure nor success of the candidacy, for a week, and then it resumes, as that week would allow the tempest to dissipate inside the teapot. Anyway, that's my small candle lit against the darkness (and now back to cursing). Geogre 13:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • What qualifies as evidence of campaigning? Before I was banned from the channel, I've seen bishonen herself paste the url to the RFA multiple times in #wikipedia under the guise of getting validation for whether or not she should reply to me. From the brief look at the scrollback logs I saw, she had done this 3 or so times within a few hours, continuing despite people telling her that she didn't have to reply to anything I said. -Nathan J. Yoder 16:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've been thinking about votes for admin quite a bit. Sometimes it seems people who deserve to be admins don't make it, and others come flying through. Is the diference in abilities/worthiness, or is it a case of "who you know"? The reasons for objecting seem to apply to some, and not to others. Perhaps we need a checklist at the top of the voting page? I'm still a newbie, and I will admit that my voting decisions have been influenced by what the other voters say. I'm sure this applies to a lot of voters who have not come accross the person before. This is why it is important to give reasons for your vote. Wikipedia does not have confidential voting, and this is why votes will always be infulenced, either by the person up for admin, or by other voters. I've even come accross a case where one admin asked another admin to change what they wrote on a person's RfA because it went against their view of that person. Mentioning your RfA on #wikipedia should definitely be banned, both for votes for and against, as anyone who doesn't know about #wikipedia loses that advantage, or can be ganged up on. --Silversmith 18:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone notice I nominated 3 people? Right,thanks! Note that they all got a similar (LARGE!) number of votes, and that they were all kind of exceptional. Kim Bruning 19:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Retroactive support

Just adding my retroactive support. I tried to convince her to take the job long ago, and there really should be no controversy about it. Bishonen is extremely level-headed and knows Wikipedia in great depth. I definitely would have added my vote to the long, long list, had I been around at the time.

I don't have a real problem with campaigning, although I think it is unnecessary for RfA. I understand completely why she was searching confirmation from the IRC room, and I think that every current admin monitored the progress of his/her RfA very closely at the time, even though some might not want to admit it. It is human to be self-conscious and to seek the approval of others — and in the end, that kind of social behavior is likely positive for Wikipedia. You will notice that most trolls don't go through great lengths to get approval for their actions (some, Alex in particular, are the exception to the rule).

I think that RfA is getting an unwarranted amount of attention. Sure, it is an important function, but 100+ votes takes a lot of work that could have been spent on other parts of Wikipedia. On an ideal Wikipedia, admins would be promoted on 5 support votes, none oppose. I try to abstain from voting if my vote is very unlikely to change anything. Hypocritical as I am, I would have made an exception in this case. — David Remahl 18:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)