User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Inappropriate votes

"Extreme lesbian support" (Archive 31)
I find this comment, and variations on it, to be inappropriate and in very poor taste and am disappointed to see its continued use. It is unclear to me whether it is intended to be a reference to a marketing phrase used by producers of adult content, or some sort of reference to people who are actually in lesbian relationships. I have some friends who I respect greatly who are in lesbian relationships and do not see the humor in this at all, and would like to ask everyone to please stop. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The phrase does not offend me personally, but I wish I understood what it meant. What does "extreme lesbian support" mean, anyhow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hall Monitor (talk • contribs) 17:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't originate it, but in my use it's simply intended to be memorable. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 17:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You know, I bet you're right about porn advertising. N (t/c) 17:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought i was the only one who didnt understand. While not offensive, I think it is a little immature. Martin  17:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok. As I responded to your message on my talk page, I did not mean it in any adult marketing or rude way. I also happen to like lesbians. You never responded (or did i miss it?), or said that you felt i should stop immediately. I'll discontinue it's use and change my support template immediately. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 17:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought Phroziac was making a personal statement when I first saw the phrase, and was sort of pleased about it because of what visibility means to gay people. But I think that initial impression was mistaken. I'm not personally offended but I do see how it could be offensive to someone since it's sort of an appropriated phrase. Like calling things "gay" when what you mean is "dumb" -- although this is an imperfect comparison since I don't think his intentions are bad at all. (Sorry Phroziac!) &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, i should mention I don't agree about this, but I have changed my template. It now says...
 * --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 17:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Phroziac. I agree with The Uninvited, and would also be happy to see the phrase and its variations dropped at this stage. Ann Heneghan (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC) (Struck out after template was changed back, though I understand why it was. Ann Heneghan (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC))


 * Phroziac and whoever else may be using a template in voting, please use it only with "subst:". Templates in voting contexts have been discussed before and strongly discouraged because they allow someone trollish to transparently change your vote after the fact, without having to edit the actual page you voted on.  Also, it is generally considered a bad idea even for you to change your vote phrase after the fact.  I have an impression based on previous discussions that vote templates have actually been banned from AFD, though I don't know where to find a reference for that.  Dragons flight 18:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, and will go back and replace all instances of it before just a few minutes ago with the old "Extreme lesbian support" message. My process for this will involve it temporarily changing back to the old message though. Anyway, I won't be responding to this thread anymore, as I am on a wikibreak (sorta). Contact me on my talk page if you need me. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 18:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the only one who should write "Extreme Phroziac support" is Phroziac. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologise if you took my one vote as an insult, but as someone who has many friends who are in same-sex relationships (I was best man for one of my friends in a recent same-sex wedding), I've noticed that by-and-by, my friends tend to be less sensitive to such things than I am. In fact, I've become less sensitive as a result and take such things humourously (hence, my vote). Maybe it's the same thing as people having no problems making comments about  people, but not having other people do the same. In fact, my buddy was laughing, not huffing, over these votes. I wasn't planning on voting that way again, but I'd like to explicitly point out that I'll desist, with humble apologies. --Deathphoenix 17:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I found the whole AfD slightly surreal, but in no way offensive. I read it as a parody of a societal phenomenon, namely that of the lesbian-porn-flick-for-men. It's just a parody. Nobody's saying lesbians are inferior, nobody is saying they're not allowed to marry, it's just somebody saying that straight porn slogans can be funny, especially when taken to the extreme. --fvw *  17:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with UC, and I find its continued usage stale and in poor taste. =Nichalp «Talk»=  17:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hold on, are we discussing whether it's funny anymore or whether it's offensive? The first I could come around to, but the second seems like baseless PCism to me; Could someone explain how parodying adult entertainment slogans is offensive to anyone apart from possibly adult entertainment producers? --fvw *  17:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of the confusion here may be that it's not necessarily immediately obvious that that's what it in fact was doing (i.e. parodying a porn slogan). It wasn't to me, anyway. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So perhaps the user who started it was a lesbian who supported the adminship strongly? I can understand that you didn't get it, but why then immediately assume that it's something negative? --fvw *  18:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think I did anything approaching that -- I never assumed any negative intent at all, and don't think I have said that I did. I only said that I could see how some folks might find it offensive, though I don't personally. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, I misread who started this discussion, sorry about that. I still don't see how it's parseable as offensive though, even without good faith I can't parse it in any way that makes a jab at lesbians, let alone being offensive to them. --fvw *  18:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Ultimately I think this is probably just a tempest in a teapot, but it is worthy of discussion I think. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that this must be spelled out. Why one might consider it offensive depends upon the meaning one ascribes to it:
 * If merely serves to provide shock value, then it is offensive because it utilizes a demographic group that has suffered a history of discriminiation as a source of humor. Build your own example using the names of other demographic groups and decide whether they are offensive, then consider the parallels.
 * If it is a gratuitous reference to pornography, it is inappropriate on Wikipedia, see Profanity for parallels. We have articles on sexuality, and on films and literature with sexual content -- including pornographic materials.  Discussions of them in context are fine; gratuitious references however are IMO inappropriate.
 * If it is read literally, it is intended to evoke the idea that Phroziac (who is male) is either lesbian or engaging in some sort of uniquely lesbian thought pattern in his support of a particular candidate. This doesn't make sense since lesbian people are by definition female, therefore we can only conclude that this is an attempt at absurdist humor.  As per #1 above it is inappropriate to utilize a demographic group that has suffered a history of discrimination in this fashion.
 * I would appreciate it if someone would explain to me exactly why this is so funny. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's an extremely timid statement compared to many "articles" around here, and much more "specific" things go on at AfD (my user page is much worse... heh :)). I think people need to take a breather, its meant to be humor not an ad etc. (humor is such a relative thing anyway) - WP:NOT censored. Maybe it should be more like EXTREME CHOCOLATE SUPPORT WITH CHERRIES ON TOP!!!!! Ryan Norton T 19:07, 30 September

2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe it shoud be changed then if so many editors are uncomfortable with it. Personally, I find no problem with it, and it sure strays away from the monotonous "Support", "Support", "Support", "Support". What can I say, people are jsut inventive. →Jo urna list  >>talk<<  19:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * FWIW the top page on google for Extreme lesbian support is Phroziac's User talk page.Geni 19:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hahahahaha.... Man, did I get a kick out of that, I don't know why. Here's the link: --Blackcap | talk 19:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's a relatively minor matter, and I'm sure those who don't like it can live with it (which is probably why it hasn't come up on this page until now). But since Wikipedia is full of different kinds of people, there are probably some who find it incredibly funny and witty (in fact the adoption by others of this slogan and variations of it suggests that), some who find it shocking and/or offensive, some who find it not particularly offensive, but a bit irritating, and some who found it funny at first but think it's rather stale at this stage. I wouldn't have bothered to comment on it, but since the issue has come up, I think it should be understood that there are people who, for a variety of reasons, would prefer if voters would place their support votes with simple (and helpful) comments like: "Strong support. Excellent candidate. Conscientious, and works well with others." I've personally been quite confused by this issue, as it led me to believe that Phroziac was female – a belief I now find was erroneous. And it seems that I lack some background knowledge that would place this whole thing in context – the references to "parodying adult entertainment slogans" and "parodying a porn slogan" are quite lost on me, sorry! Anyway, I'm enjoying Wikipedia, regardless of what voting templates people use, and I certainly don't want to offend anyone, but for the record I'll state that I agree with Uninvited Company and Nichalp on this one! Several people have adopted this slogan and variations of it. They're free to continue, of course, but now that it has come out in the open, some voters might be happy to going back to something like "Strong support", knowing that some of their fellow Wikipedians are slightly uncomfortable with the other wordings. Ann Heneghan (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh :) - you're forgetting the golden rule of the internet! "Male until proven otherwise"! Besides it leads to potentionally (but not really) witty variations like

OK, that's enough :). Ryan Norton T 20:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) EXTREME CAKE SUPPORT WITH EXTRA CREAM!
 * 2) EXTREME GEORGE W. BUSH SUPPORT WITH EXTRA SUPREME COURT NOMINEES!
 * 3) EXTREME TEXAS SUPPORT WITH MORE HALIBURTAN SHENANIGANS!
 * 4) EXTREME KOFI ANNAN SUPPORT WITH EXTRA OIL FOR FOOD SCANDALS!
 * Well, my instinct is "male until suggested otherwise. And, in my view, Phroziac certainly did suggest otherwise! I should add that I consider some of the voters who are using the rather confrontational wording to be excellent, courteous editors. Ann Heneghan (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

EXTREME TRY-TO-ONE-UP-YOU-IN-CRAZINESS votes (Archive 33)
Is there a way we can stop all these types of votes? I understand some people want to have fun and support their friends, but there needs to be some limit. Maybe just Strong Support, or Extreme Support. The purpose here is fairly serious, but seems to be treated more-and-more like a joke. At least, that's the way I feel. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  21:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. It makes the page look silly and unprofessional. I mean, it's not necessary to limit what phrases can be used on an RFA, but so much of it seems to be attention grabbing...it really takes away from the purpose of having an RFA page. Plus, it's highly distracting. --216.191.200.1 21:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Since when have we been professional?Geni 23:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If we're to believe this guy our amateurishness is one of our best selling points. Or something.  Hell if I know.  Kelly Martin 00:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If anything it takes a bit of inginouity (right word?) to come up with the variants so I'd take it as the opposite :). It seems like people are taking this a little too seriously though - if there's a serious objection I'll agree to dampen mine a bit if you'd like.  Ryan Norton T 21:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * EXTREME LESBIAN PENGUIN WEDDING AT THE CENTRAL PARK ZOO SUPPORT for Voldy's stand against RfA vote silliness. BD2412  talk 21:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Damn, there's little hope of topping that.  Friday (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sheesh. I'm outta here! --216.191.200.1 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Joking! Seriously, I do agree with Voldy's point - smart comments beat shock comments. BD2412  talk 22:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hehe. Well, I always thought having it partian to the candidate would be nice like EXTREME ACTUALLY-WIKIFIES-INSTEAD-OF-TAGGING SUPPORT!!... Ryan Norton T 21:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This sounds a little to much instuction creepy for my taste. Come one, they have already gotten old, people will stop using them and go back to the "no 1 rfa cliché" votes. gkhan 22:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course this doesn't require a new rule, but those leaving inane votes should know that they're only embarrassing themselves. &mdash; Dan | Talk 22:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with this practice. Why should we discourage ourselves from having a little fun? And how is this hurting our goal of building an encyclopedia? Yes, Wikipedia is serious business, but that doesn't mean we should all act dour and humorless. As long as the "EXTREME XYZ SUPPORT" votes are tasteful and don't attack anyone, they're OK with me. [ +t, +c, +m ] 23:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure they're fine occasionally, it's nice to make people smile, but recently it has moved towards becoming a farce. Mature humour is good, but it isn't funny when its constant, actually gets in the way of constructive comments, and makes the whole process look like a joke. Martin  23:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as they're not offensive, I don't see a problem with them. Too little humor is just as bad as too much humor. Besides, once they get old, people will stop using them. Tito xd (?!?) 23:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Too little humour as bad as too much? Um, would you rather go on holidays with someone who makes too many jokes or someone who makes too few? Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

People get called out for not providing a reason for oppose. Why should supports not get the same treatment? EXTREME WHATEVERTHEFUCK SUPPORT doesn't stike me as a good vote. It strikes me as a bandwagon vote where the main interest is coming up with something clever. Marskell 23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC) To clarify slightly, would we accept Extreme lesbian oppose? Marskell 23:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, people hopped on the bandwagon anyway before the slew of witty votes, they only did it with Support instead of Extreme GNAA Support or whatever. I don't know if Extreme lesbian oppose would be accepted, no one has tried it yet... Tito xd (?!?) 23:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To be clear, EXTREME BLAHBLAH SUPPORT and simply Support can both be criticized for not providing reasoning and both may be bandwagon votes—it's just that in the former case I often wonder if the person is only voting for the sake of coming up with something clever.
 * Extreme lesbian oppose hasn't been tried as far as I can see either and it would probably elicit comments against—"what's this mean? is this good faith? etc." I don't see that we should hold support votes to a lesser standard (you may get the implication that I disagree with "explain oppose particularly"—this isn't AfD and I don't think the default should be accept). Marskell 23:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a completely different issue, but I agree with you on that one. I try to leave the remark I would have left if I had voted Support instead of Extreme I'm-trying-to-think-of-something Support. Users should leave their reasoning (or at least try—I know I have forgotten to do so once or twice) whether they are voting support, oppose or neutral. Tito xd (?!?) 00:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, not completely different—how you tag supports and how you should weight support versus oppose are related incidentally and both of my points speak to the substantiveness of votes. While I know otherwise fine editors my use a colourful descriptor on their supports, the more colourful the less seriously I take the vote. Marskell 00:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally feel that it get less funny each time, and is now becoming tiresome. I'd love to see editors going back to helpful remarks like, "Strong Support. Good sense of NPOV, always explains his edits, and is courteous towards other contributors." I don't often vote for someone I haven't come across, but when I do, it's very helpful to see what other have said about him/her, before taking a quick look through the user's contributions. Personally, I don't care about the number of edits (as long as it's not ridiculously low for an RfA). I care a lot about how a user treats others and deals with conflict. If several voters comment on the reason why they're supporting (or opposing), rather than whether their vote is lesbian or sadomasochistic or whatever, then I can get a feeling for what kind of candidate it is.Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that the proliferation of these incredibly dangerous and probably highly-damaging to many people all around the world style votes was caused by the request to stop using The Original One. It's what happens when you tell people to stop acting in a particular way that isn't wrong. We('ve) all escalated like that when(since) we were kids... Oh, and FWIW, I laughed-out-loud at Phroziac's new disclaimer. -Splash talk 00:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we call this WP:BEANS. Bratsche talk 03:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are that I don't care about what kind of goofy peacock adjective opinions anyone offers, as long as it's accompanied by a valid, legible, coherent reasons for their support or opposition. However, I don't particularly like where the trend line is pointing.   I think the real problem is that people are thinking harder about how to be clever in their vote than how to be expressive in their reasoning behind it.  <FONT COLOR="#66CCFF">Un</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000CC">focused</FONT> 00:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What Unfocued said. It adds a bit of fun to what would otherwise be a fairly stodgy process, and as long as they're being used to complement rather than replace comment, I see no problem with it. Grutness...  wha?  01:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Extreme lesbian disagree. What's wrong with simply having a little fun? This is not a parliamentary or governmental election. This is an informal process for determining which Wikipedians are suitable for adminship. And the "support" or "oppose" vote is clear enough despite the silly qualification in front of it. &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything in moderation. Martin  09:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem with extreme lesbian disagree is that the grammar doesn't work. With extreme lesbian support, extreme and lesbian are both adjectives modifying the noun support.  It's really an exclamatory phrase standing in for I give my extreme lesbian support to this candidate.  To fit the pattern on the negative side, you'd have to use extreme lesbian opposition (in the case of a vote) or more apropos for a comment on a talk page, extreme lesbian disagreement.  --RoySmith 10:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I never thought of that. I have been viewing "support" and "oppose" as verbs, and have merely seen "extreme lesbian support" as short hand for "support in an extreme lesbian way". But this way people would have to write "extreme lesbian opposition" if they were to use it in oppose votes, or start writing "extremely lesbianly" instead of "extreme lesbian". (I never thought I'd write the word "lesbian" so many times in succession, particularly when I'm not talking about porn.) &mdash; J I P | Talk 10:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme lesbian disagree on wheels - it's just a fad, and I'm sure that it will die down eventually. --Ixfd64 09:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fool! The extreme lesbian vessel must not be damaged! Now... we must take control! &mdash; J I P | Talk 14:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that these votes are getting unfunny, but I find worries about "unprofessionality" of an internal Wikipedia process baseless. Why do we have to be spending time on this issue? It's hard to see how silly RFA votes could somehow impugn Wikipedia's reputation. This, perhaps, is a good point of view on the issue. N (t/c) 17:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * At the risk of beating an already well-beaten horse, being the wiki it is there really aren't much in the way of internal processes here, these discussions are 2-3 clicks from the main page and can be read and edited by anyone. Some people will see those types of votes as a reflection on the editors who contribute to Wikipedia, some won't...perception is reality and you can't control how people will perceive these sorts of things. Rx StrangeLove 20:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * For pete's sake - we have a meta page for "Don't be a dick" with a link to an essay about f**kheads! I really think the public perception here is not that big of a problem. Ryan Norton T 21:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we do have a public perception problem, but it's in article space, not wiki space. A friend of mine at work (we're both technogeeks) says, Wikipedia is like a public toilet; when you need it, you're glad it's there, but you never know who was there before you and what they left behind.  If we could get the quality of the articles improved, our public perception would go up.  I don't think anybody cares what happens behind the scenes (even if behind the scenes is pretty much visible to anybody who cares to click on the discussion tab we conveniently put on every page.  It's just like at work; nobody (least of all our customers) cares that I wear grubby jeans and t-shirts to work, but they do care that the software we ship is the best it can be.  WP space is our office, article space is what we ship.  --RoySmith 21:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What is RfA and what it is not (Archive 36)
I think there is a flaw on what RfA stands for. Or I am confused. Comments on RfA pages should have the intention to make a candidate a better editor is it not? After all adminship is no big deal. Any oppose should have a good reason such as "candidate not ready", "candidate needs to develop skill B" etc. Unprofessional comments such as "candidate sucks in general", "I will leave wikipedia if this person becomes an admin" etc. should be evaded in my view. -- Cool Cat Talk 22:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. How is a candidate supposed to know what to do before they run again otherwise? --Cel e stianpower háblame 22:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. The comments I received for my self-nom were really fantastic, even though the votes were unanimous "no".  I don't necessarily agree, but then, that's the point, isn't it?  The community has spoken and I get to take the comments to heart and keep working on making the place better, and then come back in the future for another try.  Excellent.  Tedernst 23:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Basing Votes (Archive 40)
There are some votes I have noticed that are based on people's feelings towards each other, like "wikifriends" would support other "wikifriends" even if they would completely abuse powers, and people that are "wikienemies" would not support even if the user nominated was God(just using as example, if you don't believe in God then make what I'm saying whatever you want) him/her(some people say her, who? I don't know)self, they would still not support their RfA based on the fact that they dislike the user. I'm wondering if these votes should be counted or are the reasoning behind them wrong enough not to count them? Fahrenheit  Royal  e  19:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Users are welcome to choose their own stanards - always have and always will. --Cel e stianpower hablamé 19:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I know what we should do. We should discount the votes of anyone who's reasoning we a)disagree with b)think is wrong or c)generally don't like so much. Then, we can ask for people to submit their votes to this talk page for vetting before making them to ensure they will not find themselves ignored. That way, anybody who feels a bit miffed by the vote won't have to try to think of a new rule for why it should be ignored. They can just veto it outright. That'll fix it. RfA does not need any restrictions, and attempts to impose them will harm the process. If we are not free to control how we hand out admin powers, then the process of doing so will be meaningless. Why impose censorship here but nowhere else?. -Splash talk 21:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would vote for God. Really, I'd just vote for him without looking at contrib's. God wouldn't have to convince me. It's no big deal right—being an admin? But it's a super big deal—being God. So I'd just vote for him. I don't have any wikifriends, but he'd be, like, my first one. Marskell 22:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would oppose God, for being too unilateral. (Not to mention the fact that he's reluctant to help those in trouble...) -Splash talk 22:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - per RfA chiche #1. --Cel e stianpower hablamé 22:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - does not respond to email in timely fashion FreplySpang (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, God appears to be registered to AOL. Martin 23:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was just wondering because I think its just unfair to the person running if they get oppose votes just because a group doesn't like them. But alright, I understand. Fahrenheit   Royal  e  23:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In the end, the final decision is made by the bureaucrat who promotes the candidate. If the bureaucrat decides that all of the oppose votes are worthless, he/she can do that. Of course, if he doesn't have a good reason, they may not stay a bureaucrat for long ;) I support God by the way, because I'm Jesus &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  03:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd support God via St Anselm's principles of what's good. Celestianpower is a good admin. God is the greatest Celestian Power, therefore he'd have to be a greater admin that a standard Celestianpower. God would therefore be an excellent admin. QED. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  07:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, God is the greatest Celestial power. Celestian isn't a word :) --Cel e stianpower hablamé 17:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * True. Fahrenheit   Royal  e  19:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

question (Archive 50)
Why do we allow votes that don't say anything but support or oppose? Shouldn't we require people to either give a reason or at least state that they agree with a given person? This is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, right?--Urthogie 13:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As a general rule people are always called out on oppose with no reason but never support with no reason. I agree some minimum comment should be required. Marskell 13:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? A support vote implicitly states "this person is acceptable to me to have adminship" and an oppose vote implicitly states "this person is not acceptable to me to have adminship." Unless one has something to tell the community that may influence others' decisions, I see no need for a reason to justify a vote. When I review who has already voted, the reputation of the voter casting the vote matters more to me than what they say in most cases. NoSeptember   talk  14:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For one thing, an oppose vote carries much more weight mathmatically than a support vote. It takes 4 support votes to "cancel out" an oppose vote, though of course b'crat discretion is the ultimate factor. I do think people should explain oppose votes, based on my own RfA experience (where I never had any idea what the 2 objecters objected to). But at the same time, I don't think people should be reluctant to oppose because they don't want to get jumped on by a bunch of people. I think a good compromise is for oppose voters to explain their basic objection, and for everyone else to respect that and not hassle them. If we're all acting in good faith, of course :-) --W.marsh 14:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and supporters should explain why they support too. These are just personal preferences... I don't know that codifying these things would be a good idea at all. --W.marsh 14:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think of it a little differently. Although I provide a reason for almost every support vote I've given, I don't think it's as important to provide reasons for a support vote as it is for an oppose vote because the comments given in an oppose vote can help the RFA candidate improve for future RFAs if it fails, and maybe what needs to be done prior to taking on admin tasks even if the RFA passes. That's not as much of a factor in the support votes, unless, of course, the support vote still provides a qualifier like "Support, but I'm concerned about X". --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Request? Yes. REQUIRE? No. --Durin 15:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate "too controversial" (Archive 54)
Going over the RFA for HolyRomanEmperor, I was so incredibly surprised to see so many people voting oppose because he is "too controversial". Not because he has done controversial edits, not because he is heavily slanted in his own work, but because others deem him slanted. Frankly, in the minefield of Balkan-topics, there's always somebody who thinks your opinionated. If you dont mention Kosovo as the heartland of Serbia, you're anti-Serb. If you do, you anti-Albanian. You can never win.

Now I know people are allowed to vote on whatever reasons they see fit, but still. I'm sure that a good vandalwacker will be derided by the vandals. In this case, the arguments are being put forth by rather strong POV-pushers (though I'm not denying some of them have a point), and then echoed by normal users saying "apparently he is too controversial". Should we really judge somebody on that basis? Shouldnt RFA be about judging a candidate on his own merits?

Curious to hear what everybody thinks about this. The Minist e  r of War  (Peace) 22:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * People can vote "T.C" if they want...but I don't understand that unless the canditate is criticised, with diffs, by serious editors, many of them, and if he was otherwise not that strong a canditate anyway. If someone is trusteworthy, and has done a lot of hard work, like, oh...say Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, I would not even think of voting oppose per "T.C". That kind of voting just amplifies current opposition, not with new opinions or agreement, but just pure, blind, amplification. Trolls can utitlize this as a tool if there numbers are not large enough on there own, they can count on nervious users to vote "T.C" and they get more oppose votes. Voice -of-  All T 22:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that "too controversial" is shorthand for a longer argument that has merit. Let's be frank about what is going on here. There was a nasty civil war, ethnically based, in the Balkans not very long ago. It is not surprising, then, that some of this spills into wikipedia, not least because the ethnic strife is historical, both in the passive sense that it is a product of the historical experience of several peoples and (more importantly for wikipedia) in the active sense that history is one of the fields of conflict. Was that village historically of ethnicity-x? It's an important question--people were being killed over it a decade ago!--and one in which nationalist historians of both sides create arguments, some sound, some less sound. Now, we have an editor who is seen by one side as a champion of truth and common sense and by the other as a POV-warrior. In another RfA we might have someone from the other side who is (naturally enough) seen as a POV-warrior by those who are now the strongest supporters. When someone says "too controversial", all they're doing is saying that in their judgement (which they have both the right and obligation to exercise), the candidate seems too locked into one side of a partisan polarity to be trusted with tools that can be used (or threatened) in the struggle that he seems a part of. <font color="#DF0001">Buck  e <font color="#DF0001">ts ofg  15:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I felt he had contributed to the position of his being "controversial". I would not vote oppose, simply because there was a controversy because other people disagreed with him. Tyrenius 06:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing RfA comments (Archive 57)
I've noticed a general trend of simply reverting RfA comments that users feel the burecrats will simply disregard anyway. (Note: I'm not pointing this out to attack any editor or group of editors, just pointing out a general phenomenon.) I think we should have some kind of discussion about what should be done about such votes. While I don't mind removing votes that are obvious vandalism or trolling, my opinion is that less clear-cut cases should either be struck out, a note attached, or simply having faith in the closing burecrat. (With more emphasis on the latter two, as having your vote struck out can be demoralizing.) There are a few points that I feel would be relevant to this argument: Any thoughts? E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Our user account benefits page lists "the right to be heard in votes and elections" as a benefit to having a user account. While some people may abuse this system, simply reverting the edits prevents the editor from being heard at all.
 * On a similar note, common practice of AfD's that are riddled with sockpuppets has been to let the comments stand as-is, rather than reverting them or striking them out.
 * Starting the practice of reverting rather than commenting on potentially bad-faith votes might be a slippery slope. For example, one might feel justified in reverting the votes of users who feel the need to oppose nearly every single RfA candidate.
 * I tend to agree. Quite a number of people have struck votes, removed votes, commented on them being fractious, etc. I trust the bureaucrats to sift through the RfAs they are closing and weed out what is unhelpful. --Durin 17:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but as discussed above, it is helpful for users to comment on situations, as we can't see and know everything. Reverting votes or striking them out is not good though. Duplicate votes and sockpuppets of banned users can have an extra # added so they don't contribute to the count. - Taxman Talk 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, comments or votes should never be struck out, even by bureaucrats. If a comment is in such bad faith that it should not be read (the implication of striking out) then it should just be removed entirely. Comments that make a good faith contribution to the process (e.g. votes from anon users) should be commented as such, or moved to a more appropriate section of the page, but should not be struck out. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Christopher Parham's first sentence but not with what follows. I think the only comments that should be removed are those that are personal attacks.  Judging good faith or bad faith is a slippery slope that we should not venture out on. -- DS1953 <sup style="color:green;">talk  21:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are cases where bad faith is dead obvious, e.g. simple vandalism. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Christopher Parham. Comments that are clearly bad-faith (i.e. "candidate so-and-so is an !!!", etc.) or are from banned users can be reverted. Otherwise, good faith comments (or comments that could be interpreted as good faith) should never be reverted or deleted. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't alter other peoples' statements. If you catch someone, I think a block would be appropriate. Kim Bruning 22:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no point in removing a comment from an RfA. Such will either stand or fall on their own merits. :) Dlohcierekim 14:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So are we to remove all the votes from User:A ding ding ding ding ding ding ding or keep them? joturn e r 03:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the sort of thing that should be removed from the tally, but which doesn't need to be struck out or removed. Although if such absurdity grows to an epic scale we may need to take stronger measures against disruption. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, just make a comment underneath them about why you think it should be disregarded. The closing bureaucrat will make a decision on what to do with it. <font color="#7b68ee">Essjay <font color="#7b68ee">( <font color="#7b68ee">Talk  • <font color="#7b68ee">Connect  ) 11:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I beat the nom support! (Archive 59)
Is adminship so trivial that people should be racing to "vote"? Can you make an informed decision about a candidate in as little as a minute? If it is someone that you already know (or knew that they would be nominated), couldn't you state something of value about their abilities or demeanor instead? Or am I just being cranky? Kotepho 22:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OMG FIRST COMMENT SUPPORT! Never thought of this in this way before. A fair point, I think. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never really thought of it like that either... I guess it means they feel they know them well enough to vote without needing any research. "I beat the nom" doesn't add anything to the aim of RfA, which is reaching concensus, so it should be discouraged, but I doubt you'll get anywhere. --Tango 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone hypothesized a few days ago on this page that RfA regulars are better qualified to judge suitability, having had more experience. But this first post culture is clearly a refutation of that hypothesis.  -lethe talk [ +] 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect, you're just being cranky. It's a vaguely irritating habit but does no harm... I doubt anyone rushes to support someone they wouldn't have supported in any case. The Land 22:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Voting before the candidate has accepted the nomination indicates either trust or friendship. I agree with trust, but not with friendship: you should never vote based on it, as it taints your WP:NPOV. Just because I WP:AGF doesn't mean I won't wonder why some don't change their vote when an extremely good oppose one is raised. -- ReyBrujo 22:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Besides, there's no effective way to prevent this, if it were the case, without resorting to...gah...instruction creep.  This is just one of those things where if someone is overdoing it, we need to reason with the person and hope that s/he will listen and discontinue.  Redux 00:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Only n00bs try to get first post. Established, serious editors of course camp for the 100 spot. -- grm_wnr Esc  04:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * * cough*ExperiencedUsersWaitfortheOtherstodotheWork*cough* ;) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 04:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's called the "sofixit" mentality. -- grm_wnr Esc  05:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL! :D <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 05:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lethe is right, it's not dissimilar to the "First post!" phenomenon that has plagued forums and message boards across the Internet for years. It's not a big problem – Gurch 14:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Too Far-Gone Conclusions (Archive 63)
I'm a bit worried about my comments on Sean Black's RfA and JD_UK's RfA, due to their lengths. I'm not trying to stab them with my opposition rationale, but I fear I'm inadvertently doing just that, especially since long opposition comments sometimes draw potential !voters to a side even if they don't particularly agree with them. In all honesty, have I gone against my own principle that this is an RfA, not an FBI investigation, and climbed on top of the Reichstag wearing a Spider-man suit with my oppose !votes in hand? Should I cut down the comments (or at least cut down comments in the future) or is the detail okay (this isn't a vote, after all)? Comments would be appreciated, and this doesn't just have to be about the length of my comments specifically. And, yes, I know that's not the correct usage of "far-gone". --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 14:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the length of your comments is fine. I cannot imagine a reason for wanting to provide less rationale. People complain all the time about !vote or vote (even though nearly every single opposer gives a reason in nearly every RfA) and writing proper comments just proves that this is, in fact a discussion! not a !vote. -Splash - tk 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, please don't stop. As long as you're not piling-on (which I've never seen you do), there's nothing wrong with giving thorough explanations. I, for one, greatly appreciate them. ×Meegs 17:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright; thank you both for the feedback. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think they are long on the page, move them to the rfa/nom talk page, then link to them from the rfa/nom page. — xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  04:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The more thoughtful the reasoning, the better. Length in itself shouldn't reflect badly on a comment. There was one small thing I noticed though in your comment on Sean Black's nom, Jo: "Okay, okay, perhaps I over-reacted on some of those..." If you feel you may be over-reacting, than perhaps reconsider whether the diffs are really all that egregious. Marskell 12:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see what you meant by that. It was only an "oppose" with my comment (as I wanted to see if what I said really was an over-reaction), but I changed it to "strong oppose" after seeing what others - namely BigDT - had to say. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 12:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

'Crats please look at this oppose opinion in current RFA (Archive 64)
Copied from Requests for adminship/Jersey Devil

''Oppose For the same reasons I have given on other nominations recently, namely Misza13, Grendelkhan, and others. That is: The unusual support, both in numbers, and in the cliquiness involved. Although the number of supporters is not as large at this rfa as in the others that I opposed, the support editors are basically the same. The same or many of the same editors are supporting all of the nominations as of late. I still find this questionable and highly suspicious. I will continue to oppose these cliquey rfa's as a matter of principle. If however one of these rfa candidates shows me a reason to change my vote, I will change it. Shannonduck talk 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)''

Could the 'crats please look at this oppose opinion? I feel that it does not speak to the nom's ability to use admin tools and should be struck. Sorry, do not mean to be troublesome. FloNight  talk  00:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The best course of action is to ignore the user. We've had routine oppose voters with questionable justifications in the past, they will eventually go away. NoSeptember  05:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Appears she's struck out that opinion. Alphachimp  <sup style="color:Black;">talk  05:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's pretty symptomatic of the issues others have noted about the whole process. The process becomes a beauty contest so at least appears if not becomes an effort in establishing oneself in the in crowd.ALR 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, if the reasons for support are similar, that attests to the user's abilities and reputation. All we can assume is that people are voting on a basis of merit as opposed to coming along and voting along with the majority group.  To oppose because of others' reasons for supporting is nonsensical. Michael 22:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of RFA (Archive 64)
I'll admit that I'm somewhat biased after going through so many RFA's but I honestly believe that people have lost track of the spirit of RFA which is to give adminship to those who would be trusted with the tools, it has now become nothing but a political contest mixed with drive by voting from people who don't give a damn about the candidate's merits and only vote on the previous votes. Pegasus1138 Talk 18:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting for the first "Oppose too few portal talk edits". :-) &mdash; Deckill e r 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's already been an "Oppose too few help space edits".-- Firsfron of Ronchester 18:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Laugh if you want but I'm dead serious, we already have a bunch of admins who won't do the job as shown by the stats presented in the above threads and by the time anyone gets admin nowadays due to people's high standards they're at the end of their Wiki-work and are about to leave the project anyway. Pegasus1138 Talk 18:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. RfA candidates spend months tailoring their edits that by the time they get the tools, they are burnt out. Furthermore, the process alone turns the new admins off, since they're afraid to even bother doing admin work due to the "high expectations". Expectations should be reasonable, attainable, and good enough to prove that the user is professional and trusted enough with the tools. &mdash; Deckill e r 18:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not everyone votes the same way. Most of the criteria I use have nothing to do with "who can be trusted with the tools" mentality. I like to see good knowledge of the workings of wikipedia. I like to see someone who has proven they can interact contructively with other editors to help reach a consensus. I like to see users who are constantly improving content as well as house keeping type roles.  I have to say i really do not like to see people popping up again and again in RfA without any real lapse of time to deal with previous criticism. If admin ship really is no big deal then just give everyone with 3000 edits the tools and remove them if disruptive behaviour becomes a problem.  Until that day people will always vote based on their check list of many criteria.  David D. (Talk) 18:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue nowadays is people aren't even checking against their criteria, they're just looking for 5 seconds at the RFA, they see a single oppose vote for whatever reason and they oppose then the floodgates are opened. Pegasus1138 Talk 19:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A well worded defense, that is not too defensive, would probably make people switch votes, if there really were no merit to their oppose votes. I know I have often switched votes based on discussions in the RfA itself. But this is usually when the candidate does a great job of representing their case to their critics. An example of a less than impressive response would be when an opposer suggests that the candidate has come back too soon since the end of the last RfA in June (let's assume it ended in early June) and the defense is along the lines of actually my last RfA started in April. David D. (Talk) 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The only real good thing that can come out of this is that new users look up to admins. Admins should take advantage of this by guiding new users along the right path, and by acting professional and civil. That's how I see it. &mdash; Deckill e r 19:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And then non-admins get treated like crud. When a "vandal" finds out I'm not an admin, it turns from "I know better than you!", to "You don't have the right to warn me!". Yeah, fab. H ig hway <sup style="color:#FF917F;">Return to Oz... 19:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Our dealing with vandals and trolls is a big problem here. When an admin deals appropriately sternly with a troll, the troll puts on a full court press to defame the admin and too many in the community go along with the phony accusations. Good admins and good users need to work together, admins can't protect good users if they know they will be hung out to dry. But wait, what does that have to do with RfA.... a lot actually. NoSeptember  20:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Adminship is just horrid. I really want to go up, but everyone is smart enough to not nominate me, and I can't even answer the questions in "the right tone". I wantto update DYK, and help the community, but it isn't going to happen. H ig hway <sup style="color:#FF917F;">Return to Oz... 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the title - spirit of RfA. Wikipedia works best when we work as a team. As I see it, all good editors who want to are are capable of working on this team should be Admins. RfA is the rite of passage. Many of the statistics quoted in RfAs are not good indictation of Admin potential. One exception might be edit summaries, as edit summaries are an ultruistic way of helping other editors. Some candidates who have demonstrated team ability are still excluded because of current "low" edit counts. This just delays their Admin experience. Stephen B Streater 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It only takes one bad admin to cause serious trouble. RFA in my opinion is the best way to weed out trouble before it happens. --Masssiveego 08:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Insulting the electors (Archive 72)
I'm a little shaken up by the responses of one of the failing nom's. I know losing any vote, even a !vote like RfA, feels a lot like getting your teeth pulled with a ball peen hammer, but the fundamental rule in any campaign has got to be not to insult the electorate! Engagement and debate are a necessary part of consensus building, but my, oh my! <font color="#009000"> Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Its certainly an innovative strategy. I particularly like the notion that asking a candidate to answer three questions amounts to a pathological process. If the candidate had spent 10% of the effort he's put into insulting people on answering the questions, he'd probably be passing right now. Perhaps someone should mention WP:BEANS and WP:POINT to him? Gwernol 14:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that would involve the sort of pathology he is so against. LOL<font color="#009000"> Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, did you notice, he redacted the answers and the questions!<font color="#009000"> Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that was an entertaining read. I will say that I'm impressed by the candidate's bravery, but wow... just, wow. Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 11:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)