User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Specific RFXs

What happened to User:Pakaran's nomination? (Archive 2)
What happened to Pakaran's nomination? It's been deleted from the page and there's no link to new admins. RickK 06:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)~


 * Recently_created_admins. --Menchi 06:53, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * There is a link, it's always been there, right above the "Requests for adminship" subheading. He's also listed on Administrators and there's a message on his talk page telling him he's an admin. -- Tim Starling 07:04, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Notes (Archive 17)
I make no objections to the removal of the nomination, as it was clear that said nomination would not pass at the present time. I request that no one nominate me for adminship during the next 6 months.

However, one user claimed that I committed "vote vandalism" when a nominee who should have had 15 votes was listed as having 14. I never did that. If it occured during an edit of mine, it was purely accidental.

Secondly, the vote by anonymous troll 172.196.208.96 should not have been counted; anonymous users may not vote. Best to all, Mike Church 08:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You removed two actual votes that were spread across three edits, all of which were made more than an hour before you removed them. It's rather difficult to do that by accident. -- Cyrius|&#9998 10:24, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Misterrick's nomination (Archive 17)
Why did UninvitedCompany remove my nomination before the closing date? You are not giving others members of Wikipedia the opportunity to vote. It may have seem that I was not getting support but you never know what might happen last minute, Also why have a closing date if you are going to ignore it anyway by removing the nomination before users get a chance to vote. The nomination should remain until the closing and then and only then be removed. It seem apparent to me that the actions taken by UninvitedCompany were a blaten violation of Wikipedia rules and therefore I insist that my nomination be reopened for additional time so that all Wikipedia members can get their votes in. Misterrick 17:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You may certainly move it back if you wish. Policy is that widely opposed nominations are removed when it becomes clear that the nomination won't be supported.  UninvitedCompany 16:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * UninvitedCompany All I was asking for is a fair opportunity that's all, Nothing more.... Nothing less... Misterrick 18:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, but a continuous barrage of oppositions would be considered embarassing by virtually everybody, even if some support has been rallied subsequently. UC simply executed this very sensible policy. JFW | T@lk  11:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Mydogategodshat (Archive 17)
I don't think it's fair to keep on putting Mydogategodshat through RfA when he has clearly stated he does not wish to be an administrator. I've removed the vote until such a time that he says he accepts the nomination. It can be replaced from this version if that ever happens. When someone's nomination is obviously controversial, they should at least have the choice of whether they want to be considered. Angela. 07:01, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Rogper (Archive 17)
Hi folks! I self-nominated myself and the voting period is over now. It has happened two times that users simply remove my rigths without taking any further actions. First UninvitedCompany removed me in the middle of the voting period and I merely can't see how that person can be a admin, since he has two alias which was abused in his own election. Secondly, Cecropia just put me to the archive. The outcome was 13/11/3 (or 11/9/3 on 18:38 May 19 ). Thanks so long! // Rogper 20:37, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Though we have disagreed on what constitutes "consensus", the number given was almost consistently between 75% and 80%. The first vote Rogper cites was 54% and the earlier one 55%, both not counting abstentions. For Rogper to have reached even 75% he would have had to gathered another 20 supports without another oppose. I didn't vote on Rogper's nomination, but his assertion I "removed his rights" by following policy and cleaning up the page a day after the end of the voting suggests that those who expressed their concern that he might not understand the culture and rules of English Wikipedia may have had a point. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:12, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The Swedish Wikipedia has 75% consensus, too. (Closley followed by 90% in the polls!!) When we started our discussion there, the English wikipedia had more liberal rules so that yes, I believed there was no need of "qualified majority" on this interwiki. Personally, my opinion is 50% and no "foolish" neutral votes, but that is another discussion. :-)
 * Everyone might have an opinion, but my second language is English and has been since ~1983 so I can't see how some people vote no because "He hasn't sufficient English".
 * // Rogper 00:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Rogper, what "further actions" are you referring to? The voting period was over and too many users opposed your nomination for you to have been made an admin.  As a result, your name was taken off the page.  I'm not sure what your problem is with the situation, or how you would have liked it to be handled.  Moncrief 21:35, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * We can't have a self-nomination policy where people nominating themself get classified as stupid. (Has anyone got adminship from self-nomination???) I'm sorry for my "nitpicking" (i.e. answering to all comments by bullets) but I belive I should have done it more. // Rogper 00:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Rogper, at the time I removed your vote, there were 9 opposed. As you may be aware, adminship on en: is generally granted with at least 80% supporting voices and hardly ever granted with less than 70%, with some room for judgement in between.  Since there were well-founded objections by several longstanding contributors, you probably would have been held to the stricter 80% standard, which means you would have needed 36 supporting votes.  You had 11.  Getting 36 supporting votes on this page is unheard of, and so I removed your listing once the outcome was clear.  That is our policy on this page, as a courtesy to nominees, so that additional "oppose" rationale is not then posted.  UninvitedCompany 22:38, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of wikipedia users, thus 9 polls would potentially represent one promille... :-) Anyway, we cannot remove "pollings" after two days; they don't hurt anyone if they remain some days longer. :-) // Rogper 00:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, 36 supporting votes is not unheard of - I believe the most we've had is 37 for UtherSRG. But established practice is not to grant adminship simply based on a majority vote (see the case of BL in Archive 13). Given how close the vote was, the prospects of consensus support were not there, and removing the nomination after 7 days was perfectly justified. I agree that the earlier removal was premature, but UninvitedCompany at least respected Rogper's restoration of the nomination. Rogper is welcome to reapply when he has more experience with the English Wikipedia community. In the meantime, many admins would be happy to assist him with requests for image deletion and interwiki links on protected pages, which I understood as the reason for his nomination. --Michael Snow 22:53, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, of course I will request that. But as I have stated earlier, I have never had the energy to take this up further, as many other editors haven't done. This time I partly mentioned it, and partly self-nominated me.
 * Personally, as an admin on sv.wiki I don't remove new nonsens articles but instead re-start them.

Lst27 (Archive 18)
I'm a little troubled by the widespread opposition to this nomination. I agree there have been some serious problems with this user's conduct on RfA in the past, but I'm concerned that people aren't giving a fair chance of reform. He has been more reasonable about his administratorship nominees, and I see little to no evidence that he would aggressively edit war. Adminship is a big deal to him, clearly, but I see no reason to think that this is out of anything that would lead to abuses. It seems like adminship is being viewed as a social validation. Which, in a lot of ways, it is - a recognition that someone has been a long-standing good contributor.

Is there anything that this user could do that would cause some of those opposing him to change their vote next time this comes up? Snowspinner 21:54, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Snowspinner -- I don't know that we should carry out a long discussion here, but the fact is that I am sceptical (and I believe many others are too) about this user's denials about being User:AlexPlank / User:Perl / User:Greenmountainboy / User:Alexandros et al. Assuming I am correct, then this user has not reformed, and ought not be an admin, IMHO. It will be a while before I feel that it would appropriate in this case. In the past, many have given him the benefit of the doubt repeatedly, to the point of his being made an admin on Meta, and to me that was a mistake. However, whether I am correct or not about Lst27's identity, I don't believe that this represents a trend of not giving formerly problematic users a fair chance of reform. I appreciate your concerns, but I believe that this is a very specific situation, and will not apply to other candidates for adminship. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 22:07, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Showing more evidence of necessary social clue, or less evidence of an appalling lack. I fear that's something that's not really optional in an admin - David Gerard 22:44, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Snowspinner. I would expect to see the same thing from Lst27 as from anyone else. He would have to satisfy my objective criteria, and he would have to live down his recent string of faux paux, particularly: his inappropriate nominations of others and himself for adminship, his removal ("refactoring") of comments from his own vote, his citing of his trivially minor editing record at es: in support of his nomination. I would not support him until I see a string of contributions exemplifying understanding of the community and acceptance of community decisions and mores, occuring at regular intervals over a period of several months. I would also expect that he be nominated by someone besides himself, preferably a well-respected member of the community.

Ill-advised admin promotions do indeed have the potential to cause trouble, even though individual actions are reversible. The stress the community suffers in dealing with ill-considered actions is considerable. I am not interested in giving Lst27 "a chance" or concocting some sort of "special short-term subject-to-review-after-three-months" adminship alternative for him, because I think both of these are bad policy, and if he is indeed given adminship for a time only to have it revoked, he'll be even more upset than he is now. While I believe WP needs more admins, and am in favor of granting adminship liberally, it is not worth taking a chance on someone whose record is unclear.

I am not especially concerned about Lst27's alleged socks, though User:Perl and User:Greenmountainboy have rather less than stellar track records, as I recall.

Finally, adminship is not a right, not a badge of prestige, and not something we bestow based on tenure alone. He may well be disappointed that he does not qualify at present, and I can sympathize, but granting adminship out of sympathy in order to boost a contributor's morale is possibly among the worst reasons imaginable.

So, if Lst27 should wish to become an admin, here's my advice. Edit. Do good works. Nominate no one for adminship. Patrol recent changes, take on a wikiproject, and add reasoned discourse to the discussions on talk pages, on policy pages, on VfD. Demonstrate that you don't care about the score: don't count your edits, don't count your time here, don't behave as though your a sailor in the last month of his five year tour. Bide. And after a while, probably six months or so, someone will nominate Lst27 for adminship, and we all will be prepared to forget about the matters that are so clearly in mind today.

UninvitedCompany 23:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Request for adminship candidacy support - JediMaster16 (Archive 18)
Hi, my handle is JediMaster16, and I wish to become nominated to become an admin, if possible. I have made several article contributions to Wikipeda (including numerous edits), especially improving Star Wars related articles. The recommended amount of edits for a sysop on your nominations page was at least one hundred or more. I have about 124 edits to my name.

As an admin I would help contribute to Wikipedia by having powers to deal with vandalism. I believe that I could be effective in ensuring that Wikipedia's rules were held up to the highest degree that they can be.

I know that you do not take adminship lightly - you are granting a user special privileges that should not be abused or misused. If accepted, I would take my privileges as an administrative user and use them to the full benefit of Wikipedia and its community.


 * JediMaster16 02:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * First, you shouldn't be making this request on the talk page, you need to make it Requests for adminship. Second, I suggest you wait - no offense, but you are very, very, very underqualified. You should have (at the very least) another 700 edits to your name, and you need to wait (at least) another month. Third, these are just the numerical standards - people are going to want to know how you act with other users and how you handle conflict. &rarr;Raul654 03:00, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

What happened to Lucky 6.9's nomination? (Archive 20)
I can't find him in the Recently Created Admins page, not even in the Unsupported Applications section. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It was removed by Infrogmation (who is a bureaucrat) with the note that no consensus was reached. I have now added Lucky 6.9 to the unsupported applications list. --Michael Snow 16:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Ooops, thanks for taking care of that part for me. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg's nomination (Archive 21)
I am extending the time on this nomination for 24 hours from its original end. There is substantial support and significant arguments against, but it has consistently (so far) failed to reach even the lower threshold for consideration of promotion. I am making no judgment whatever on the quality of nomination, but setting an end time against the possibility that a clearer consensus may be reached without having this drag on indefinitely. Of course, anyone is free to repropose the nomination in a month. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Grunt's Bureaucrat Nomination (Archive 22)
I have removed Grunt's nomination for bureaucrat. The final vote at the extended end time (and at the time of removal) was (31/11/3) or 73.81%. As is usual, this does not count the neutrals, which also expressed doubt, but they needn't be considered for consensus.

It is well known that I ended up opposing Grunt's bid and have waited three hours beyond the end time to see if any other admin was inclined to act. I have no problem doing the removal, since the nomination clearly failed by even our most liberal policy (75%-80%). For the record, of 24 votes in the current advisory poll on bureaucrat promotion, 20 editors (83%+) feel a bureaucrat should achieve 80%-85% approval, and a significant minority (11 or 45%+) would look for an even more restrictive standard, so I believe a bare minimum of 80% is what we will be looking for in the future. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality (Archive 22)
Just thought I'd drop a little note here, since my promotion of Neutrality could be percieved as controversial. Nominally, the vote was pretty heavily in his favor (78%), which is already in my comfort margin. Also, my "normalized" vote (IE, discounting sockpuppets and whatnot) was 82-83%. Bureaucrats are given discretionary power in making promotions, and I made it. &rarr;Raul654 04:30, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds pretty fair to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Definitely fair. Glad to see a bureaucrat step up to the plate to combat stupidity. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  05:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You ought to watch your mouth a little bit blankfaze, calling people who could not support Neutrality "stupid" and not "sane". I can't speak for the others who voted against, but I know stupid and insane doesn't describe my (weak) opposition. Pcb21| Pete 06:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow, I really don't understand the hostility. In my opinion, the majority (most, not all, (and not you, Pete)) of the users voting against Neutrality did so for stupid reasons, such as his username, or Manual of Style disputes, or grudges (Rex, Pitchka).  Where I come from, people are allowed to express opinions freely.  If by "watch your mouth" you mean that I should shut up and not express my feelings on things, that's not going to happen.  The point is, Neutrality should be an admin.  I've seen MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less worthy, qualified users get through this process.  I'm glad that Raul saw that and ended this whole charade.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  15:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I was hostile because I thought you were calling all opposers stupid and insane. If you were just calling some of them that and not me, then that's fine :). "Watch your mouth" emphatically does not mean "shut up" it means take care when you express your opinion to not cause collateral damage. Pcb21| Pete 06:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've asked some more questions about this decision over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Neutrality. -- Netoholic @ 04:55, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

I've made some proposals at Requests for adminship/Promotion guidelines. Please add your comments. uc 15:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality's adminship should be withdrawn. Neutrality did not have the requisite number of votes. Nor did Raul654 explain how he came to give Neutrality adminship, or how he came up with the 83% figure, when the actual figure is closer to 70. --- Xed 16:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * How do you get the closer to 70% value? Just curious. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:22, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * You're asking me when Raul won't even come clean about his methods for calculating his 83% (normalized) figure? --- Xed 08:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I am also interested in Raul's counting for 82-83%. BTW, with a support of 78% (non-normalized), I think it was within the discretionary power of a bureaucrats to either promote or reject. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:27, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Depending on the method of calculating, I get 69% or 73%, well below 80%. Xed 09:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 63+17+2=82. 63 out of 82 is 77%, no matter how you slice it.
 * Um, no: it isn't meaningful to count the 2 neutral "votes". To do so would be essentially the same as treating them as "oppose" votes. 63+17=80. 63 out of 82 = 78% func(talk) 00:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, then there's little point in having neutral votes. But either way, my point stands: It's closer to 80%, and not 70% as Xed said, giving a figure of "69% or 73%".


 * The reason Neutrality's nomination was controversial is because he made it that way. He is vindictive, nonco-operative and arrogant all rolled into one. If he doesn't like your work on something he will just keep changing it without any communication or he'll end up putting it up for deletion. Funny while he was changing the article a hundred times he didn't think the whole thing should be erased, but as soon as his reasons for making the drastic changes were found to be pointless, he then marked it for deletion. That's not spiteful? Since he has so many fans, arguing against him is futile. My question is what about all the sockpuppets that appear to have voted in a row, mind you, for him? This vote fixing by accusing everyone who votes against someone as a sockpuppet if you feel like it isn't very democratic! Pitchka 01:25, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Help please (Archive 23)
I nominated a user (my first) and things seem less than perfect. Some advice, assitance please? User:Dbachmann is the one I am refering to. Sam [Spade] 16:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Better now? Lupo 16:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Not for me, the "vote here" still looks crazy in my browser. Sam [Spade] 16:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ending times for RfAs/RfBs (Andrevan's nomination) (Archive 23)
My bureaucratship nomination recently ended with a vote of 12/3/4, but not an hour after the nomination ended the tally was 15/3/4. First of all, I thought that this is exactly 80% support (neutral votes are abstentions, right? otherwise, they're not any different than oppose votes) - but disregarding that, with such a close vote that became not close really quickly after the time limit, what is to be gained by denying the request citing a lack of consensus? If consensus existed, why should it be held to a hard and fast time limit? Andre ( talk )A| 02:20, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Andre, I stated in my opposition why the consensus failed, and also cited and linked to the poll that expressed Wikipedian sentiment on the issue. Your nomination was up for the full seven days. In the last three days of the poll, you added just three positive votes, then you had a flurry of three positive votes immediately after the end of voting, at least two of which were apparently solicited.


 * When I saw the votes both weak and close, I looked at them in more depth. As I commented, several of the votes were doubtful. I commented out the Oppose vote of the one-vote apparent sockpuppet. Looking at the positive votes, three were from editors with under two months on Wikipedia, with fewer than 150, 100 and in one case, exactly 14 edits, 2 of which were a vote for you for admin and bureaucrat. One of the voter's user and talk pages are redirects to Pirate. This simply failed consensus. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? That would be myself. My user and talk pages were redirect to Pirate. I am not a sock puppet; I have been on Wikipedia for months. My first contribution was nearly a year ago on 9 Jan 2004 and although I'm not a humongous contributor to Wikipedia, I like the project and have remained active and since then contributed 200 more edits and started several articles, some of which I am more or less happy or disappointed that they've fruited or not into good sources of information. Although I'd agree with you that more consensus really would be required, and that the application in question probably failed, I'm not happy that you're just arbitrarily discounting my vote in matters. I'm hardly a nobody, a sockpuppet, or anything, and the notion that the voice of some people is more important than that of others, I don't like. Especially when the voice that doesn't count is my own, of course! :-)
 * Actually the pirate redirect is something I was playing with, I was sort of testing redirects to get the hang of them I guess. Incidentally, glad you mentioned it, I removed the redirect for my talk page, though left it for my user page since I like whimsical things like that.
 * Again, I really do not appreciate that I be referred to as a second class Wikipedia.
 * And on an unrelated note, wasn't it usually policy to extend time if the vote if is close? But on that matter, that's just my two cents. D. G. 03:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I insulted your sincerity--my point was that many Wikipedians take adminship seriously, and bureaucratship even more so, because, as here, a bureaucrat has to be ready to explain his/her reasoning. My point is that this nomination attracted little positive attention, especially among the more active parts of the community, and a good deal of doubt that didn't show up in, for a recent example, UCs nomination for bureaucrat. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, sorry if I came off brusquely, I just didn't like that I was badly characterised just for my user page, even if the redirect is silly. I'd agree with your points anyway, there really needs to be more real consensus on something like this. Still again--and this is a question, not an argument--wasn't it supposed to be that when it's close like this the vote is extended for a while more...? D. G. 09:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This can get into a long rehash of discussions a year or so ago. Many of the veteran Wikipedians (more veteran than I) did not like the drift toward numerical qualifications for admin&mdash;even protesting against arranging the votes in "for", "against" and keeping running tallies. "Consensus" is supposed to determine, but we have had to imperfectly hash out what "consensus" means. Fast forward to (almost) the present and we had discussions on whether bureaucrats should use their discretion (overwhelmingly yes) and whether promotions for bureaucrat should be at a higher standard (firmly yes). So the simple achievement of a number, bolstered by a small number of votes, and enhanced by one's acquaintances, may make it for admin, but not bureaucrat. Bureaucrats are charged with deciding difficult cases and explaining them. There have been suggestions that maybe bureaucrats should only be proposed (and voted on?) by current admins. I didn't participate in that discussion and do not have a formed opinion on it. Maybe that discussion will be revived, I don't know. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok. First of all, I saw the poll, and the majority voted for an 80-85% cutoff for bureaucratship. None of the supporters were sockpuppets - you can have a developer check this if you don't believe me. The ones with low edit counts are friends of mine from outside of Wikipedia - but, again, are not sock puppets. Indeed, as you say, some votes were solicited, however they were not solicited to be positive; these were people who I worked with, some positively and some negatively, on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I thought to ask them rather late in the nomination, so they arrived a tad late, and some didn't arrive at all. See my contribs and you can tell who I asked to vote.


 * Now, counting everything I said above, I either had 80% support (not counting the late votes) or 83% support (counting the late votes). Although I understand that the late votes were past the deadline, I think that they should be counted, since they were awfully close and theoretically I could renominate myself tomorrow - nothing will have changed, but I would get likely the same votes on both sides. It seems to me that discounting these votes is pointless and hyperlegalistic. However, regardless, it would appear that I had between 80-83% support, which should be enough, according to the Wikipedian poll you mentioned. Andre ( talk )A| 02:53, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Stop whining. Try again in a month or two. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 03:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That trademarked Blankfaze hospitality. Very Verily 03:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * While I sympathise with your plight, I think that the vote falls within the borderline of cases where judgement is called for. You say yourself the standard is 80-85%, and even by the most favourable count, you got 83%, which still falls into the grey area zone. Maybe there is a case that the poll could have been extended for longer, but I can understand Cecropia's view that with the low level of interest it attracted, that wasn't worth the while. It's a tough borderline decision, but isn't that the reason we don't just auto promote based on numbers and have a human input into the situation? Shane King 03:14, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * If the standard is 80-85%, that is the range my count must be within. 83% is smack in the middle of that range. Andre ( talk )A| 15:20, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * The standard is consensus, not simple numbers. In the polling numbers, the lower number represents the bare minimum that will ordinarily promote. The upper number is the number at which most Wikipedians feel comfortable with consensus.


 * As to the poll, a plurality (9 of 36 votes), not a majority wanted a standard of 80%-85%. A majority (19 of 36) wanted a standard of 85%-90% or even more restrictive with 8 looking for something approaching effective unanimity. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 7 users voted for 75-80%, 9 voted for for 80-85%, 5 voted for 85-90%, and 6 voted for 90-95%. 80-85% is the plurality, yes, but 75-85% beats 85-95% by 16-11. 8 users voted for a "different standard," most of them saying that any substantiated objections to the user's nature should disqualify the nomination entirely, which is not merely unanimity - it's something different than a percentage-based consensus determination. All objections to my nomination were along the lines of "we don't need any bureaucrats," so they wouldn't fall under this category, anyway.


 * At any rate, I don't care as much about winning this particular bureaucrat nomination as I do about understanding RfA consensus, specifically in this case, because I do intend to renominate myself later, perhaps as soon as next week. Andre</b> ( talk )A| 15:20, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Which speaks volumes. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you mean by that, uc. <b style="color:mediumblue;">Andre</b> ( talk )A| 20:57, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I would guess that it reflects a degree of concern about this attempt to rules-lawyer your way into getting a borderline request granted. Many people have serious concerns about users who are obsessively attached to the idea of becoming an admin, and I'm sure the same would apply to bureaucratship. To rephrase what Blankfaze said, a little more politely, please let it go. If you don't, you jeopardize your chances of ever becoming a bureaucrat, not just in the next month or two. --Michael Snow 22:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, I won't discuss it any further. I just want to establish that after the initial posting I was no longer trying to fight for this particular nomination, but rather understand what exactly occurred this time around, since if I am ever to be bureaucrat myself, this will be necessary. It had seemed to me that I won, and I was trying to understand how that translates into a loss. I'm going to put it down to Cecropia's higher standard for consensus and discuss it no further, as per your recommendation. <b style="color:mediumblue;">Andre</b> ( talk )A| 22:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * And, in case there's any doubt, I'm not obsessed or even that enamored with bureaucratship. I just enjoy helping out, and I wouldn't even pursue a renomination if I didn't know that there were definite supporters who didn't make it in time for their votes to be counted. I didn't realize that anyone thought I was "rules-lawyering" my way into anything - I didn't cite the rules once in my discussion here. As a matter of fact, I suggested to discount them to put the several late votes in. And to clarify, when I said that I cared about "understanding RfA consensus, specifically in this case, because I do intend to renominate myself later" I meant that I would be renominating myself for the position of bureaucrat, and obviously bureaucrats need to understand RfA consensus - this is their job. I did not mean, as apparently uc has implied, that I wished to understand it so I could better succeed in my nomination. I hope that this discussion hasn't given blankfaze, uc, or you a bad impression of me - though my initial posting was an appeal, as it were, after that I was merely trying to comprehend how Cecropia determined the outcome of the nomination. <b style="color:mediumblue;">Andre</b> ( talk )A| 22:48, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * As I've expressed ad nauseum, an important part of a bureaucrat is to try to understand community sentiment and be able to explain how decisions were reached when called upon to do so. When I feel unsure of how the community feels about a broad issue, I post a poll, such as the one to gauge wikisentiment on bureaucrat promotion. I posted a recent poll on whether there should be a limit to concurrent nominations, sentiment was evidentally to not do so unless something got out of hand, and I am bound to respect that, whatever my own view.


 * Now to the instant matter. I've tried to communicate my thinking to you, but I'm not certain I've done so well enough, since you are parsing the numbers and so on to indicate you should have been promoted. First, please take another look at the comments I made here and on your nomination page. I've tried hard to indicate that more than just numbers are involved, giving an important nod to many long-time Wikipedians who argue that we should be determining the quality of nominations through the posted comments and discussion and not just (or even primarily) numbers. I have been an advocate of trying to determine numerical sentiment simply because humans (especially the male of the species) are bean-counting beasties, and statistics help to set a baseline on decisions.


 * If we deal just with the straight numbers, even there I believe we have some misunderstanding. We cannot simply throw out the "other standard" voters because they didn't express a specific numeric goal. Reasonably, they are looking for near unanimity, even beyond the top numerical choice of 90%-95%. Therefore, it is far more reasonable to count these votes in the area of 95%-100% than to throw them out. Tallying all the votes in the full range of opinion from 75% to 100%, weighting the votes by mutiplying the number of votes by the "comfort level" percentages, then dividing by the total, we end up with sentiment of ~85% as a bare minimum, and ~90% as preferred (to be exact, I ran this on Excel&mdash;the percentages are 84.86% and 89.86%, rounded to two decimal places).


 * But I've done what I tried to avoid, coming up with a "magic number." There is more. Look at UC's recent successful bureaucrat nomination. Well, at (25/2/1) - 92%, it was an easy promotion, but note other factors--lots of interest, including a lot of familiar Wikipedians, extensive discussion, no indication of solicited votes. And even one who expressed the opinion there are enough bureaucrats, but voted in favor, anyway. That is what consensus looks like, especially since Wikipedians seems to take the people who push the promote button extra seriously. All this IMO, of course. ;-) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think in all this, it might be good to mention why bureaucrat is so hard to get. We make admins liberally because there's an advantage to having lots of them.  On the other hand, we only need a handful of bureaucrats, and there's little reason to promote more unless there's a shortage.  Hence, some of us feel that any doubt about a nomination is enough to disqualify. Isomorphic 23:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Geni's promotion (Archive 25)
Even after Cecropia's vote on Requests for adminship/Geni, the vote stood at 17/5/1. Discarding the neutral, that is still just 77%. I disagree that this vote met clear enough consensus to promote, especially since it was a self-nomination and the promoting bureaucrat (Cecropia) also voted to support and posted a banner which drew attention to the vote in the day preceding it. I'd like to open this subject up for comment here. -- Netoholic @ 05:33, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
 * I concur. I don't think there was consensus here. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(что</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 06:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Having examined the issue of a user I did not know about until after the nomination was posted, I "voted" at the very end to explain my reasoning in promotion. Without my vote it was over 75% which is still above the low end of ordinary Bureaucrat discretion. I deferred my decision for more than 12 hours to give another bureaucrat (at least two of whom were aware of the nomination and controversy) a chance to act. When I ran for bureaucrat I specifically said that I would make tough decisions rather than let nominations "hang" and take the heat if need be. The banner I posted was non-prejudicial and had nothing to do with any knowledge (pro or con) of the particular candidate. The appropriateness of such a banner has been overwhelmingly affirmed on this very page above.


 * I feel this is yet another Wikitempest in a Wikiteapot, but everything is open for discussion here so I have no objection to one, but if we're going to discuss this matter, I will assert two points: I was well within my rights and duties as bureaucrat to decide on the promotion. I could leave it go at that as User:Raul654 did when he made such a decision on a more controversial promotion (and I supported him in it), but I don't mind explaining my decisions within reason, as it promotes confidence in the process. My second point in discussion would be to open the question of Netoholic's interest in:
 * taking such a special interest in this nomination;
 * removing my appropriate banners twice on his opinion that they were against policy, even after being challenged on it;
 * trying to interpret consensus by his personal standards; and
 * now trying to keep this matter open after the decision has been made. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I will make an additional comment on Netoholic's note that this was a self-nomination. Editors feel different ways about self-noms—the recent ArbCom election (a very important responsibiity) was all self-noms. On the one hand, self-noms do not have the cachet of being recommended by a known user, but on the other hand are expressing a positive interest in the position and duties of an administrator, something lacking in a number of "sponsored" nominations. At any rate, I expect that voters have already taken into account that self-noms are just that when they cast their votes. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uncle G's nomination (Archive 26)
Ordinarily I have no problem making a decision, but I voted against this nomination for cause, so I don't feel it's proper for me to make the decision. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless I can't read time right (A distinct possibility given UTC time) this vote's been over for a while. Can someone besides Cecropia call it? - Taxman 18:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is about 8 hours overdue. At 45/22/2 (67%), this is no longer a matter of bureaucrat discretion and no call to be made, therefore I am comfortable with removing it as a matter of simple housekeeping. If any other bureaucrat disagrees, they know where to find me. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Minghong (Archive 26)
Can you explain how 11 support vs. 3 oppose equates no consensus? Kingturtle 22:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Kingturtle, I could look at this different ways. At the time I posted the closing notice to try to attract some interest, the vote was only 6-2. I have explained in some detail how I reached my conclusion on this lightly voted, under 80% nomination. It is on Minghong's RfA page. Please read it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd guess because it is only 78.5% consensus, which is not the 80% for a definite decision. That does seem a litte pedantic to me. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think he should have been promoted. <b style="color:mediumblue;">Andre</b> ( talk ) 22:32, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * While I don't believe that neutral votes should be counted normally, in a case like this where the person actually fell short of 80% the neutral votes can be seen as evidence of "lack of consensus". It strikes me as the logical way to proceed.  Guettarda 22:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * In a case so close, maybe bureaucrats whom have not participated in the vote should make such decisions. Kingturtle 22:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Kingturtle, I was not a participant in the vote, giving no personal opinion at all, except to make it definitive in closing the vote. When time ended, the vote was 9-2, but there was another positive just after ending time, so I let it go another 18 HOURS to see if anything would change. So I did my job. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the feeling is that maybe you should have made your decision based on what was there without having to put in a vote. Voting negative then removing it seems like you wanted to remove it, but the % wasn't low enough for you, so by voting you dropped it from 85% to 79% and then removed it.  I would feel the same way if it was the other way around (79% and then you voted to bring it up to 85% and then promoted). CryptoDerk 22:55, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I did make my decision on what was there, given the thin support and interest and the substantive comments against Minghong combined with his evident cluelessness about the position. There is long history in RfA that numbers aren't everything. Bureaucrats can and do vote on candidates, although I usually defer. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I must be misreading it. It looks like the third vote in opposition is your vote. If that is the case, I propose we have the bureaucrats who didn't vote for or against Minghong decide whether 79%% is enough. Or maybe we should let the case remain open for more voting. Kingturtle 22:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Kingturtle, I treid to get interest in this adminship when I saw people weren't paying much mind to it, and the vote was 6-2. I let the adminship go on for 18 HOURS and no one took action. My negative vote at the end (I have no bias for or against Minghong personally) was based on my examination of the candidate and the comments of others in the RfA. I resent the implication of wrongdoing or conflict of interest in my reasoned judgment call. When I ran for bureaucrat I said I would not withdraw from the difficult cases, I haven't and I won't. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a conflict of interest here. You didn't want to promote, so you could have left it at 11/2/4 and not promoted.  Instead, you voted, stated you did so to tip the scales, then immediately removed it.  I agree that a bureaucrat should be able to make the hard decisions, but I also think that sometimes the right decision is to step back.  In close cases I think a bureaucrat should vote or promote/reject, but not both.  I would not question your decision if you had voted days before.  CryptoDerk 23:27, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * First, the substantive point. If I really had something against this candidate, I would have made my feelings known earlier, as I have a few candidacies, and then I would not have decided on the promotion if it were close. Now, as to your rhetoric, you are not simply accusing me of bad judgment, or even bias, but "you didn't want to promote, so you..." attributes motive of malfeasance. I think you should back up this speculation or moderate your rhetoric. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be accusatory or speculative, but you did state you voted to tip the scales and closed it as soon as you voted. How else am I to interpret that? If you didn't want to promote, you could have left it at 11/2/4. Even with 85% support there, you could have argued lack of consensus, neutral votes, etc. Note that I have no problem with you rejecting minghong, but the manner in which you did it. I'm not asking you to take back anything that happened, I'm just trying to get some discussion going because I've always had the view that bureaucrats shouldn't do what you did. CryptoDerk 23:48, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 78.5 is ridiculously close to 80%, and the page says only "about 80 percent." I fail to see how this ISN'T reaching a consensus, especially if we're supposed to be assuming good faith (of Minghong, I mean) and all that. --Whimemsz 22:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Whimemsz, I prefer the community to make the decisions, not me. You didn't vote on this nomination, but you're here disputing my judgment minutes after it was made. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I should note that I do not have strong feelings about minghong one way or the other. I've never run into him, but I did look into his edits and talk page before voting support.  Regardless, I find it a bit improper (for the lack of a better word) that a bureaucrat would vote and then make a decision in a matter as close as this.  With respect to Cecropia's objection, I would imagine that his phrasing and word choice is perhaps because English is not his first language (his responses certainly read that way).  With respect to the neutral objections, I found minghong to be in the right when dealing with the UML page, as he removed massive POV (the article was previously calling programs "fast", "simple", "powerful", etc.).  The other objections didn't cite anything specific, and I (in my cursory look) didn't see anything about him putting speedy tags on stuff that weren't speedies.  CryptoDerk 22:41, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * No disrespect to Minghong--he speaks English well and I'm sure I don't speak his native tongue at all, but this is English Wikipedia, admins need to deal with other editors, and misunderstanding in language can have significant consequences. And we don't know that he didn't mean what he said. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

To those who think Minghong should have been promoted, please read my comments on his RfA if you haven't already. In a month's time, make some more pursuasive arguments to attract support, have him respond to editors' objections, and maybe we won't have this discussion next time around. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Just like to draw attention to my RFA which ran 48/12/1.  Although it was far closer to 80%, Cecropia got some flack for promoting me.  With Minghong we have a case where more than one third of those who cast a vote could not say "support", so I think that was correctly taken into account.  Cecropia did use his power to extend voting past the normal period when the vote was 9 out of 15 votes, well short of consensus (he had been criticised for not extending voting when my vote stood at 48 out of 61 votes).  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have the toughest job of all; no thanks, and always flack when they actually need to make a call. But honestly, below 80%, it is their call, no two ways about it. I actually liked the way Cecropia even added an own vote to make the official situation more clear. :) Kim Bruning 23:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a bureaucrat, I agree fully with the above -- this was Cecropia's call to make and he made it. 11-3 is a gray area, and that's what we have beaurocracts for. &rarr;Raul654 23:49, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support, Kim and Raul. Though I feel I acted appropriately I restored this nomination for 24 hours for the specific reason I state in the RfA. I hope you're not disappointed, but it is not the criticism, but the one salient point (since it was nominally over 80% when I ended it without my vote) of the chance to give Wikipedians a chance to respond to my negative vote that motivated me. Or to put it another way, if I can't stand the heat, I'll get out of the bureaucracy.
 * I want to reiterate that my goal here is to generate discussion, so please don't take this the wrong way. Why do you (Kim, or anyone else for that matter) feel that voting to make the "official situation" more clear is good?  I certainly could have lived with a 11/2/4 rejection, but when the rejecting bureaucrat puts in an oppose vote I think people could interpret that as perhaps them thinking "I don't want to promote, but I also don't want people bitching at me over rejecting someone at 11/2/4, so I will vote to oppose" &mdash; basically the bureaucrat not having confidence in their decision.  To generalize, is a bureaucrat voting right before closing (to change the balance) a bad thing?  To me it seems like putting extra weight behind a decision that isn't supported by the community.  Yes, I realize the bureaucrat is part of the community, but timing is an issue here.  Voting at the beginning and having to make a close call at the end is OK by me, though I concede that some might say "You only rejected/promoted because you voted oppose/support earlier".
 * To make an analogy, it's like a biking time trial &mdash; the last rider has the advantage because they know what they have to do to win. Most RFAs aren't so close, but a bureaucrat who wants to close and does or doesn't want to promote the candidate can get lucky in some instances and change the balance.  Note that although I'm using numbers from this specific instance, I have nothing against Cecropia, I'm not trying to speculate what he may have been thinking, and I believe him when he says he doesn't have anything against minghong &mdash; I respect him and think he does a fine job, I just want to figure out what people think. CryptoDerk 00:48, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * To clarify a point. I sometimes vote a negative at the end of voting for the double purpose of making the vote decisive and giving me an opportunity to explain my reasoning, which I feel gives voters confidence in the process. If it were simply a question of the numbers, I wouldn't have needed to do more than state: "Oppose Not qualified" or whatever. As to Minghong in particular, I will not comment more on this than I already have, since the vote is currently open. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Thanks.  CryptoDerk 01:13, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Kingturtle, as a bureaucrat, you are free to promote him yourself if you disagree with Cecropia's decision not to promote. This is not without precedent. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 02:14, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see the nomination has been reopened. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 02:17, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I realize I have the power to promote Minghong, however, I did not want to start a feud among bureaucrats or among wikipedians. taking it to the TALK page was the appropriate way to proceed -- especially because Cecropia had voted to oppose the candidate, and I had voted to promote the candidate. it wouldn't have been right for me to defy another bureaucrat's decision by promoting minghong. and in the end, these are community decisions, not power moves for individuals. Kingturtle 02:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia, thank you for lengthening the vote time for Minghong. i am sure your intentions were good, but the actions (changing the vote from 11-2 (85%) to 11-3 (79%) and then immediately announcing a failed consensus) could be seen as dubious - especially when 11-3 is considered by some as enough of a threshold for promotion. Kingturtle 02:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for having the wisdom and good will to accept that these are honest disagreements. If bureaucrats cannot work with an assumption of good faith, then we can't work at all. It would be great if you felt you could join me in encouraging Wikipedians to take the time to consider someone with a small number of votes. To put it another way, we have had nominations that have attracted 50, 60 or more votes. If only 20 voters had given Minghong consideration and he came out with 85% (17-3) my adding an oppose wouldn't have brought the consensus under 80%. As I've said early and often:


 * If we can reach clear consensus, there will be no need for Bureaucrat judgment.
 * -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I applaud both Cecropia and Kingturtle for doing an impeccable job living up to the expectations of their roles as bureaucrats. This has been one of those gray area cases, and Cecropia acted completely appropriately in initially failing a candidacy for which there appeared to be little community feedback, and Kingturtle acted completely appropriately in challenging it. That's what I would hope and expect, that a case like this would generate healthy discussion. Kudos to both of you, I think you both deserve a raise ;) -- M P er el ( talk 05:31, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * changing the vote from 11-2 (85%) to 11-3 (79%). Surely the sums are wrong here. The neutral votes should be counted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Neutral votes count as zero. If neutral votes counted against, then they'd be oppositional votes. They are not oppositional votes. they are neutral votes. Kingturtle 06:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, neutral votes don't count numerically. Your nomination was exactly 80%--the neutral wasn't counted. The place where neutral votes can count a lot is when bureaucrat discretion is needed, then all the comments and arguments are taken into account. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

If it is as you say then it seems to me that at the original end time there were 9 supports and 2 opposes, which makes nearly 82%, and in that case you probably shouldn't have exercised discretion. Wally came along a couple of minutes later and entered one more support, which seem to me to tip the balance even more. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, let's not split hares, as Bugs Bunny used to like to say. The standard for admin is not a fixed number, it is "consensus." Who determines consensus? Bureaucrats do. Poll after poll in this section has affirmed that Wikipedians trust bureaucrat judgment over simple numbers. But people take comfort in numbers. Have you ever wondered why a cop sees someone driving erratically (U.S., anyway) and tends to pull them over for speeding instead? Simple. If the case goes to court, the cop says: "I observed this driver going 73 mph in a 65 mile zone, as recorded here in my daybook. I clocked her from behind using my tracking speedometer that was last calibrated two days ago." Open and shut case. But if the cop says "he was failing to stay in lane, and driving erratically" the guy's lawyer says "what does that mean? She was distracted for a moment by the sight of a California condor on a nearby traffic sign, which she feared would fly into her windshield. What does the officer mean 'driving erratically'? That is too subjective." And so on.


 * We cite numbers because they are easier to understand. In the case of your nomination the vote was 48-12 (IIRC), which is a big voting base, which means that your candidacy was well vetted by the community. There were some substantive reasons given for some of the negatives, but four dozen positives mean that 80% of the voters took these arguments into account and voted for you anyway. In the case of Minghong, there were fewer than a dozen votes TOTAL at closing time, and significant negative arguments, some of which were expressed in "neutrals." I investigated these and determined they had merit. This is bureaucrat discretion, not just percentages. A number disputed me, and that is their right, and I responded in detail. I still assert that Minghong's consensus failed, and he should have been allowed to address the issues raised and come back after a month. The only reason I restored the nomination is because the argument that voters had a right to continue voting after viewing my negative vote as a matter of fairness and openness was pursuasive to me. Bureaucrat judgment, like an umpire's call, must stand unless it is egregiously wrong and the bureaucrat refuses to explain his/her reasoning, otherwise every close call is a debate. If bureaucrats lose the confidence of the community, they should stand aside or be removed. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * wise words, and I support Cecropia in this. It also shows that we should be careful to pick bureaucrats we trust: like admins, they do have to use their judgement, sometimes (otherwise, their job could be done by a shell script)- dab (&#5839;) 23:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes it much clearer to me. In fact I think that, shorn of personal details, those words would probably make a good basis for an article on "what it takes to be a bureaucrat." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "Bureaucrat judgment, like an umpire's call, must stand unless it is egregiously wrong and the bureaucrat refuses to explain his/her reasoning, otherwise every close call is a debate." How ironic. – ugen64 02:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Guess there haven't been any egregiously wrong calls on RfA. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

ImpalerBugz and Chanting Fox (Archive 26)
I have removed Requests for adminship/Chanting Fox and Requests for adminship/ImpalerBugz's self-noms. The first has been around for a week, the other about a month, both have few edits and have rapidly piled up negatives. I am not judging the sincerity of these users in seeking adminship or wanting to contribute to Wikipedia, but my judgment is that they are devaluing both the process and themselves with these obviously inappropriate candadacies. I am also not listing these as failed nominations (unless they persist in renominating themselves), as they are doubtfully "real" nominations.

If any other bureaucrat wants to restore these, or wants to list them in the failed nomination list, I will stand aside. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 14:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Poiuytman (Archive 26)
I'm anticipating that, having removed the two earlier self-noms, and this nomination is currently 3-3, that editors will be asking why I shouldn't remove this one, too. The answer is that the user has been here long enough and has a reasonable number of edits to indicate a commitment to Wikipedia. I am not trying to start a general slice-and-dice of self-noms, just remove the (so far) rare inappropriate ones that just become oppose soapboxes. However this nomination goes, it falls into the area where it is up to the candidate to continue or withdraw. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 14:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Uncle G's new nomination - suspension proposal (Archive 27)
It has been three days, and Uncle G has not been around to either accept or reject his new nomination or answer the adminship questions. This is not his fault, but we do expect acceptance before someone can become an admin. I propose that, if he is still not around when 3 days up (72 hours) have been completed, that we suspend the nomination until he has a chance to express his desires, and then resume for the final 4 days starting with his (assumed) acceptance. Fair?

Unsure has anyone tried emailing him, or any other contact method? Worth a shot, at least. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd July 8, 2005 22:03 (UTC)
 * Fair --Arcadian 8 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, but he appears to be around. Guettarda 8 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's been active. I'd like to assume he's composing nice, long, thoughtful answers for the questionnaire. Could be he just missed the notification, too. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  July 8, 2005 20:27 (UTC)
 * Cecropia, in the past you have permitted nominations to continue until their end time, requiring candidate acceptance only prior to promotion. There have been several proposals to change this de-facto policy, which you have opposed.  Perhaps you should handle this as you have in the past until there is discussion of and consensus for a change, in general, rather than making up new rules each time it comes up.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 8 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
 * He has? Surely that could only be if there are special circumstances (not that I know what they'd be, exactly)? Cecropia formally opposed my own RFA in early May, 8 hours after nomination, for the (unenthusiastic) way I phrased my acceptance, and for not yet having replied to the standard questions. In view of that, I have trouble believing he'd let the whole week go by without requiring a candidate to show some sign of interest. Bishonen | talk 8 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
 * I have? I don't have a good enough memory to swear I have never let a nomination go longer, but I think I have been a fairly consistent advocate of the concept that a nominee should want a nomination and should declare it so. As to my making policy, I try to manage my work in a coherent fashion, and I (early and often) poll the community if I have any doubt, as here. You've expressed some complaints about me lately (including that I run polls instead of advancing formless theoretical arguments and that I've taken "ownership" of RfA. Perhaps your complaints would have more standing if you were a more active bureaucrat. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 9 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
 * Oh darn, he's out making an encyclopedia. *Sigh* (people are always doing that kind of thing here; it's really annoying). Well, I'm not exactly sure a vote can practically be suspended, unless you're talking about physically taking it off this page. Otherwise there will be voters anyway. And while this length of time is certainly not normal, I think most people really make up their mind without the questions (you can look at his old answers anyway). After all, didn't Ta bu have around 40 supports before he accepted, not that it was a normal vote. We'll just have more initially neutral voters than usual here. --Dmcdevit July 8, 2005 21:03 (UTC)
 * Ok, this was going to be first vote having watched RfA for quite a while &mdash; I was looking forward to a good healthy support. My concern is that there may be a point being made along the lines of not having a user page last time around. This sounds like I'm assuming bad-faith; I'm not, but there was a pretty clear determination not to go along with community norms last time. RfA is neither the place nor the time to seek to change them. Uncle G can do as he likes, but not when he's after adminship. I would therefore probably support the move to suspend the poll until he turns up and answers the questions because I really don't want to have to vote to oppose, which is what I'll have to do if it gets too close to the week being up and a precedent being set for users being made admins despite not anwering the questions or accepting the nomination and having been active on the 'pedia during the poll. -Splash 8 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)
 * He may have been making a point, but definitely not a WP:POINT. The distinction being that he wasn't "disrupting" Wikipedia, and that's kind of a big charge here for so little. Unless you are willing to accuse all anons and users without user pages yet of disruption. I don't understand all of this "clear determination not to go along with community norms" stuff. Do I have to remind everyone again that he received a two-thirds majority. (And that was even with me not voting, having been totally oblivious that week). While 2/3 is not enough to be made admin, it's certainly enough to show most of the community is on his side. --Dmcdevit July 8, 2005 21:27 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're right. It was a point, but not a WP:POINT. I've corrected my statement. I just think it was a remarkable decision to take seeing as it clearly denied him his rightful adminship last time. I'm not willing to make any of the plainly outrageous claims you suggest; my user page is pretty lame too and I don't think I am disruptive (but then, I wouldn't). I know he got a 2/3 majority, but he'd have got 80% if he'd just made a user page. He'd have near unanimous support votes now (with no neutrals) if he'd just accept and answer. I would like to see Uncle G an admin as much as you. -Splash 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)
 * No. I figure a candidate can, if he wants, wait to see what others say about him before he accepts; that's exactly what I did. I'm generally leery of changing that which ain't broke. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 8, 2005 21:20 (UTC)
 * I don't believe he's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but he has been notified of the nomination and has been editing since. I'm sure he knows about it. Either he's going to appear at the last minute and accept, or just leave the time to run down in full knowledge that he hasn't accepted the nomination. If this happens, I assume he will not be made an admin? &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)
 * Oh, and since he knows about his RfA and is just choosing not to accept the nomination (again, I'm working on an assumption here but I think it's a fair one) I don't think there is any reason to suspend or extend the vote. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not like he's unaware of the RFA, and he has certainly expressed an interest in being an Admin, even recently.  There is no rule on having to accept a nomination within a certain amount of time, is there?  Obviously if the seven days pass without his acceptance than the nomination should be closed without action, but I see no reason to suspend the vote.  At the same time, I would not fault anyone for using this extremely delayed response as grounds for opposition.  As evidenced by the people calling for the suspension of the nomination, this behavior is unsettling; accepting the nomination and answering the questions are important and provide valuable information for voters.  If an admin was called on specifically for some other action and didn't respond in four days while still being active editing the wikipedia, I would think that would be considered pretty anti-wiki behavior as well. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) July 8, 2005 21:39 (UTC)


 * The point is now moot. Uncle G accepted his RFA at 9 July 2005 02:41 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 9 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

Boothy443 (Archive 28)
I have taken the liberty of taking down Boothy443's nomination. He hadn't acknowledged it, but with 11 oppose votes within hours and only the nominator in support I think we are best served by stopping the pile-on. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd supported too. He's a good contributor and a nice guy. <font style="background: black" face="Courier" color=#FFFFFF> Grue  06:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I probably would have voted "Weak support" given the chance. I say let it run; looking at his/her record of reverting vandalism, and the fact that the oppose votes seem to have stopped, s/he certainly has the potential to be admin material.  Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 17:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the oppose votes stopped because of the page protection. --Dmcdevit·t 18:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I mean Boothy's oppose votes. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * The vote was 1/11/2 when the nomination was removed. There may have been more support to come, but there was no way the RfA was going to be successful. To reach 75% support, he would have needed 32 more support votes, assuming there were no additional oppose votes. As a general rules, I think that nominations should be removed early whenever there are 10 more oppose votes than support votes (ie. Oppose=Support+10). There's no chance of promotion and a good chance of hurt feelings and negative comments. Carbonite | Talk 18:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I caused any trouble. I didn't think many people who vote on this would get real emotional in voting.  I'm very surprised the oppose votes sounded so emotional and since usually admins vote on this, then I thought they were mostly scientists, librarians, science teachers (one said she is), professors, etc.  I'm sort of weird and for that reason I make weird choices of who I support -- and not just on wikipedia (that includes choices of political candidates.  It also includes things like how I think Saddam Hussein's punishment should be not execution, but rather to see the South Park movie where they make fun of him--the jailers won't let him watch TV).  DyslexicEditor 01:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Pity. We didn't get to see whether Boothy443 would automatically vote against themselves. Aquillion 06:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hah! That's hilarious. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 23:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 is an admin (Archive 28)
Gad! I take a little time off and we have a major broil. I try not to second-guess other bureaucrat's decisions as I expect them not to second-guess mine, assuming we are all acting in good faith. But in this case, two bureaucrats seem to have decided to make decisions and then reverse themselves.

I've looked at the situation. Lucky has stood for admin four times, and now has 72 positives, several of them "strong." I think adminship is more important than some do, but I think this is being taken to the point of "piling on." I have promoted Lucky, whether or not he's still around. Please don't look for this third bureaucrat to reverse his decision. Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * All right, I agree, Cecropia. I tried to make my best judgment call, but as usual, I got too good at seeing both sides of the argument and then wondered if I'd made the right call.  Times like these only confirm why I try to stay away from making RFA decisions in the first place. I wish Lucky all the best. Jwrosenzweig 01:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that, Cecropia. I think it'll be a popular decision. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Me too. Incidentally, Jwrosenzweig's final count of 20 oppose votes isn't right, surely? I'm pretty sure we don't count Boothy's vote in a borderline case. We shouldn't. So it's 19 oppose votes. Now, I restored Lucky's deleted userpage, but how does one restore the talk page... ? Bishonen | talk 02:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've done it, Bish. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I did too. :) Dmcdevit·t 02:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL, what a beautiful log! Thank you both. Bishonen | talk 02:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You guys are just too fast for me. Meanies! :-P Kim Bruning 02:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I was on the road and unable to show up to participate in the fireworks that accompanied the close of this nomation. However, I would like to say that I believe that Cecropia did the right thing, and for exactly the right reasons. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As someone who opposed Lucky 6.9's nomination, I think this was nevertheless an acceptable interpretation of the results. In addition to the concerns with Boothy443's votes, two other people said their opposition was "weak". While I did not use the word, my comments could be considered the same way. And many of those opposing expressed similar sentiments. Consensus decisionmaking is based partly on the opposition being willing to accept the outcome, and I think it can be said that much of the opposition here signaled such willingness.


 * Given that the outcome was also tainted by Ed's attempt at intervention, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I have no problem with the determination that Lucky 6.9 was close enough for promotion. The fact that all it takes is one bureaucrat to exercise their judgment in favor is a natural extension of the idea that adminship is "no big deal". --Michael Snow 05:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Staying up late to watch an RFA close (Archive 28)
Here's an RFA that has a lot to do with things that happened to me a year ago, so I'm just staying awake 'till very early morning, and watching what the bureaucrats will decide... they should have already decided... help! Kim Bruning 02:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But which one is it? :P Redux 02:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * FeloniousMonk, and he just got promoted :) Kim Bruning 02:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. But why were you anxious?  He seemed to have a strong support base; apparently, it was a done deal.  Regards, Redux 03:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Now I see. 26 votes between oppose and neutral.  Not that "done" after all.  Actually, it was close.  The last time I had checked, it was not that tight...  Well, it's over now.  Regards, Redux 03:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a Sam world after all! (Archive 28)
Three Sams up for nomination at the same time. Wow. (While not in his username, Asbestos' name is also Sam. Acetic Acid 00:46, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * By contrast, Sam Vimes is a pseudonym - see User talk:Sam Vimes and Samuel Vimes :) --Thryduulf 01:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

New bureaucrats (Archive 29)
I'd just like to say congratulations to Rdsmith4 and Nichalp. Though my own nomination failed, at least I inspired two great editors to step up to the plate. <b style="color:mediumblue;">Andre</b> ( talk ) 19:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

DoKuDan nomination (Archive 29)
For those wondering why I removed the RFA nomination of, it was a fake nomination (a copy of Requests for adminship/Jitse Niesen with a few edits). I have blocked the user indefinitely. Admins can view the fake nomination at Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/DoKuDan. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

considering administrator application (Archive 29)
Several people have suggested that I apply for an administrator position.

I am considering an application as well, and I need to know what kind of criteria is expected. As of time of writing, I have almost 3000 edits, and I have been here since late 2002. I've occasionally made bad edits on accident, but I always try to catch those. I have never been in a conflict with another user.

So I am wondering - is there any other criteria that I should fulfull? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. --Ixfd64 06:43, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
 * I have no incontrovertable advice to offer you, but never having been in conflict w/ another editor isn't all it's cracked up to be... I think a lot of people who vote on RFA's look at how you handle conflict w/ other editors, rather than whether or not you've managed to edit only non-controversial pages. There are, of course, notable exceptions, but I think most voters/commentators are interested more in how you handle yourself in a conflict, than whether or not you manage to steer clear of controversy... I, for example, have way more than 2x as many edits as you (not that it's a competition, don't get me wrong), yet find myself in controversies all the time, simply because of the contentious nature of the articles that draw my attention.  (And would never have the chutzpa to nominate myself for RFA...) Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  12:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have never had a single conflict, I also didnt have any oppostion to being an admin (other than boothy). Voters look at all sorts of things, experience and familiarity with policy are probably most important. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 12:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Basically for admins I don't care too much whether you try to avoid conflict or not - its an easy way to get a sweeping nomination though. Ryan Norton T 05:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What the heck? (Archive 29)
I was deleated from the list. Who did that? --Admiral Roo 19:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your self-nom wasn't deleted. You added your nomination to Requests for adminship/Front matter instead of transcluding it on the main RFAr page. Since you added what you thought was deleted to the right place the second time, it's all good now. :-) android  79  21:08, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand it now. Thank you.  --Admiral Roo 03:09, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Cedar-Guardian (Archive 29)
Why isn't Cedar-Guardian an admin yet? Is it because he didn't sign to accept his nomination? &mdash; J I P | Talk 19:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to accept a self-nom. Howabout1 Talk to me! 19:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's just that a 'crat didn't come along and do it yet. They're human, too, allegedly, so I suppose they're not always at the computer. -Splash 19:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe they are, and they just want to see them sweat a bit ;)  &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  20:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This may or may not have anything to do with the lag, but I for one would not want to close an RFA in which only 14 opinions are expressed. Most have upwards of 20-40, and this one stikes me as possibly inconclusive. Dmcdevit·t 20:59, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * 14 isn't that bad you should see mine.Geni 00:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason, as Splash guessed, is that I didn't happen to be around and (apparently) no other bureaucrat noticed that it was past due. Though fifteen votes is my approximate minimum for determining consensus, I made an exception in this case because several of the support votes were quite enthusiastic (particularly David Cannon's) and the single valid objection was very mild. &mdash; Dan | Talk 00:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. My timings did not match his adminiship ending timing. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

GraemeL (Archive 29)
I was thinking about nominating User:GraemeL for adminship. He was very helpful in dealing with an anonymous user who wrote his own CV in several intentionally mistitled Wikipedia articles and vandalised my user talk page. Looking at his user and user talk pages, he seems very professional. WP:KT says he has over 1600 edits, over various namespaces. Problem is, he's only been on Wikipedia for less than one month. Is there much point in nominating him yet? &mdash; J I P | Talk 13:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really. Wait two months or so. <b style="color:mediumblue;">Andre</b> ( talk ) 14:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/GordonWattsDotCom (Archive 29)
I highly recommend that this RfA be removed early. It's an overwhleming rejection and is now generating a good deal of ill will. I'd remove it myself, but I voted and would rather have an uninvolved admin (or preferably a bureaucrat) remove it. Carbonite | Talk 16:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think he'll kick up a fuss if an admin does it though, so it's probably safer if it's a bureaucrat. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Application of Wikipedia Policy on RfA (Archive 30)
(Actual actions by voting editors contradicts: Known Laws / Rules)

Admission: The RfA can legitimately vote me down
According to Requests_for_adminship, "The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies," so even if I am totally right, I don't think that Jimbo or anyone with power should promote me to Admin by fiat. If the users who voted on my violated policy, however, they may be subject to sanctions.

Was Wikipedia Policy on RfA followed in my RfA?
Requests_for_adminship, which is current Wikipedia policy, says that "adminship should be no big deal. Admin actions are reversible; being an admin is primarily an extra responsibility, as there are rules and policies that apply only to admins." In addition, Administrators states that "Current (de facto) Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community..."This should be no big deal," according to Jimmy Wales...In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in principle they still should."

That is the policy, and I am a user in good standing:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:GordonWattsDotCom


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:GordonWatts

Neither my old user name, not my current one were ever blocked (except that my "old" name was permanently "blocked" when I switched user names, but that was not for disciplinary reasons, just to switch names).

Conclusion: The policy is quite clear: I should be accorded Admin status, since I am an editor in good standing, who has made close to 3,000 edits on over 239 pages, not as many as some, but quite a few! Kate's tool to count my edits I've been here since my first edit, 2005-05-02 16:20:23, and while I have been criticized for focusing too much on the Terri Schiavo article, these are only like 10-15 article at most: I've edited about 224-229 other pages, which is still quite diverse, given that this is not all I do with my life. '''The denial of my Request for Adminship (RfA) was not according to policy. Period.'''

''If the editors don't like policy, they should change it; If they don't change it, they should follow it. The other criticisms against me are addressed in the sections below, and this affects other users, not just me, so this is a "general problem" with Wikipedia: Not following the Policy.''

As a side note, I think that standards should be raised for editors: I think we should be forced to post our real names, work addresses, and phone numbers, with email address, like editors at online newspapers, because this would increase accountability and improve edit quality. However, this is not current policy, so holding me to artificial standards accomplishes nothing, and these political games and insider clique clubs are a major reason why many people leave Wikipedia in disgust and frustration.--GordonWatts 20:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * For the N+1th time: There is no hard policy stating RFA voters have to vote a certain way. We can have any standards we want. N (t/c) 20:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There is, however, you did not read it closely. Let me highlight the relevant section: Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community . I meet both definitions: I am part of the red-colored "anyone" above, and I obviously was a trusted member of the community, since I was allowed to upload images (a sensitive power, given Copyrvio laws) -and edit in very difficult pages, all without and disciplinary record. Why do we have these rules and this policy if people can vote any way they wish, pray tell? To simply have an "insider's club?--GordonWatts 20:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no "insider's club" or "clique". If there was, I wouldn't have got in, certainly not on my first (serious) try. &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to imply that editors always think like that, but the actual fact is that they have made up their own version of the rules and policy that differs from what the current policy really is; The fact that you just happened to meet their standards does not mean that they used the right standards; It simply means that you waited to build up enough edits and that your edit profile here was something they liked. Their "changing standards" may be better, but if they feel that way, then they should seek to change the policy before they do it that way; This way, editors who apply for RfA would not feel cheated or get a big surprise when the rules aren't followed.--GordonWatts 10:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

As much as I dislike engaging in such discussions, I would like to point out what it actually says:


 * The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Admins have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to high standards, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Admins should be courteous and should exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities. That said, adminship should be no big deal. Admin actions are reversible; being an admin is primarily an extra responsibility, as there are rules and policies that apply only to admins.


 * There are no official numerical standards for adminship; however, most new admins have at least three months of participation and one thousand edits.

Notice that it says should and are often (conditional tenses) all over the place and the community grants (meaning its us, not a policy that decides - otherwise we could create a script that automatically promotes admins). It also (and probably more relevantly) The are no official standards. That disproves your agrument that by opposing you we are breaking some policy: there is no policy. Please stop flooding the place with arguments and complaints at everyone (for that loses you trust and actually can be percieved as vandalism). I, however, do wish you good luck in your future as an editor and hope you continue to contribute to articles. --Celestianpower hab 13:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

To Gordon Watts (Archive 30)
Gordon, the page is titled "Requests of Adminship". It differs from "Vote for adminship". If your vote is failing miserably bureaucrats have every right to remove it from the page. The page is created to ascertain if the candidate is suitable for further responsibilities. If the voting trends dictate a downward trend, continuation of the whole excercise is pointless. You don't gain from it, others don't gain from it either. Maybe you don't want face the ignominy of having the nom called of early, but its better than getting more oppose votes and wasting everybody's time and energy.
 * You may want the nomination to continue as you hope some of the oppose votes might get changed to support. If that's the case you may contact all those who have voted here and ask them to withdraw/support instead. If they refuse, well no point pursuing it any further.
 * Current standards mentioned on the page say that 80% support votes are needed. If you feel otherwise, please get a mandate from the community that a 4-3 vote (or roughly 57%) is sufficient to gain adminship.
 * Under the first section, '...The community grants administrator status to trusted users.... Instead of you proving if you are a trusted user, please find out why the community think otherwise of you.
 * If adminship is no big deal then why are you still persisting? Get 1000 edits in the main namespace, get three articles featured. Participate in the Village pump, AFD, IFD; hunt and find spelling errors, copyvios etc. Prove your worth as a potential admin not by your word, but by your actions. Public opinion is notoriously myopic, and if you are civil and volunteer for the above tasks, I see no reason why you can't wait and succeed in two months time.
 * If you continue to post such large replies I shall assure you that its going to be speedily ignored, and archived faster.
 * Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

JoanneB (Archive 31)
I so want to nominate User:JoanneB for adminship. She's an experienced editor with over 2000 edits, well balanced over different namespaces. She's tirelessly fighting vandalism and participating in WP:AFD. No fair her having only been in Wikipedia for a bit over one month! &mdash; J I P | Talk 14:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're after here. An informal RfA/RfC? Better not to examine someone publicly in that case, I'd have though. Ask around the talk pages of some editors whose judgement you trust, rather than in a public forum such as this. -Splash talk 14:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * At that rate, she'll have 6,000 in 3 months, and be a shoo-in then. I counsel patience. -- BD2412 talk 14:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Echo BD2412. Put a reminder in your tickler file to nominate her in late November or early December. If someone beats you to it, c'est la vie. If you wait and do it in a couple of months, she should fly through if your estimate of her is on the mark (I'm assuming it is). --Durin 16:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I leave notes on their talk pages asking them to remind me to nominate them in the future, as I know I will just forget. Martin  16:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I felt this way about a p[otential admin earlier this year and even left a comment on his talk page something like "start thinking about whether you'll want to be an admin in a month or two's time". When he'd been here three months and a day, i went to his talk page... and found that someone else had offered to nominate him a couple of hours earlier (he went on to get admin with a strong vote and is a highly respected admin). Don't worry - if they keep going for another couple of months, you or someone else will nominate them. The main reason for th three month wait is to make sure they don't suffer wiki burnout after a few weeks. Grutness...  wha?  07:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Grin, I just read this and I feel flattered, of course :-) And sure, a rollback button would be great once in a while (uhm, quite often actually) (and yes, I know that being an admin is more than that)! I've spent quite a lot of time on Wikipedia for the last couple of weeks and feel like I've learned a lot, and I'm very glad my contributions are seen as useful. But I think the 3 months period is quite reasonable. I'll use the next couple of weeks to learn more about how stuff works on Wikipedia and to get to know more people here. I don't think I'll be bored :-) --JoanneB 22:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Question about my RfA (Archive 32)
Is the date listed on my RfA correct? I added a question there, but was not sure if someone would see it. Not that I see it heading anywhere but "no consensus", I just want to be fair to all. If the mistake is mine, I am humbly sorry. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark) 21:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup, someone probably credited september with one more day than it has. Fixed. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 21:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not that it really matters, it's just the principle of the thing. Thanks fvw. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark) 21:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing Quale's RfA (Archive 32)
I have recently removed Quale's RfA, added the rfaf and rfab tags, and included it on the failed candidacies page. I thought I'd do this even though I'm only an admin, not a bureaucrat. The reason for this is that it was completely clear that Quale's RfA wasn't going to succeed, as he declined it himself. There was therefore no need for determining a consensus. Heck, even if the entire Wikipedia supported Quale, the RfA would still have failed.

Was I being too bold here? I think closing RfAs for any other reason than candidate declination (i.e. success, failure by consensus, or failure to reach consensus) should be left for bureaucrats, but RfAs that are declined can be closed by anyone, you don't have even to be an admin (or a logged-in user at all) to do it. &mdash; J I P | Talk 06:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome to help out. :) I noticed you removed the nom, so I verified on Journalist's talk and signed on Quale's RFA "closed". You didn't forgot to change the text. Make sure that the text "vote here" is changed to "Closed" (if withdrawn) or "Final"; and "ending" changed to "ended". You can remove RFA's have received <70% of the vote after the expiry date. (Just make sure that there aren't too many votes on the last day; if so leave it to the b'crats). Thanks for helping out. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply! I'm glad I didn't step outside any boundaries. But could you clarify what you mean by "RFA's have received <70% of the vote"? &mdash; J I P | Talk 07:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support:Oppose=70% ie, the person has got less that 70% "support" votes out of the support+oppose. (Neutral votes are not counted) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

ScottyBoy900Q's nom extended (Archive 34)
I have extended ScottyBoy900Q's by a day. 31 support and 9 oppose votes gives us a tally of 77.5% of the votes, bang in the middle of no-man's land. Since the oppose votes do have some substance, I feel a day's extension might give us a clearer outcome. I request the candidate (and the general community) not to solicit pro and oppose votes. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  06:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So the message is "could people please vote on this and could everyone stop asking people to vote on this?" :-). But seriously, it sounds like a good call. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 06:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've also CC'd the candidate. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've got no prob with extending, but I just wanted point out the RfA page says that "the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75-80 percent support." 77.5 looks like its right in that consensus range. --ScottyBoy900Q 16:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a threshold, not a range for defining consensus. Otherwise, your statement would seem to imply that nominations with more than 80% support lack consensus. What it really means is that below 75% generally means the nomination has failed, above 80% is usually clear success, and in between is a marginal case where it's up to the bureaucrats to determine whether you've crossed the threshold. --Michael Snow 18:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Lag? (Archive 34)
Shouldn't User:RobyWayne and User:Hermione1980 be admins by now? Is makesysop down again, or what? I'd promote them myself but I don't have BureaucraticPower®. &mdash; J I P | Talk 14:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * They are both close and RobyWayne is under discussion at Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Close promotions are scrutinized more closely.  I don't think it's unreasonable to allow 24 hours or so.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm very curious why in User:RobyWayne's case it was delayed. Support vs Oppose was 82.6% at time of when it was supposed to close. User:Pakaran seems to have been counting neutral votes as, in essence, oppose votes. This strikes me as improper. Splitting the 3 neutral votes half and half yields 82%. I know RfA is not strictly a voting process, but the only way to get to a gray area (I read as less than 80%) on this nom is to take the neutral votes as oppose votes, which yields 73% at time when it was supposed to close. Since June and up to RobyWayne's close, there have been 13 successful noms with less than 80% in favor, if you count neutrals as oppose. 4 of them had lower percentages than Roby's. Not counting neutrals as oppose, only one nom in that time has been unsuccessful (not withdrawn) and had >75% (counting neutrals as oppose, it was 71.74%). Please see the discussion above regarding neutral votes. Bureaucrats should, I think, clarify their position as a group. --Durin 15:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that Pakaran may have made a mistake. We try to be conservative because we cannot undo promotions.  Please realize that it takes considerable time -- as much as half an hour -- to go through a nomination in the painstaking fashion that is necessary in all but extremely clear cases.  I read every comment, I review the edit history and look at every questionable diff, and investigate every questionable (possible sock) vote.  I check the end time and be sure that 7 days have actually gone by.  All that takes time, and so if there are close nominations and I don't have half an hour to spare, I leave them for the next day or for someone else to handle.  I apply this degree of care in close nominations even if they are above 80%, both because if there are voting irregularities that may affect the percentage and because there may be cases where we might not promote even if the 80% guideline is met.  Again, I don't believe that waiting 24 hours is too much to ask.


 * Regarding the percentages, please realize that they are guidelines. I have never promoted with less than 75% nor have I closed as unsuccessful a nomination with more than 80%, counting support and oppose votes only and not neutral votes.  That said, I can think of circumstances where I might not promote even with 80%; a recent April Fools' joke was one example.  Another would be if there were an organized campaign by someone to register dozens of new users for the sole reason of having them support their adminship request.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So if the support rate is between 75% and 80%, you promote the candidate but leave the nomination open? What more is there to do, especially considered BureaucraticPower® doesn't include the power to take AdministrativePower® away? &mdash; J I P | Talk 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. I should learn to read. "Unsuccessful nomination". Sheesh. &mdash; J I P | Talk 16:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Nomination of Stevertigo (Archive 35)
I have removed Steve's nomination. It's clearly going to fail. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  11:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's come here from the ArbCom, and his adminship hinges on it. It's not fair to remove it without an order from the Committee. I'm going to reinstate it. -Splash talk 12:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The easiest solution would be to let the nomination remain until Raul654 removes it. He added the nom and since he's a bureaucrat and a member of the ArbCom, he's in the best position to judge when/if it should be removed. Carbonite | Talk 12:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The committee should have bit the bullet and made the decision themselves or, at least, made the "instructions to the jury" much clearer in adding the nom. Marskell 12:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I violently agree. Subject Stevertigo to public mauling is exactly the sort of thing the ArbCom are supposed to prevent. I can't believe the Committee seriously thought there was more than one possible outcome. -Splash talk 12:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that the ArbCom actually said "Stevertigo...shall submit himself as a candidate for administrator at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship" (bolding mine), I'd suggest that his listing by Raul is pretty much invalid and could be removed without waiting. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, as I mentioned above, I think Raul is in a better position to judge than any of us. The whole point of the ArbCom's ruling was that an RfA would decide whether Stevertigo retain adminship or not. It's already obvious that the RfA will fail. Arguing over whether it should have been a self-nom or not seems rather pointless. Carbonite | Talk 12:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see any point in continuing with the RFA-c nom. Raul nominated Steve to confirm his adminship. The RFA-c is failing miserably, which means he definately does not have the support of the community. has anyone asked Raul if he would like to continue with the RFA? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been worthwhile for the ArbCom to follow our revised procedure here? Give the candidate a chance to accept or refuse the nomination, and also give Steve an opportunity to comment on the RFArb or anything else he wishes to mention...before the RfA is listed on the main RfA page. Obviously a refused nomination would in this case result in loss of adminship. Let it be Steve's choice to either bow out gracefully or risk a potential public roasting. I hope the ArbCom would consider following such a procedure should they carry out a remedy like this in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Should they carry out a remedy like this in future." Hopefully they don't. "The Arbitration Committee is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort to be turned to when all else has failed." Here they are treating RfA as a last resort—that's not what RfA is for. You can call it reaffirmation of his adminship, but tacitly its a referendum on his behaviour. They should not have brought it to this forum. Marskell 13:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree. Bringing this matter here was out of line, and doomed to failure. But for me, the main reason it showed bad judgement on ArbCom's part is that the people here at WP:RFA are being expected to go through the entire ArbCom case to gain an understanding of what has transpired such that they can make an appropriate vote. I don't expect most people will do that. Quite a number, I am sure, are seeing that he has been the subject of an RfAr and will vote in opposition. It is akin to having a court case conclude against him, and then having a jury which was not present during the trial read a transcript of the trial to determine his guilt. Maybe we should start an RfAr against Arbcom? :) --Durin 14:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think having the community reconfirm was a good idea, but I think he should have been given the option of just giving up his adminship with no hassle, instead of going through RFA and inevitably losing painfully. N (t/c) 14:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And actually, I think this would have been more in line with the spirit of the ruling that he bring it here himself. If he had chosen to bring it here, then he could more reasonably be expected to deal with what's been thrown at him. If he had chosen not to, de-admining could have gone ahead without the fuss and ill-will that has emerged. All-in-all, a poor call. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Stevertigo has always had the option to voluntarily request to be de-admined. In fact, I suggested this option on his talk page before the ArbCom case was initiated. I agree, it would have saved a lot of time for everyone involved and would have avoided a lot of fuss and ill-will. Carbonite | Talk 14:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to have Stevertigo being grilled here; and I agree with Marskell completely. It shouldn't be brought here. There will obviously be many oppose votes based on his Arbr, so the result will anyways be skewed. Arbcom should specify if they want a public hanging of Stevertigo. Over to Raul. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  15:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I enquired some hours ago whether a public hanging (or mauling, in my words) is what the Committee were seeking at the bottom of WP:RfAr. I remain hopeful that the Arbitrators may clarify their intent. -Splash talk 15:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed Stevertigo nomination (Archive 35)
I have removed Requests for adminship/Stevertigo this has gotten ridiculous since all that's happening here is that people are taking potshots at both Stevertigo and the arbcom (though arbcom may or may not deserve it). I think at this point the nom should be closed and the arbcom decision implemented. Jtkiefer T - 23:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * (Late insert): Indeed, Stevertigo "may not deserve it" either &mdash;please keep that in mind. ;) -St|eve 05:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible support --Doc (?) 00:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's disturbing to think that fifteen people voted oppose when Stevertigo had not accepted the nomination, in all likelihood had no knowledge of it, and had had no chance to withdraw. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This was not a standard RfA, in fact it was far from normal. I don't really agree that the ArbCom should have used RfA to decide the case, but once the nomination was posted, there wasn't anything distubring about opposing. Stevertigo had over two months to "withdraw", by voluntarily requesting to be de-admined. He paid attention to the proposed decision and had full knowledge of what the ArbCom was considering. The remedy may not have been ideal, but my sympathy for Stevertigo is rather limited in this case. Carbonite | Talk 01:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's one of the factors I took into effect when closing it early, had he accepted it and said bring it on then I would have been more reluctant, however he was just being slammed there and generally it is allowed if not encourged to remove a nomination where continuation would clearly result in hurt feelings. Jtkiefer  T - 01:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jtkiefer's decision to remove the nomination early, but I am disturbed by Ann Heneghan's ease in criticizing those (like me) who voted to oppose. This was not a normal RfA. Stevertigo was already an administrator. If one abstains from voting on a nomination that hasn't been accepted, the nomination will be removed, and the subject will not become an administrator. If everyone waited for Stevertigo to accept the nomination and he never did, he would remain an administrator. To me, removing an abusive administrator is more important than avoiding hurt feelings, although I would like to respect both if possible. This probably could have been done better, but Stevertigo had three months to do this voluntarily and he refused. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 01:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Knowledge Seeker, I don't wish to criticize anyone in this case. On reflection, I think it would have been more tactful if I had waited a few weeks and then made the general point (without referring to Stevertigo) on this page rather than placing my comment on his RfA page and the ralated talk page. The general point was, of course, that I wish people wouldn't keep adding oppose votes when there are already more oppose votes than support votes. If I expressed that offensively, I apologize. I agree that removing an abusive administrator is more important than avoiding hurt feelings, but as I pointed out, the oppose votes went far beyond what was necessary to remove him. While I'm not comfortable with the oppose votes still coming in now, at least, at this stage, Stevertigo has accepted the nomination, and has thereby accepted any potential loss of face that may ensue. What I would like to see is a complete changing of the rules or the system so that it will no longer be possible to oppose (or support) an RfA before the candidate has accepted. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, there wasn't anything wrong with opposing the RfA. The RfA and the entire ArbCom case could have easily been avoided. Had Stevertigo apologized back in August and de-admined himself, it probably would have been a fairly minor issue. In fact, it's likely that an RfA to regain adminship would have succeeded in the near future had he chosen this route. This course of action would have saved many users lots of time and effort and Steve would have come out looking much better. Carbonite | Talk 01:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is nothing at all disturbing in editors reviewing the ArbCom case for themselves (since the Arbitrators weren't willing to do this for us), taking into account the rest of Stevertigo's and then voting accordingly. The implication that there is something wrong with opposing when you find a candidate you do not think should be an admin is more disturbing, particularly in what is very plainly a very special case such as this &mdash; and especially when cast in the accusatory language of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Stevertigo. I personally, do not agree with the delisting since it terminates any possibility that things might change, and any possibility that Stevertigo might accept and be able to persuade his opposers. I do not think that community consensus over delisting comes into it, since this RfA was mandated in an ArbCom ruling, and such rulings are binding. The community does not have the luxury of choosing to what extent a ruling applies and RfAs last 7 days. The Committee made a grave error, and it needs fixing, but they have all the power they need to sofixit. -Splash talk 01:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)\
 * And it's of course your right to disagree, however as noted above he had a chance to give up his admin rights voluntarily which he chose not to. Also if there was any chance of him convincing enough users to gain consensus to keep his adminship then the RFA should have been kept up and open, however the fact that that a consensus of users agreed that there was no chance of this happening warranted a closing to prevent hard feelings.  Jtkiefer  T - 01:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Carbonite, when you say that he had full knowledge of what they were considering, does that mean that he actually knew it would involve being put through another RfA, or does it just mean he knew he might lose his admin status? I'd have had less sympathy for him if he had just been desysopped. And I do think that when the decision was reached, he should have been the one to decide whether to go through with the RfA, or to be foribly desysopped at that late stage. I'm concerned that it happened when he wasn't around – check his contributions – that he wasn't in a position to refuse or withdraw, that he hadn't accepted his nomination or answered the questions, and that people still continued with their oppose when it must have been obvious that their votes were not necessary to ensure his failure. Ann Heneghan (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The proposed remedy was voted on for three weeks while Stevertigo commented on the talk page. It was quite obvious what the outcome of the ArbCom voting would be. He had months to decide that he wanted to withdraw and chose not to take that option. Personally, I don't believe that the nomination should have been sent to RfA at all. Steve should have been de-admined and allowed to reapply through RfA at any time. Carbonite | Talk 12:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Carbonite. I have now read the proposed remedy, and see that he did indeed have notice that this was likely to come. Of course, it was unfortunate that he was away from Wikipedia at the time that the voting started, and, as I said above, I'd like to see a situation where it wouldn't be possible to start voting before the acceptance. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that I have listed this on Requests_for_permissions so that a steward can follow through on the arbitration committee ruling regarding this confirmation. Jtkiefer T - 00:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, this might have been a bad idea. If you check Stevertigo's edits, you can see that he has not been here since the 21st of October. Most likely, he was not aware for his "new RfA". I think that we should redo this nomination, according to the rules: create the subpage, wait for Stevertigo to accept/decline/whatever it, let him comment and answer the questions, and then the community can start the process over again. What we have now is not fair. <font color="#006666">Bratsche <font color="#FF6600">talk 02:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. There is no reason at all to redo the nomination. There is overwhelming opposition to Stevertigo remaining an admin, as seen in his RfC and RfA. The ArbCom should simply de-admin him and let him reapply for adminship whenever he chooses. Carbonite | Talk 12:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

note
As per the arbcom ruling and my request on Requests_for_permissions, to that extent he has been desysopped. Jtkiefer T - 21:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate delisting
I have only yesterday taken a look at the RFA understanding its creative use as a "remedy" in my Arbcom case. Ive just today been able to read through most of the various comment, and it seems to me that I should have at least had an opportunity to comment on the RFA (as many neutral/comment votes sought my input), before it was closed. While Jtkiefer and others claimed that the RFA was just becoming a forum for people taking "potshots" at me, I disagree with his rather partisan view of my case, my RFA, and later his motion/request to deadmin (See User talk:Jtkiefer). Now that I have some bearings on what has been going on, Im requesting that the delisting be found as inappropriate and premature, and that I be able to comment on my own RFA, per the Arbcom's decision. The claim that the removal 'was just doing me a favor' is flaccid: I could equally claim that the motion to close was designed to minimise criticism of the RFAR decision, and any ensuing embarrassment for the Arbcom in crafting its apparently unpopular remedy.

I dont care about potshots. If you have formed a reasoned and informed criticism of me based on the case or any past behaviour, I will earnestly accept your criticism and your opposition to my "reaffirmation" (a term the Arbcom no doubt borrowed from Stuart Smalley). But if you have just stopped by to chime in with chimeras and personal attacks, then (by my own personal tally) I will not consider your vote sincere. Allow me to make my own case to "the mob" in an appropriate timeframe, in accord with the Arbcom ruling. The community can then move on deal with the Arbcom and its decision. Sincerely, St|eve 04:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC) PS: WP:RFA/SV/N
 * Hello Steve, the shortcut WP:RFA/SV/N] currently points to a redlinked page, [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Stevertigo/Notes. Typo, or are you perhaps writing something up at the moment? Regards enceph  alon  05:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Its there now - Im just going through each comment and making annotations. -SV
 * According to the quite recently adopted new practice for RfA, a nomination should not be listed until the candidate indicates acceptance of the nomination (in the space allotted near the top of the page). So I suppose if you edit Requests for adminship/Stevertigo to do the latter, you could simply relist the nomination yourself, if that is indeed your wish. -- Curps 05:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Quite recently" sounds like a joke. I'll consider your suggestion for tomorrow. -SV
 * PS, you've created quite a few acronym redirs: WP:RFA/SV, WP:RFAR/SVRFA, WP:RFA/SV/N, WPT:RFA, WP:RFC/IW, WP:RFM/IW... I'm not sure it's a good idea to create such abbreviations for every individual RfA and RfC... and when "Surly Vogon" is nominated for admin, will we make WP:RFA/SV a disambiguation page? :-) -- Curps 05:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This comment belongs on my talk, not here. But I get your point. (I was thinking more of when Slim Virgin goes up for an RFAR.) :) -St|eve 05:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Relisting SV RFA (Archive 35)
As stated above, the delisting was inappropriate as I had not been online for a few days and had not formally accepted the nomination to begin with. So according to the rules of RFA, the automatic nomination by Raul456 was invalid. I likewise have not had a chance reply to the various "potshots" directed at me, and this RFA had become the forum by which criticism of the RFAR decision (to remand it here) was given attention. I do not think it is appropriate for me to modify the page myself, as it is listed as an "archive," so now I humbly ask that a third party relist me on WP:RFA, modify WP:RFA/SV to show its active status, and removed its listing from WP:UAC. Thanks in advance, -St|eve 18:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC) P.S.:WP:UAC says: "Stevertigo, 25 October 2005, withdrawn by bureaucrat." This is problematic, as (I suppose) the "beaurocrat" referred to is Raul, who likewise made the nomination itself, and was a typically nonresponsive and partisan member of the Arbcom and "arbitrated" my case. Conflict of interest, maybe not--but certainly a conflict of process. IAC, the delisting doesnt appear to have been done by Raul at all anyway, so claiming it was done by "beaurocrat" needs explanation. As others have pointed out, failing a (rushed, out of process, invalidated) RFA is not equivalent to a "desysopping." -St|eve 18:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Stevertigo, while I feel for you in terms of the RFA being a slugfest against you, I don't think it's appropriate to start yelling at the Arbitration Committee (specifically, Raul). I know you're upset, but think of this positively. This is the time for you to rebuild trust from the Wikipedia community. Cater to the community and you will be catered to in turn. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This depends on your definition of "trust." If you read my diffs and know my work on controversial topics and my ability to write and reason with as full possible fidelity to NPOV, then you can measure my level of "trust" based on that information. If measure "trust" by my presence on IRC (which I dont use), or through pictures of me hugging wikipedians at wikimania, or by barnstars and personal notes of support on my talk page, then we might have some disagreement with regard to our operative definition of "trust." IAC, its not my intention to embarrass the Arbcom &mdash;others are free to comment on the wisdom of that decision. Its my intention to make my case to "the mob" and answer each criticism directly about my conduct and my status as a sysop. I dont see how that should be controversial, or construed as "yelling." I simply think that if there is to be some review of my character, there must be appropriate responsiveness and dialogue. The Arbcom (see talk:proposed decision) was not appropriately responsive, and my presence here is the result of that unresponsiveness. I sincerely request that the community extend to me the ear that the Arbcom did not. -St|eve 18:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated the RfA. --Michael Snow 18:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as making the nomination for you, yes, that was a mistake -- mea culpa. However, "This is problematic, as (I suppose) the "beaurocrat" referred to is Raul, who likewise made the nomination itself" - this is almost certainly a reference to Nichalp's removal of the nomination. I should probably state clearly that outside of the arbcom case (the extent of which is available on the proposed decision page), my only involvement in this was to make the nomination. I did not vote, remove it, or even render an opinion (which was requested by several people). &rarr;Raul654 18:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your newfound responsiveness, but what does "me aculpa" mean in this context? The decision was to make no decision, but rather instead to "throw it to the mob" as others have said. Was this a product of decisiveness and clarity or simply an engineered means to "tar and feather" someone with whom you (collective "you") have some disagreements? Would it not have been less embarrassing for you to be appropriately responsive during the actual Arbcom case? I understand you feel reluctant to admit to mistakes, and that is indeed forgivable. But your "me aculpa" is besides the point and is merely the last in a comedy of errors that could have been prevented. Please forgive me if this RFA has become a learning experience for you. Me aculpa. -St|eve 18:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's Mea Culpa. --Durin 19:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Depends where you stick the a. -St|eve 19:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Steve, you're not going to like hearing this, but I think part of the problem is that you're argumentative. No one has treated you unfairly, and even when we try to give our opinions to you, you hold us in contempt and have to argue tiny minor points such as "me culpa". Focus on what you need to do: regaining trust. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course Im going to assert that attacks on my character are improper and unsubstantive. I dont see how your claim that I'm "argumentative" has any bearing here. If I argue point by point in a rational (albeit at times sarcastic and pointed) manner, then Im called "argumentative." If Im away from a computer for a few days and dont get a chance to respond, then I'm called "unresponsive." Damned if you do, damned if you don't has similarities to unfair treatment, though you make the blanket claim that "no one has treated" me in such manner. While I appreciate your understanding of the time element with regard to the remedy, I would appreciate it more if you did not limit your public criticism to me alone, as I am not the one who crafted the remedy to follow the RFAR. There are many ways to gain trust &mdash;among them is simply representing oneself earnestly and truthfully &mdash;even in a mob justice situation. Being argumentative is only superficial aspect of my character and conduct &mdash;those who consider it to be a symptom of abusiveness are making a superficial rather than substantive judgement. -St|eve 21:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Cognition's RFA (Archive 36)
OK, this turned out as badly as I feared it might. Cognitions's RFA was pulled, apparently due to personal attacks. He was told that it could run its course only if it didn't have personal attacks. He removed the personal attacks, re-listed his RFA, and it was de-listed again. I think he considers himself kind of a "reform candidate" in the RFA, so suppressing his ability to even participate is not a wise move, in my opinion. "There is no cabal", but we've just given this guy good reason to believe there is. Friday (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If there's going to be a removal (which I think is bad form for all but bad faith nominations), I think it should be done by a bureaucrat. This was not done; it was removed by an admin. The double removal created more problems than it solved, in my opinion. --Durin 17:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't really get the chance to thoroughly go through the entire RfA, but how was it not violating WP:POINT? Even if it was in good faith, since it clearly wasn't going anywhere, yet trying to disrupt WP, how does it not violate said rule? Thanks. -- Lord Vold e  mort  <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  17:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * FWIW, in the above case, several other editors also considered the RFA to be a WP:POINT. It may come down to different standards of "disruption". For an analogy, I've listed a couple things on Afd that ended up as a resounding "keep".  This may mean my judgement was wrong in those cases, but was I "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point"?  IMO, no, I was using an accepted process to argue what I believed was best.  Most other people didn't agree, but this doesn't make it a disruption, it just means my POV was an unpopular one.   Friday (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Regardless of any personal attacks, the nomination had one support and twenty-one opposes, thus obviously qualifying for the snowball clause. A new nomination within a short period of time would suffer the same fate. In other words, I fully concur with the removal. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 18:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony1's Rfa (Archive 37)
Allow me to again express my UTTER DISGUST at the Trial by ordeal the Rfa process seems to be degenerating into. This is how we lose so many excellent, talented and thoughtful contributors. Are none of us entitled to express our strong opinions without running the risk of incurring a personal, political pile on?! Do we not have the right to defend ourselves when we feel we are under unfair attack?! Can we not even be bothered to FORGIVE some percieved slight?! Or to extend to our colleagues the benefit of the doubt rather than to doubt their benefits?! If one of my dear friends were to nominate me today, I would DECLINE rather than face running such a disgraceful gauntlet as that which Tony1 was subjected! A Kangaroo court has more decorum!!! I wonder how many of YOU would fare facing such a barrage of negativity. Would you be able to sit quietly and smile, while your honor, your integrity, your personal charachter are smeared in the mud? I think those who would DO NOT deserve to be admins. Those are the very ones who merely want some small crumb of status/reward/power/influence. Who will use their position as a personal TOY rather than a TOOL to make our encyclopedia and community better. Something needs to be done about the ordeal process, otherwise Wikipedia will continue to hemmorage knowledge and talent from these self-inflicted wounds. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Calm down. I've read some of the comments in the RfA, and while most seem rather civil, there are some that look like outright accusations to Tony1. If I were in his place I would perhaps got a little angry too. I personally don't know Tony1 but judging by the comments in the RfA, he doesn't seem ready for adminship just now, but if he reapplies in a few weeks or months I might support him. &mdash; J I P | Talk 17:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * RDH, outside of the decorum issues on RfA, you don't appear to be raising any particular faults that the RfA process has nor suggesting any ways in which to improve it. I grant that you have some very legitimate feelings regarding the RfA process, but failing any detailing of just what is wrong, there isn't anything for us to comment on. As for decorum, certainly the behavior of certain users should be spoken of on their respective talk pages. Their behavior on RfA is a reflection of their behavior; not of RfA. There are a large number of people who acquit themselves appropriately on RfA. I don't think that extending the behavior of a few against the many is what you intended, but based on the above is sounds to me like that. --Durin 18:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It only takes a few spiteful, rude, inconsiderate and outright trolling individuals to contaminate the entire process. These few can create an atmosphere of ill-will and distrust which grows and carries over to other nominations. I think losing even even one good editor/contributor to this flawed process is one too many.


 * But you ask, and rightfully so, do I have any suggestions to make the process, if not better, then at least less flawed? What sort of Wikipedian would I be if I did'nt:> First off, we could have Rfa "Ushers" or "Bouncers", who could step in when an Rfa begins to get out of hand, before the flames and pile-ons have a chance to cause serious harm. If someone can't behave in accordance with the rules of Civility, No personal attacks, Staying cool, Assumption of good faith and perhaps most importantly Don't be a dick, then these officials would be able to remove them from the Rfa in question and negate their vote. Offenders would recieve, at most, 2 warnings and may also have their offending comments stricken out. Any registered user in good standing may volunteer to be an "Usher" or "Bouncer", but if they are not yet an admin, they will need an admin to be "Enforcer" for their decisions. Durin, you may be ideal for this role.


 * Second, a while ago someone mentioned that we need a "Wiki Middle Class" between registered users and admins. I think this is an exxxcellent suggestion. Towards this end, I have proposed HERE to create a corps of Article Custodians, or admins-lite if you will:>. Basically they would have limited admin powers over a single article (48 hour lock maximum and rollback button). They would be voted in, as are admins, but the threshold for concensus would be lower (60%) and they may be removed by bureaucrats if asked to by at least three different admins. Article Custodianship would reward good contributors who have put a lot of time and work into an article with the power and responsibility to care for it. It would also allow them to show they have The Right Stuff to be admins, make the transition from to admin much easier and help take the sting off a failed Rfa. It could also help the admins deal with the bane of the Wikiverse-Vandalism.


 * If anyone can come up with better suggestions, by all means please do and I'll endorse, peddle, push and pimp them wholeheartedly:> But something must be done, not only to keep our talent but to maintain the atmosphere of civility and collaboration which makes the Wiki MORE than simply an encyclopedia. Tony left a message on my talk page today, thanking me for my comments and support and asking me to contact him in mail. This makes the second friend, User:Rl is the other, I have lost due to the toxic effects from Rfa. The system may not yet be broke, but it is clearly starting to crack under the strain of Wikipedia's growth. The time to fix it is now. Thanks for your time and consideration--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm against instruction creep, and feel these suggestions are in that vein. I would like to see what impact WP:GRFA has when it's 'officially' released first before applying any other salve on the RfA process. With respect to the suggestions; I think the first carries more merit than the second. But in general, I don't like the idea of adding in additional special classes of wiki-citizens to pursue particular problems. --Durin 19:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So you are against "instruction creep", then you post a link to yet another page full of instructions. But they are good instructions...I wish I'd known about them before I became involved in Rfa. Unfortunately, I jumped right in and learned nearly everything in there the hard way. I'm afraid most others will learn the same way too, afterall the Wikiverse is so vast and there are so many WP:Instruction pages to keep track of already. It can be confusing even for those who know their way around. I'm none too optimistic WP:GiRaFA will have any significant impact at all. Anymore than a warning sign at a Mosh pit.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Requests for rollback privileges. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That is a step in the right direction. But only a step. And it does'nt address the problem of bruising if not abusive Rfas. My friend SoLando has come up with an interesting idea. If y'all promise to be nice, I might convince him to share it here:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The very community interaction that makes Wikipedia rewarding can become destructive when critical comment is made in RfA or FaC discussions, particularly when candidates or authors take understandable pride in their work. It's hard not to take attacks personally, though better forewarning and support might help. In this instance an interesting article marred by grammatical errors and convoluted writing has been isolated from critical improvement, and more importantly a contributor with uncommon skills has been alienated. Administrators have to be responsible, but testing their restraint by public abuse is out of order. The Admin-lite idea would still involve the same process, and limited powers to protect one article would have no relevance in this case, where an editor was making contributions over many articles. However, there could be merit in a kind of official barnstar or recognition of responsibility as a standard precursor to adminship, possibly giving access to rollback buttons, and I'm for that...dave souza 18:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I see no "public abuse" at Tony1's RfA or, indeed, the RfAs of most users. What I see is a legitimate comment about a tantrum Tony threw at an old FAC, followed by Tony dragging in his objections from that FAC to a forum where they have no relevance.  Then, when other users opposed (notably Cyberjunkie and Alkivar), he blew up at them.  Frankly, if you respond to legitimate comments by throwing a very public tantrum on your own RfA, I don't feel you have any right to be upset when your RfA doesn't pass, and further, you are not admin material.  Good editors are not necessarily good admins, and vice versa.  Please, let's not let our personal feelings get in the way of the basic facts.  Tony was not mistreated, and it's pure fantasy to say he was. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I figure this section would be an appropiate location to place my proposal, since R.D.H.'s proposals inspired mine. Now hopefully this won't be considered an unnecessary tier to the RFA structure. But as the principal reason for some RFA descending into a frenzied debacle is that of unresolved issues, why not have an optional "peer review" similar to that used for articles, which invariably are a precursor to the article becoming an FA Candidate. At the peer review, issues could be raised and resolved with the prospective admin, and perhaps an indication of their chances (or whether they are even ready) could be given, as many seem to be jumping head first into an RFA, then get hurt when it doesn't go as they anticipated/desired. I can imagine this idea may be seen as unnecessary, what with there being RFCs and the like, but as R.D.H. said responding to me on his talk page: "RFCs usually involve edit wars, personal pissing contests and such, what you propose would exclusively deal with admin candidate issues." SoLando (Talk) 19:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * How would this not turn into "personal pissing constests" as well? People's pasts are a big reason why RfAs pass or fail. You could always list youself at RfC and explain you are looking for constructive criticism. Or do as other have done, start a user subpage seeking comments. The new guide should help incredibly though. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  19:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * >How would this not turn into "personal pissing constests" as well?< There is no guarantee it would'nt. None of the suggestions SoLando or I have made would make the process completely "piss-proof". We realize this, but it is our hope that they will at least help reduce the "piss level" which is slowly creeping over the levees and flooding the Rfa. SoLando's suggestion for RFAC, would allow candidates and nominators to "test the waters" first, so they will know much better what to work on and what to expect from the Rfa. It would make "ambushes" and "pile-ons" much less a problem than they currently are. Plus his proposal has the added virtue of being easy and painless to implement without having to change the (sacred) Wiki software. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The process is fine. The problem here  was Tony had a temper he could not control, he became as a spoilt and petulant child. Insulting all who came near. If no-one had ever said "No, Tony I don't like your edits they are wrong"  When would Tony's temperament have come to light - after you, the  sympathetic crowd had voted him "Admin of FA", and everyone new to the page was too frightened to say a word.


 * I'm sick of being the villain of this piece. Tony was over forceful and arrogant in his edits. Pages I've written are edited every day, and good, so they should be!  There's one coming up on the front page very shortly, and we all know what happens there, especially me because I've had several on the front page before, all thankfully well copy-edited before they arrived there. (and before you all rush off to have a look now).  I couldn't care less what style and grammar gurus do to a page but when they alter the integrity of the page - I do.


 * My grammar and spelling are appalling, I can't write a simple stub without being copy-edited. I admit it, it's Wikipedia's most badly kept secret. However, I will not be harassed into altering the essence and emphasis of a page.  If people can't cope with that, then the encyclopedia may as well give up now.   Tony was very good with his grammar, and his phrasing and vocabulary  was wonderful for children.  If he comes back knowing his limitations good, if he doesn't come back well grammar is taught in schools.  End of story.


 * Keep the process as it is, because a few people behind closed doors would fail to reach the correct decision. Tony was very happy originally to be there, but he was too new. If he was ignorant and unhappy blame those who nominated him, not a tried, trusted and proven system. 81.131.95.249 20:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Giano (I keep being logged out - have I been banned)


 * Completely independent of SoLando or RDH, I stumbled across the idea of peer review as well. It's entirely notional at this point, but I did create a subpage of mine for it: User:Durin/Peer review.
 * As for WP:GRFA being instruction creep; it's nothing of the sort. There are no instructions anyone is compelled to follow. It is not policy. It isn't even a guideline. It's a set of recommendations and are not part of the instructions found at Requests for adminship/nominate. There are no additional hurdles here to jump; it is just some helpful advice.
 * I do think people should take some responsibility for keeping the RfA process as civil as possible. To that end, I've begun advising people of when I feel they have overstepped the boundaries a bit . That said, I have no intention of becoming the Sheriff of RfA. I think we should all be encouraging each other to contribute to RfA productively. --Durin 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the instructions (or recommendations if you prefer) won't help. They will. But they won't be enough. However, they, along with my proposal for Rfa "ushers" and SoLando's "Peer Review" idea TOGETHER might be enough. They are at least worth a try. What do we have to lose except more talent? The system may have worked fine when Wiki was relatively small, but it has grown, and is growing, tremendously now. It is starting to bend and in time it will break. The time to start fixing it is before it reaches this breaking point.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But who regarding Tony overstepped the mark? Tony was originally asked to provide the "diffs" for a problem he (no one else) first mentioned. He could not oblige. The man failed, it was unpleasant, so are all interviews, the process is fine. Giano | talk 21:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "I'm sick of being the villain of this piece." No one here even mentioned you by name, Giano, but since the shoe fits... You knew DAMN well Tony had buttons, where they were and how to push them...which you did..<personal attack removed>. Afterall, it is his fault for having buttons, not yours for pushing them right? Seems it is not enough for you to have shot down his Rfa and driven Tony away, you continue to insult and belittle him and his charachter here to defend your actions. <personal attack removed> The HONOURABLE thing to do would be to apologize, publically and sincerely. But instead you take an almost perverse pride and reprehensable callousness IE-"If he comes back knowing his limitations good, if he doesn't come back well grammar is taught in schools. End of story." You say the system is fine...<threat removed> .--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Are the bolded quotes mine or yours, I think yours, or are mine the unbolded, perhaps when you have calmed down you would like to explain, because I am rather confused. You remind me of the famous quote about throwing pebble into a pond and watching the rings, always a fascinating observation, you should try it sometime.   However I'm unsure of your point here, and less sure of it's relevance to the subject under discussion, when you feel calmer I look forward to your explanation.  Because poor Tony rather lost the plot, there is no need for us all to follow suit. Please bear that in mind. Giano | talk 21:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's rather simple, the ones with quotes around them "Like this" are yours...the ones without are mine:> Oh course "poor Tony" was'nt pushed...he jumped. You were just an innocent lil lamb throughout the entire ordeal were'nt you. How dare I imply you had any hand in setting up his self-destruction (A very masterful job BTW, you should be congradulated). But I'm glad I can provide you with some amusement, piccolo Machiavelli. I also enjoyed the way you have basically told me to "Go jump in a pond" and your veiled warning not to follow in Tony's footsteps. You shall be fun to play with:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * .....and your point was? Giano | talk 21:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * <personal attack removed>R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am merely trying to grasp, the point you are  trying to make  in regard to this debate. Tony was asked to provide the diffs for a dispute which he first mentioned, nothing to do with me  (I don't do medical pages). This is standard procedure on an RFA debate.  Tony was not able to do so.  He then lost his temper and insulted many of those who had hitherto voted for him.  As a consequence (in my view quite rightly)  he lost many more votes as some people perceived this behaviour to be unbecoming an administrator. Very sad - but a fact. I cannot change it - you cannot change it. Now which part of this simple explanation are you having a problem coming to terms with.  Please compose yourself, stop insulting me, and make a valid contribution to the discussion here. Giano | talk 22:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I cannot change it...and insulting you, cathartic as it may be, cannot change it either. But I can at least try to make it less likely in the future. Which is why I've proposed some Rfa reforms.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's what you do: On all RfA's, require that each "No" vote have a tactful explanation of a unique objection to the votee. This way a gang of 10 can't come in and all harshly comdemn about the same old crap.
 * Rex071404  216.153.214.94 00:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * which would work great if it wasn't for the small problem of candidates who have one massive flaw.Geni 00:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * R.D.H., I have (conservatively) removed the more egregious of your flames against Giano above, per the Remove personal attacks guideline. Please stop posting abuse. Get your "fun" and your "catharsis" somewhere else. Bishonen | talk 02:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely the issue here is not whether or not a particular individual should have been appointed Admin, but whether the selection process can be made less damaging to individuals and to Wikipedia. WP:GRFA gives an invaluable guide to the pitfalls, and should be considered fully by all nominators and candidates before accepting nomination: could a strong recommendation to read it be added to the template for the candidate's talk page, and to WP:RFA? Damage and ill feeling could be reduced by quickly removing a nomination that is going sour from WP:RFA, and in this case at least it might have helped if an offer to do this had been put to the candidate at an early stage of problems developing: this suggestion could be expanded in GRFA. .....dave souza 09:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:GRFA is under development. It was initially created just nine days ago, and has undergone considerable expansion and improvement by more than a dozen contributors since initial creation. I feel the guide is much needed, but I did not want to be premature in including it as a reference in RfA. I posted a notice at the Bureaucrat's noticeboard five days ago to involve that group of editors as well. Substantial changes have been petering out, and there's been no changes at all now for two days. Based on that, I think we're near a "stable" version of the guide. I expect it will continue to change/improve over time. I wanted to wait until Monday or Tuesday before making the revisions to include it within the RfA process.--Durin 12:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Good stuff: nice to see a positive way forward...dave souza 13:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Tony1's Rfa (continued) (Archive 37)
I have removed the discussion here and archived it, as R.D.H. has indicated he no longer wishes to continue the discussion. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a wise move. Especially since all the truly important points in it are also discussed below with more depth and less personal animosity.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Talrias I really like your Mentor System proposal. It could provide a fine alternative track to Rfa. But I don't think it should replace Rfa entirely. It can offer an important piece to the puzzle when used in conjunction with some of the other ideas we've come up with. No single solution is best, but taking the best elements of each and fitting them together into a coherent whole, much the way we do articles, is the best approach. Cheers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Withdraw (Archive 38)
I would like my RfA withdrawn, if this can be done. Thanks! — Wackymacs 08:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok I've taken care of it. Jtkiefer  T - 08:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Old, incorrectly closed Request for Adminship (Archive 41)
While cleaning up policy, you find all kinds of strange things. Mindspillage found this whopper from august:
 * Requests_for_adminship/Rl

Most of the oppose opinions provide an invalid reason. Rls interpretation of policy was actually correct. The closing bureaucract fatally misread consensus here, with Rl leaving the project as a result.

I would request a recount, excluding clearly incorrect opinions, and that Rl be given honorable adminship and the record be so amended.

I am somewhat disturbed that this was not caught by a bureaucrat, because the situation expressed is precicely within the required knowlege of a bureaucrat.

Kim Bruning 05:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the same bullshit as the Bushytails RFA. It really pisses me off. Seconded. --Phroziac . o ºO (mmmmm chocolate!) 05:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The bureaucrat made a big mistake on analyzing this nomination. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-12-3 05:35
 * I'm not at all clear on what you are trying to accomplish, though. You want us to award him the adminship anyway? Months later? (posthumously, sort of). If by honorable adminship you just mean we change the some record but not his access, erm, why? I understand that you disagree with how it was closed, but I'm sure plenty of the opposers disagree with you. What does starting a debate over this (rather than the principle I suspect you think needs discussion) achieve in practicality? Dmcdevit·t 05:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For starters, it lets the bureaucrat know that he has a choice in the matter. After all, bureaucrats do tend to have the most experience out of all of us. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918  &bull; 2005-12-3 05:37
 * Of course, that particular bureaicrat isn't a bureaucrat anymore... Dmcdevit·t 05:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So this came up in conversation on IRC in regard to asking additional questions on admin noms. I don't know about automatic promotion: the community did speak. I just happen to think it was utterly mistaken, and this is my example if someone asks me to cite how RfA (while usually decent) sometimes gives the wrong outcome. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The irony is that I think a lot of the reason RFA is crap in these situations is because it is a vote and not about consensus. I think Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor is probably another good example of the same phenomenon. Dmcdevit·t 05:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how giving RI adminship will benefit anyone, since he has left the project. If he returns to the project in the future, he may always reapply for adminship. Honory adminship may prompt some to leave wikipedia after a bad RFA to achieve the 'martyr' status. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * While his leaving is a terrible end to the situation, my main concern is that the bureaucrat did not correctly close. Kim Bruning 06:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Closing an RFA is a subjective decision - rarely is there one correct answer. Ed has exercised his judgment. If Rl wishes to reapply, the prior objections will no doubt become irrelevant, because you have drawn attention to their invalidity. His departure is unfortunate, but has already occurred, and unless you would like to encourage him to return, I don't see that there's anything to be done here. &mdash; Dan | talk 06:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to encourage him to return. Kim Bruning 06:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It also reinforces the misconception that adminship is an honorary title. &mdash; David Remahl 06:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that's a good point. Ok, just promote to admin then, minus "honorary". Kim Bruning 06:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

...What the? I don't care about the particular vote, but you can't just go disqualifying people's votes because you think their interpretation of policy is incorrect. Bureaucrats should just be counting the votes, figuring out who are legitimate users and who (if any) are sockpuppets or trolls, not determining whether somebody was voting for the right or wrong reason. Everyking 06:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * the same thing is common on AFD. We don't delete articles because someone says "I've never heard of this", or "this article sucks". --Phroziac . o ºO (mmmmm chocolate!) 06:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I remember noting that RfA while it was in progress and thinking that Rl was getting a raw deal; plainly, they were talking about Wikipedia philosophy, understood the philosophy behind consensus correctly, and should not have had their RfA wrecked over those comments. That said, the RFA was closed correctly, and all the issues being raised now were brought up by Mindspillage and others while it was in progress. Bureaucrats may disregard comments on RfAs that they judge to be invalid.  They are not required to do so, and requesting that a five-month old adminship request be overturned based on the way a bureaucrat interpreted it strikes me as an unpalatable precident. Bureaucrats are given broad leeway in closing RfAs precisely to prevent requests such as these from materializing. --Aquillion 06:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Everyking, I am shocked and dissapointed to hear that coming from you. I thought you were very strongly committed to consensus. Kim Bruning 06:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * To me, consensus is never just raw numbers but is much like Justice Byron White's definition of pornography: "I know it when I see it." I would hope that any bureaucrat would consider the nature of the votes in determining whether a consensus exists.  That is not to say that a bureaucrat should consider mere differences of opinion as sufficient to discount votes, pro or con, but votes which show that they are based on a clearly erroneous basis should be given less weight in the outcome.  Thus, if a particular bureaucrat typically looks for 80% support before approving an admin, he or she might decide that that 40 strong support votes and 11 votes saying nothing truly negative but making points like "We don't need more admins" may be a consensus for approval, while another candidate who has 40 support votes saying "he seems like a nice guy" and 9 votes which strongly oppose his promotion due to repeated documented instances of incivility does not have a consensus for appointment.  Of course, the lack of a fixed percentage for "consensus" leaves considerable leeway anyway, but it seems to me that consensus does require the bureaucrat to look beyond the numbers.  If that is not the case, we should eliminate the pretense of "consensus" and just stick in fiexed percentages (though I hope that never happens). -- DS1953 08:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see how wanting people's opinions to count is against consensus. I see it as being in favor of consensus. Maybe I just don't understand the issue. I just don't think you can discount votes like that. There are reasons for discounting votes, but being wrong, or having an invalid reason, is not one of them. Anybody can see what that would mean if you applied it generally&mdash;votes would be discounted left and right for all kinds of reasons, depending on the viewpoint of the one counting them, and every vote would turn into a battle. I think that in the interest of fairly evaluating a debate, you need to just look at whether someone is a legitimate contributor, expressing a view seriously. You hope that if someone has an obvious misunderstanding of policy someone will inform them, and then they might change their mind. Everyking 08:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I voted against Rl in that RfA, and KimBruning has a point- I misunderstood what Rl meant when he said consensus was only 100%- I thought he meant that, for instance he would count a 99% delete VfD as no cosensus(keep). Rl clarified his position the day after my vote, and I didn't see it. Thus my vote (and those who voted on the sameobjection) should have probably been ignored. Borisblue 13:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't participate in that RfA, but I fully understand those who opposed RI. His answer to Hamster's question was a smart-aleck way to avoid it. The question itself is a legitimate one: Faced with an AfD with X percent Delete votes and 100-X percent Keep votes&mdash;all valid, well-reasoned votes&mdash;what would be the minimum value of X for which you would close this AfD as Delete? For most admins the answer lies somewhere between 66% and 80%. But RI doesn't answer the question; instead, he tells us that at 100% he'd call it a consensus and at 50% he wouldn't. This kind of non-answer is a slap in the face of Hamster Sandwich and anyone else who was expecting a real answer, as the Oppose votes clearly show. RI had plenty of opportunity to enhance his response and give the voters a real answer, but for some reason he chose not to do that. While RI's understanding of policy may be perfect, I think he showed very poor tact in this case, and that, regrettably, cost him an almost-certain adminship, and cost us an excellent editor. I sincerely wish RI would come back, and hope he runs for RfA again, but I do not think this RfA should be overturned. Owen&times;  &#9742;  02:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Rl simply stated that it isn't a simple black and white matter. You don't seem to disagree with that perspective so why do you complain about his answer? It's clear that Hamster Sandwich thinks it is some black and white percentage, frankly I think Hamster's question was the slap because there really was no right answer to his wrongheaded question. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no, please. --Gmaxwell 20:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich RFA (Archive 41)
Some new evidence has come to light Re: Hamster Sandwich.

Would it be possible to reopen extend the RFA?

Kim Bruning 05:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if you could be less cryptic. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you please show the difs you are referring to? I recall Rl stating that he considered 100% unanimity as his standard for closing debates. Hamster Sandwich 06:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, please provide a link to the new evidence. Friday (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich, your statement is false. He said that 100% of opinion was considered consensus at AFD. (which as good an answer as any other, and the answer holds everywhere else).

Your own question and your statement in opposition to his rfa demanded numeric values for consensus. This is a pertinently false and extremely annoying misconception. I would have liked to oppose your request for adminship on that basis. Kim Bruning 06:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Kim, we can't just reopen the RFA because of a past mistake. Should we open Radiant!'s, Splash's, et al's RFA's too? R e  dwolf24  (talk)  Attention Washingtonians!  06:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The RFA was only closed a couple of hours ago. Kim Bruning 06:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that once promoted, its very difficult to deadmin someone. Only stewards have the power to desysop someone, and a desysop process is extremely bureaucratic and controversial. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Errr, how is something that happened months ago "new evidence"?  If you failed to participate and now regret it, come right out and say so.  Altho I doubt an RFA would be re-opened for such a silly reason.  Friday (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I heard from the cabal, it was closed over a day early. It's not Kim's fault it was closed early and therefore he missed it. --Phroziac . o ºO (mmmmm chocolate!) 06:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Phroziac, though Friday, indeed I do regret it most dearly. Seeing the terrible howler made by Hamster Sandwich, I don't think my request is silly. Kim Bruning 06:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If the nomination was closed early (and it appears that it was), it should be reopened. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * At the time of the closing of Rl's RfA, there were suggested percentages listed here That is what I was basing my comments and questions concerning Rl's opinion of what constituted consensus (as pertains to VfD votes). Those guidelines have been changed since then. It is disingenuous on your part Kim Bruning to come in here with your own "howlers" about what the guidelines are as compared to what they were back in late August. I see on the history pages of Consensus and its discussion page that you have been active there. You must have been aware that at one time there were numerical guidelines, expressed in percentages. I can assure you that I will become an active participant in the ongoing discussion at those pages. But, to be perfectly clear, I voted based on my opinion of the candidate, a decision based not only on Rl's responses to my question (which by the way he could have ignored), as well as the responses of the many other editors which voiced there support and opposition to that candidate. I think before you accuse me again of somehow obfuscating, you should carefully read through Rl's RfA. I wasn't alone in my critisism of Rl's standards, and his stance on consensus was not the only reason that was given for the oppose votes. Hamster Sandwich 17:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You asked him what consensus is. Consensus is 100%. That's the definition of consensus. But...you almost never get consensus in AFD. We go by rough consensus over there, which is what the percentages that were listed on that page were for. --Phroziac . o ºO (mmmmm chocolate!) 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have to take strong exception to that. 100% is not "the definition of consensus." One definition of consensus is: "1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole; 2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus." Or, if you prefer Merriam-Webster, "a : general agreement : unanimity; b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned; 2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief" . Unanimity is consensus, but consensus need not be unanimity. In particular, consensus can certainly be reached when there are people in a group who do not agree with a decision, but nevertheless consent to it. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're rehashing an ancient and ongoing discussion. Apparently for the point of beating someone up after their RfA. -Splash talk 18:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Early close actually. Some people are basically opposed to actual consensus, wishing for supermajority instead. Since this is virally opposed to en.wikipedia policy, these people should probably just go away. Kim Bruning 01:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Go have a beer with Gmaxwell. He wants a bunch of people to leave the project, too. -Splash talk 02:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What was the reason for an early close? It shouldn't have been done. -Splash talk 17:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My guess -- somebody forgot that November has but 30 days, and the closer neglected to notice this. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, the time on the nomination was left as the time the nomination was made, not the time that it was accepted/posted at RFA. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like something of a cumulation of contributory errors. The ending time, as listed on the request page, was nomination time+6 days, not listing time+7.  So this wasn't introduced by the closer, though ideally they'd have spotted it, as clearly this one wasn't at the head of the queue, but rather before several others (that weren't closed at the same time due to (correctly) having a later closing time listed).  Or, indeed, someone else could have fixed the ending time while the nomination was running.  Which should it be, acceptance time, or listing time?  I assume the latter.  If this was more clearly stated, perhaps third parties would be more likely to "sofixit".  As it wasn't totally clear-cut, I'd support re-opening for the additional period of time.  If there's no significant change to the existing pattern, then there's no problem, and the issue is solved;  if there's enough late-breaking opposes to make a difference, we can deal with that if and when it arises.  If we have to decide a detailed procedure in advance, we're doooooomed.  Alai 05:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking the nominator was looking at the date for his local time, rather than UTC. The time part (compare to date) of course is auto-done, so he would be off by a full 24 hours. We could always get the devs to make ONEWEEKFROMNOW and we could implement it ;) R  e  dwolf24  (talk)  Attention Washingtonians!  05:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

After reading this discussion and doing some poking around and finding this exchange I felt disillusioned about the RfA process. I wrote the following on Jimbo's talk page:
 * ==Cabal ?==
 * I didn't believe in such a stupid thing. Then I witnessed a VfA being closed out early after Brian asked Raul to personally take charge of Hamster's nomination. At first I thought it a joke but no, Hamster was plucked out early in a marginal election that could have gone either way if left for the required time. I've been totally disillusioned by the blatant and seemingly open and prejudicial influence with this promotion.  Hamster may indeed be well qualified to be an admin, that's not the point. It's the discussion between Brian and Raul with Brian asking Raul to "personally" deal with the nomination and Raul gleefully responding "I did it (I'll leave out the smiley)" that I don't understand. The nomination was  pulled early and before others had a chance to Oppose.  That stinks of cabal. If you're allowed to read this then take a peek. I deliberately left out the diffs so that you can go through what we all have to do.<BR>
 * I also realize that I will be Persona non grata after this posting and with all my heart I wish that it wouldn't be so but, realistically I know that I will be marginalized after this; the price I pay for this expression. I'm not a wonderful contributor anyway so no great loss to the project, just a disillusioned one. (Heidi and Joe) -- hydnjo talk 02:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What form of response are you expecting to this statement? Why have you said this? Giano | talk 19:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's an observation which hydnjo is quite free to make. I think the expected response is perhaps "yes, we should avoid extra-procedural removals." Marskell 20:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Four of more support votes would have had to switch to oppose, or at least three new oppose votes would have had to register for the concensus to promote would have been nullified. And this is if there were no more support votes garnered. It is doubtful that unless someone got active rallying an opposition that the outcome would have been different and I think this is a bunch of petty garbage over a simple misunderstanding of AfD concensus.--MONGO 20:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Before everyone piles in with their views on Hydnjos's motives for saying this, could Hydnjo please give their reasons. They obviously feel they have a reason for bringing a remark left on Jimbo's page here. Could they please explain their aims for doing.  Specifically to the remark: "I also realize that I will be Persona non grata after this posting and with all my heart I wish that it wouldn't be so but, realistically I know that I will be marginalized after this; the price I pay for this expression" Giano | talk 20:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure MONGO was replying to Hydnjo. I think there are two issues here: Hamster Sandwich being singled out because of an RfA a long time ago, and the fact that his RfA was closed early.  It looks to me like MONGO was saying the first one of those was unjust, which I agree with, and not commenting on the reasons for the early closing at all. -- SCZenz 20:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You are correct, as I was only responding to this entire charade. I do not think that the early closing was anything other than a simple mistake, and certainly forgiveable. As I mentioned, the outcome would have probably still ben to promote. During my RfA, the concensus to promote or not to changed only three or four percentage points after the first 4 days it was up and even though I was not promoted for a day and a half after the end of voting, this still remained the same. Though it is hard to desysop someone, it is also doubtful that Hamster Sandwich is going to be a bad admin and my sentiments are that he will certainly be better than some we have.--MONGO 21:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'm speaking for the Joe half of hydnjo. The comments I posted on Jimbo's talk were a record of my personal observations. I chose to post my comments there so as to record my observations and feelings somewhere other than my own user space. I remain neutral as to the merit of Hamster's promotion and in the back of my mind somewhere I feel it was a just promotion. My comments were then and still are premised on the intervention that I noted. I copied my comments here at the suggestion of another user, not that I think that the promotion was unfair but that the process was compromised. And Giano, as to your question well, my comments here have already been characterized as "a bunch of petty garbage". --hydnjo talk 21:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I believe MONGO clarified that his comment was not a reply to hyndjo, but in any event I think referring to any editor's concern as "a bunch of petty garbage" shows very poor judgment. -- DS1953 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, to make it clear, it was a reply to all. As far as this being a "bunch of petty garbage"...yes, indeed, it certainly is. The thought of condemning an editor and asking for the early closing of an RfA to be reopended just because in a week one or so editors failed to chime in and somehow want to vote oppose just because the nominee contested another RfA which happened months ago, is absolutely petty.--MONGO 22:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But I don't think that's the responsibility of Hydnjo; they just thought it was suspicious that the early close was done after an apparent request to do so. I personally disagree with them, but I have no intention of ostraciizing or condemning them for asking Jimbo about it.  The movement to undo Hamster Sandwich's RfA because of his vote on an RfA months ago is making him a scapegoat in order to make a point about consensus, and I frankly do think that's a bit petty, or at least uncivil and a violation of WP:POINT. -- SCZenz 22:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think SCZenz has stated his point fairly and I agree. The harm was not in Hamster's question but in how a number of editors interpreted (or, in at least one instance noted above, misinterpreted) RI's response, with unfortunate consequences. -- DS1953 22:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Allow me to stress: I had no and still have no knowledge of any prior situations having to do with Hamster. If folks want argue that point well then go ahead. But please don't misconstrue my comments as having to do with anything other than my personal observations with regard to this early closing by a bureaucrat at the behest of another user. --hydnjo talk 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Luigi30's RFA (Archive 42)
Hey all, I was looking at various percentages and I noticed that Luigi30's percentage of support votes was comparatively low compared to others (just over 72%). I was under the impression that this was typically below the threshold for becoming an admin. Am I wrong, have the standards been lowered recently, or is this a one-off? Talrias (t | e | c) 00:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that between 70 and 80% was a bcrat call. Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  00:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's up to the closing bureaucrat's judgement and unless he (Rdsmith4) in this case) puts down notes there's no way of knowing how he weighed it, but in terms of percentages it's normally around 70% and 80% though that's not a hard and fast rule. Jtkiefer T  00:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've watched this page on and off for about a year, and this is the lowest amount of support I've seen for a successful RFA. The margin for bureaucrat judgement has previously been from 75%-80% - which seems narrow, until you consider that in terms of a ratio of support to opposition it's from 3:1 to 4:1.  If some of those opposing were ignored in the final consideration, some explanation would be nice. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * From what I gather, the accepted principle is that bcrats use their own discretion over the range of 70 to 80 percent supprt. Outside of that range–in the absence of socks, etc.–community opinion is taken to be pretty clear.  In practice, a 75% threshold is usually used; 72.4% seems unusually low for a 'successful' candidacy.


 * On the other hand, for this particular RfA, I count ten oppose votes based solely on a low level of recent activity (six further oppose voters present additional or alternate reasons.) This would seem to suggest that those voters are not terribly concerned that Luigi30 would be harmful as an admin, or that he would be likely to abuse his admin powers.  Of course, we could always just ask Rdsmith4. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 08:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was one of the people that voted oppose based on low activity. My vote was in large part because I feel that inactive editors can inadvertently cause harm due to lack of familiarity and expertise in executing policy and procedure. In fact, during Luigi30's RfA there was a day when he placed three copyvio notices on pages and didn't complete the procedure properly by listing them according to the instructions at WP:CV. I've discussed this with Luigi30 in private. --Durin 13:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And I told him why: my monobook.js script wasn't working properly. Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa;) 15:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * On the other other hand, at least all of the oppose votes (full disclosure, one was mine) gave reasons for their oppose votes. Not all of the support voters did (including one that simply says "That's hot!"). I'm concerned that this is turning into a simple vote counting, which I thought was discouraged in favor of an actual discussion; it would be nice if everyone gave a reason for their vote, be it support or oppose. The "would not abuse his admin powers" above is a bit of a strawman: there are many other criteria that myself and others use when voting, so please don't insinuate that our votes should count less because our adminship philosophy does not agree with yours. Turnstep 13:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is probably a calculation mistake by the b'crat? Also, if the rationale for "promotion" is that he is unlikely to abuse admin privileges, then the same rationale must be applied for a user who doesn't vandalise and may have been around for only 15 days but has, say, 500 edits. I also believe that neutral votes must be split into half as support and oppose votes - then the candidates would need to get substantially more support votes to clear his rfa for a given % cut-off (the math I've done for two possible scenarios seems to indicate this, but I may be wrong). --Gurubrahma 14:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree that neutral votes should count at all. When I vote neutral I am doing so intentionally and do not expect that my vote will increase the burden on the nominee.  If neutral votes were split 50/50 between support and oppose, then to counterbalance four neutral votes, a nominee would need to get 6 extra support votes just to "neutralize" the neutral votes. Assuming that about an 80/20 requirement for promotion, the 2 manufactured oppose votes would need 8 support votes, or 6 more than the 2 manufactured support votes.  That seems extremely unfair and counter to what "neutral" means to most people. -- DS1953 15:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, I think this is an RFA that was helped a lot by the nominee's high level of activity on IRC, I'm not sure that another editor with the same Wikipeia editing levels but without any IRC presence would have been successful. You could argue that IRC is as good place as any to get to know someone and decide if they'd abuse the tools...or you might argue that activity there doesn't get you the familiarity of policys and procedures. It's probably a bit of both. Either way, I don't think this would have passed without his IRC use. Rx StrangeLove 15:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The implication of that is that the 'crat closed this on his own personal judgement of the candidate based on some IRC chat. That is not appropriate: the 'crat is to determine the weighing of the debate here, not idle chit-chat the 'crat may have experienced elsewhere. To do so would be to vote with your makesysop button. -Splash talk 15:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my implication at all, activity on IRC can effect the number of votes because other users on IRC become aware and familar with the nominee who, as was the case here, has a generally lower level of involvement on Wikipedia. Rx StrangeLove 15:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issue with people using #Wikipedia. But, IRC is not Wikipedia. Potential admins should be judged based on their performance on Wikipedia, not #Wikipedia. --Durin 16:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, and my point here was that this one was influenced by #Wikipedia and another editor with no IRC activity and the same level of Wikipedia involvement might not have had the same result. Rx StrangeLove 16:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ...which I think is unfortunate. Getting more votes because of IRC activity smacks of popularity contest. How popular someone is says nothing about their ability to be an admin. --Durin 16:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (Insert witty retort and note that I have never been on IRC). bd2412  T 16:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes it is unfortunate if indeed it is being used as a popularity contest but you can't deny that people vote based on familiarity with the canidate and IRC is a good way to get familiar with a canidate and his/her views as well as interacting with them to further the goals of the project. Jtkiefer T  16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that neutral votes shoudn't count. Add up the Supports and Oppose votes, divide by ten and multiply by 7 or 8 and that is how many support votes a person needs to have over 70 or 80 % (whatever the right threshold is) of the "vote" A neutral vote would skew the results. Am I wrong?Gator (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Insofar as this is a good demonstration of why it is not a simple vote, yes. -Splash talk 16:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. I learned alot.Gator (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's not a simple vote, then the crats are therefore going on a "gut instinct" or depending on how loud the opposition or support is? If that's the case, then all the crats that are acting that way should no longer be in those positions. Maybe some promote based simply on exceeding the 70% support threshold.--MONGO 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The crats should be going on reading the debate as well as looking at the weight of numbers. Sometimes, there's no need, such as in a 50/0/0 or 0/50/0 etc. But in cases where a crat is using their judgement, a simple vote count doesn't make the grade by any means. It is important to make sure that the oppose votes are in good faith, and that the supports are not puppetry or other foul play (as well as being in good-faith, but I guess bad-faith support is harder to come by). The 'loudness' of the opposition/support is much less important than the depth and persuasiveness of their reasoning. I reject entirely the notion that I am suggesting crats should go on "gut instinct". We made them Bureaucrats because they can judge consensus-or-not from difficult debates not merely because they can add up and divide by 100. -Splash talk 17:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Splash, I am well aware that bureaucrats do read the comments in close nominations. I trust that they do indeed behave that way. Luckily for Gator, at least you decided to be more descriptive with me and perhaps that answered his comment for him.--MONGO 17:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote counts are the most important factor in deciding whether to promote a user. They often reveal clearly whether there is consensus to promote. But there are borderline cases, and these are where it is important for the Bureaucrat to judge the merits of the situation, based on the support and oppose votes and related discussions - including neutral votes. The actual instructions to Bureaucrats are brief - see Bureaucrats. Warofdreams talk 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Those instructions have been there only since November 1. In comparison, the instructions at the top of WP:RFA have said 75-80% since July 14; before that, they were at 80% back to September 13, 2004.  (A projection based on those three data points says that by September 2006, candidates will only need a straight majority...) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What is the point of continuing this discussion, if you are seeking to have his promotion overturned then state that it's your goal otherwise I fail to see where this discussion has any hope of going. Jtkiefer T  19:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The point was to get an explanation. Now I know that it's a better reason to oppose a candidate because they tend to make typos than because they all but left the project since their last nomination was rejected. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is fair to expect a bureaucrat to explain what he based his decision on if questioned. As it happened, Xoloz asked
 * "Not to bicker too much, but I see one 71% closed as unsuccessful, and another as successful, by the same bureaucrat, on the same day. I supported both, but I feel some discomfort at what appears to me, at first blush, to be an incongruity. I know you might have reason for your decision, so I'll ask what they are, please" (see User talk:Rdsmith4)
 * and got the answer
 * "When it's a close call, I am obliged to consider more factors than the numbers alone. This can include reasons for opposing. Luigi's were largely due to amount of activity, while Aranda's were more substantive, citing grammar and issues with AFD and deletion discussions; based on these and similar observations, I made an informed decision. My own prior experience with both candidates is nil, if you're interested." (see User talk:Xoloz)
 * This closes the matter as far as I am concerned. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad he answered someone. He told Everyking to complain to the other bureaucrats and ignored Carbonite entirely when they asked.  &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That is poor. A 'crat should always be prepared to explain their actions, especially when asked in a case(s) such as this. Referring to other bureaucrats doesn't sit, because it wasn't them that made the promotion. Ignoring someone is not something that has an excuse or reason available for it in this particular set of circumstances. If a 'crat isn't prepared to explain their RfA decisions, they shouldn't be making them at all. -Splash talk 03:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Everyking did not ask about my reasoning; he asked that the nomination be extended. I declined to do it myself, since I don't believe it is necessary, but I referred him to the other bureaucrats to see if their opinions differ, which I find a perfectly fair thing to do. I did not notice Carbonite's comment until you mentioned it here (perhaps, on occasion, you make mistakes too?). I am perfectly prepared to explain my reasoning, and I did so to Xoloz, who actually requested it; I won't repeat it here as someone has already done so. It's also unfair to say that my actions are unjustifiable without even asking me to justify them. &mdash; Dan | talk 04:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Withdrawn nomination (Archive 45)
Would someone close Lotsofissues's RFA, please? Voters do not seem to have noticed that he has withdrawn. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Archive 46)
I want to renominate User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me for adminship, because it looks like he's a really excellent user. But his first RfA closed only a week ago. How much longer should I wait? <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P | Talk 11:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * CSCWEM has asked to postpone any renom until April. See . Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's honor that...it is simply too soon.--MONGO 11:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait one month. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He's really a great user, just that people oppose due to the short time he spent here. Let's respect his decision and don't go against it. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 15:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you wait too long, the clown may already have eaten him. But you could always nominate the clown. -- Cecropia 15:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I know we tolerate evil aliens, homocidal canines, criminal clergy and even sysops that eat babies, but I really must draw the line at man-eating clowns. No sir, no man-eating clowns will get my vote.  Dragons flight 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We can't let the clowns go hungry! -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose until username is chosen that doesn't elicit terrifying childhood recollections. Marskell 16:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you like a balloon? We have them, all colors, and they float. -- Cecropia 16:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * When you're down here, you'll float too... TigerShark 19:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We do have a user account for It, but there are no edits.-gadfium 20:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose All usernames taken from 5-year-old Hot Topic T-shirts (I keed, I keed) --W.marsh 16:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly think the name is hilarious. My personal favorite, however, is Can't Think of a Good Name. -- §  Hurricane  ERIC  §Damages archive 14:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems nobody finds the name offensive then. Good. -- Ec5618 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say that this thread is starting to look fairly symmetrical. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  17:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya, like YOUR username is normal, Voldy... (just doing my bit for symmetry) ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How about stopping this thread when we reach the left border? - Liberatore(T) 18:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We are getting closer. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I ain't gonna be the one who ends it... but the next person might. This is one of the oddest things I think I've seen on WP. Sooo weird. Why are we doing this? -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  19:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Cause... It's the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends. Some people started typing it, not knowing what it was...  Dragons flight 19:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Cool Cat 3 (Archive 47)
I de-transcluded this: the user self-nommed and indicated no acceptance of his own nominaiton. The Land 22:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, isn't that a little rules-lawyery? I never accepted my self nom.  It's implicit in making one!  Are you just looking for an excuse to take it down?  Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it is explicitly not a request for adminship because the user says he doesn't really want to be an admin. I read 'really' as a statement of fact, not as a modifier to 'want', and I think the nomination is clearly an abuse of RfA, but I'm not going to remove it again. The Land 22:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat seems to either be making a point, or using the page for his own ends ("I just dont want anyone to tell me admin-worthy again"). This isn't what the page is for, and is disruptive. Cool Cat - you are obviously not happy - but this is not the solution -- sannse (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As one of Cool Cat's appointed mentors, I have taken the unusual step of removing the RFA from the page. Reviewing his recent actions, it appears that he is making this self-nomination because he feels upset and has chosen this method as an outlet, rather than having a realistic expectation of becoming an administrator on this occasion.

This is a temporary removal, not prejudicial to the application, while I seek to communicate with Cool Cat and clarify his feelings and his intended course of action. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal but I have reverted Sannse's blanking and the attack note on the RFA page. Neither are necessary especially the attack note.  Jtkiefer T   23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It was in no way intended as an attack note. I have always had a good relationship with Cool Cat, and my biggest emotion here is worry.  Like Tony, I am attempting to talk to him (although not as a mentor of course) and I'm sure this will all be sorted.  I'll cut the note down to a minimum - please let me know if I leave anything in it that could in any way be thought an attack. -- sannse (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, I'll leave as is for now - I think blanking is best, but protection alone will at least prevent further dispute on the page. -- sannse (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral to Cool Cat (I've had mainly neutral or positive interactions with him), but I wanted to let you know that Cool Cat's decided to resubmit his RFA. However, this version is much more neutral in tone than the previous one (if a lot more concise). If his mentors want to do something about it, go ahead. If Cool Cat is submitting this RFA to make a WP:POINT, maybe everyone should just refrain from voting either way. --Deathphoenix 15:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As am I. I really don't know what to say, and I'm flabbergasted that MARMOT has made this much trouble for him... Ethier way, I think he's a great contributor to the project, but I couldn't support nor oppose him; as I think something is amiss concerning this rfar. -ZeroTalk 15:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Bling-chav (Archive 47)
This user's only contributions so far are on RfA, and have all been made today. I have left a note on his talk page saying that his votes may be disregarded, given the circumstances. If this is ignored I will begin to suspect the votes are trollng or vandalism. The Land 14:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He certainly doesn't have a name which screams 'helpful'; see chav. My guess is that he is nominating everyone he sees; 4836.03 welcomed him, as did UkPaolo. Both then got nominated. And now he's RFA'd himself. <font style="color:#00BB55"> Σμυρραυ <font style="color:#00AA77"> ινκχ <font style="color:green">ε <font style="color:#00AA77"> στερ <font style="color:#00AA77">(υσερ), (Ταλκ) 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be suprised if he/she is a sockpuppet. When a new user know how to sign his/her name, then he/she's usually a sockpuppet. Genuine n00bs always have to have it carefully explained. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not if they come from other wikis. NSL E (T+C) 00:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed two of his three noms (the other one was declined) from the page as bad-faith and thus vandalism. NSL E (T+C) 01:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed two more noms today, not by Bling-chav, but by two editors nominating each other, as bad-faith. If you disagree, please revert but leave a note here and on my talk page. NSL E (T+C) 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dynamic? (Archive 47)
I just wanted to make sure the situation at Requests for adminship/Dynamic was clear to all, particularly the bureaucrats. Dynamic is a brand-new user (first edit 1/29), and his RFA started badly. He voted for himself while impersonating Freestylefrappe, and Freestylefrappe blocked him. While he was blocked, I pleaded with voters to stop urging him to withdraw, since he was incapable of doing so. NSLE then removed his RFA, saying "if this is wrong please revert" in his edit summary. No one objected (and I think NSLE was right to do so). However, the RFA is technically still open. Dynamic's block has expired, but he has not returned. Two questions: should the RFA be officially closed? And more generally, does anyone have any ideas to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future? This was an extreme case--I can't remember an RFA candidate blocked for actions at his own RFA before--but certainly similar things have happened and will happen with very new users. Any thoughts would be welcome. Chick Bowen 21:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not an admin, but I agree that NSLE's move was the correct one. If some formal process needs to take place to close Dynamic's nomination, it should probably be done too. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This conforms to process on Front Matter as it stands. A non-crat may de-list for "vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination." This would qualify as the first. Marskell 21:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The first? Many poorly-formed nominations have been removed by non-crats, even by non-admins. I removed a couple of clearly Farblondzhet ones myself quite some time ago. Jonathunder 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he meant "first" to refer to the first of the three reasons (vandalism), the way one would user "former" to refer to the first of two items. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless anyone objects, I move this to be speedy deleted. --Durin 22:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why delete? What if he goes up for RfA again in 2 months?  It'd be nice to have this record. -lethe talk 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I closed the RfA. -lethe talk 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, Lethe. I've left a message on his talk page.  No reason to delete the RFA--as Lethe says, we should keep it as a record.  By the way, Jonathunder, I think what Marskell meant is not that this RFA was a first as that it was the first of his examples, i.e. vandalism.  I actually don't think that's the case--I still believe, based on this user's other contributions, that it was a good-faith effort by a very confused editor.  We'll see if he ever comes back. Chick Bowen 23:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks Chick. Marskell 11:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggested delete because it's quite similar to efforts by a multiple sockpuppet vandal that was attempting to disrupt RfA a bit back. I don't see any need or reason to keep around BJAODN RfAs. --Durin 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I probably haven't been around VfA long enough to see that kind of bad stuff, but I think this was not vandalism, just a really bad self-nom. Which means I guess I disagree with Marskell's assessment above.  Perhaps we didn't have the right to close and delist this RfA, at least not under current guidelines.  Maybe a rule should be written. -lethe talk [ +] 11:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It also states "improper formatting" as a reason for a non-crat to de-list. I don't think we need more rule-creep. Front Matter is pretty straightforward about who can do what, when. Marskell 11:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is straightforward, then why are you vacillating between two interpretations (vandalism and improper formatting)? And it's unclear to me whether by closing the VfA, I implicitly made a decision about consensus.  If so, then as a non-bureaucrat I certainly violated that point.  So I know non-bcrats can delist, but who can close, and when can they close? -lethe talk [ +] 11:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not vacillating between anything. I do happen to think it was vandalism/disruption and I'm only pointing out that if you thought it was simply improper formatting that's justified as it stands as well; this is always going to be somewhat subjective no matter how precise we make RfA rules. My suggestion in general would be: if you're uncertain, don't delist. In this case, I think it was quite fair. Marskell 12:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, well I guess that's good enough for me. -lethe talk [ +] 12:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The repeated vandalism with fake RfAs happened within the last two weeks. An individual created a number of accounts, edited the main user page of each to contain little in the way of content, created a number badly formatted RfAs, created sockpuppets to vote for himself, and managed to get most (if not all) of the accounts banned. Dynamic is just the latest incarnation of this. See User:Big Potato, User:Gary the Snail, and User:AngryBeaver for prior examples of this. We haven't kept those RfAs around, and I don't see any reason to keep this one around either. This person is very bent on disruption of RfA for some unknown reason. --Durin 13:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, well like I said, I haven't been around that long. Not even two weeks, just since I got nominated a week ago.  So I missed all that stuff.  If this is an instance of that sort of vandalism, then I support speedying it.  We don't need the record of the RfA.  We might need a record of all the accounts under which this vandalism was attempted though.  Does such a list exist? -lethe talk [ +] 13:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't think Dynamic is the same user as those Durin mentions, since they are all from IPs in the 70.248 range and Dynamic edits from User:202.141.148.18 (talk • contribs). However, I think it was properly closed as badly formatted and I don't think it matters much whether it's deleted.  The only reason to keep is that Dynamic has not been indefinitely banned, unlike the accounts Durin mentions, and could conceivably run again some day.  Chick Bowen 15:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you know what IP Dynamic is editing from? I also note that AngryBeaver is a fan of Naruto and that one of the very few edits Dynamic has made is to Naruto . Seems a little too coincidental to me, but I grant that it's simply coincidental. The bad formatting of the RfAs is virtually identical too though, and that's another coincidence. Then add in that AngryBeaver and co.'s RfAs had sockpuppet votes, and so does Dynamics. Another coincidence. Hmm. --Durin 15:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * After he was blocked, he left a message from that IP on Bishonen's talk page asking her to vote for him (she declined). I don't know whether Dynamic is a sockpuppet or not, Durin--if you're convinced he is, then I accept that (though if so maybe you should block him again, since he's currently unblocked).  I do think that there have been plenty of examples of RFAs that were premature by many months but were not malicious, and I think we should have an agreed-upon strategy for dealing with them in line with WP:BITE. Chick Bowen 16:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the diff. I'm not 100% convinced. It's just circumstancial evidence after all. It's just too many consequences for me to have much doubt. But, a little doubt I do have. I agree with your suggestion on an agreed strategy. Some numbers: 9% (43 of 487) of all completed RfAs since June 23, 2005 have been for editors with less than 750 edits. 7% (34) have had less than 500 edits. All failed. --Durin 17:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Request Retracted (Archive 48)
My request for adminship is hereby retracted. --NightDragon 04:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Help (Archive 48)
Can someone put Requests for adminship/Mrs Gastrich up please?? It wont let me add to the list.Mrs Gastrich 07:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The page has been semi-protected, so users can't sign themselves or others up until they have at least some undertstanding Wikipedia. Unfortunately, with only 4 edits, you really don't stand a chance, which is why you can't edit the list. <font style="color:#0077FF"> smurray <font style="color:#0055CC"> inch <font style="color:green">e <font style="color:#0055CC"> ster <font style="color:#0055CC">(User), (Talk) 07:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the procedure for signing to edit Semi-protected pages? Thanks-- Shyam ( T / C ) 08:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The system lets you edit once you have been on Wikipedia for at four days. <font style="color:#0077FF"> smurray <font style="color:#0055CC"> inch <font style="color:green">e <font style="color:#0055CC"> ster <font style="color:#0055CC">(User), (Talk) 08:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it four days or after you're within a certain percentile of users by date joined? &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  01:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's four days. The percentile method was dropped when a "user_creation" field was added to the user database. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 01:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is also now the threshold for moving pages. -Splash talk 01:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Ricardo Lagos (Archive 48)
Just so everyone would know, I closed the above RFA due to lack of support. It was a self-nomination by a user that vandalized before and his account was only a few hours old. If you have any complaints about the delisting of this nomination, please let me know. M o e  ε  23:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't got a problem...though if it was only "hacking," perhaps he deserves it :-D. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 07:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears to be ok. Is not it? --Bhadani 14:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am also in favour of delisting the candidate. -- Shyam ( T / C ) 21:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Chaz365 (Archive 48)
Just so everyone would know, I closed the above RFA due to lack of support. It was a self-nomination by a user that vandalized before and his account was only a few hours old. If you have any complaints about the delisting of this nomination, please let me know. M o e  ε  21:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't, but do we want (or have) a more formalized way of dealing with joke requests in future? ProhibitOnions 23:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I just removed a nom from a new user, and left a note on his page to explain kindly that he could use a little more time here. I think that should be policy, if not talk to them first to avoid embarrasment. Thoughts? - Mys  e  kurity 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Every time a proposal comes up to have minimum standards for someone to be nominated or self-nominate for RfA, it gets shot down...even if it's something as small as 100 edits and 1 month. --Durin 02:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While any such proposal gets shot down, I've never seen the removal of a brand new user (under 100 edits) cause any serious objection from the community. If those of us who watch RfA closely just removed those on the spot, those who are trolling would soon find it isn't as rewarding as it is now. Just leave a nice note on the user's page and then refuse to be baited if that user turns out to be a troll. NoSeptember   talk  17:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Proposals for minimum standards get shot down because I don't think such rules are bound to accomplish anything. New rules always have a price attached to them, and where common sense suffices most of the time I think it is good to leave it at that. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And while we are at it, why not just semi-protect it? --Gurubrahma 17:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This page does get protected on and off, but the trolls just wait for their moment. As to Oleg's comment, just going ahead and removing these names without waiting for a formal rule is "common sense" and is why no one tends to object when it is done. So why don't we just systematically apply common sense instead of try to create a new rule ;-). NoSeptember   talk  17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ((de-indenting) If it is statistically impossible for someone with 4/50/100 edits to become an admin, doesn't that make it a de facto rule/guideline? Aren't guidelines on WP supposed to be descriptive, rather than proscriptive? I'm genuinely asking, because it seems that if no consensus can ever be reached on a user of that few edits, there's no point in a) feeding the trolls or b) letting the genuine newbies get their feelings hurt. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Aaaargh (Archive 49)
Someone want to vote on Essjay's RfB? right now the tally displays......THe number of the beast!!!--Alhutch 16:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6660 is the number of the beast? Talk about inflation. -- Cecropia 16:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski (Archive 49)
Could a bureaucrat please remove Requests for adminship/Bormalagurski? It is clear that he is abusing RfA to become able to close Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (second nomination) as a "keep", even though the only people voting "keep" there are he and his friends from the Serbian Wikipedia. I would remove it myself but am bound my own policy that only allows non-bureaucrats to remove declined or withdrawn nominations. <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P | Talk 11:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

17 day RfA - CSCWEM2 (Archive 49)
Not to be difficult, but the nominators of CSCWEM 2 appear to be angling for a 17 day RfA. Why did people wait until 10 days after the first vote to actually announce this to the community? We have been presented with a fait accompli of the worst kind. I'd appeal to the nominators, nominess and perhaps even the crats to haul this back within process and run the usual, 7 day RfA (without resorting to what I imagine must have been IRC). Do not be so presumptuous as to open an RfA with bunches of supports and then to say "oh, and is this alright with the rest of you". I expect better from a would-be admin and his supporters. -Splash talk 18:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Friend, CSCWEM had nothing to do with the RfA building 60 votes before he accepted - he had previously declared his intent to wait until April to stand for adminship again, and I think he was pressured to accept earlier than that by the massive groundswell of support. Also, with as many supporters finding this RfA (without any advertising of it that I have seen), potential opposers could have found it just as well, and voted to oppose. Hence, this is no fait accompli. bd2412  T 18:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's 10 days old before it's presented to the community. How is that right? -Splash talk 18:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as I was formulating my own response to CSCWEM II, Splash made his own comments regarding this RfA. I wondered how an RfA would suddenly appear, seemingly fully formed on a page that is always on my watched pages list. Unless a very good explaination is provided, this action is of itself enough imputus for me to exercise an opposition to it. I hope suitable reasoning is forthcoming to help defer my assumptions. Hamster Sandwich 18:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All votes to the CSCWEM nom before acceptance could effectively be considered co-nominations (in this case, a 60 user co-nom). You see a 17 day RfA, I see a RfA that's been 10 days in the making.&#160;—  The KMan <sup style="color:#000000;"> talk  18:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see an request being rammed down RfA's throat. -Splash talk 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing as Splash... it seems hopelessly prejudicial to keep an RfA relatively secret, where presumably only probable supporters will be told about it, until critical mass has been reached. I realize this is a special circumstance, but still, this does not seem like a good, transparent way to handle an RfA. --W.marsh 18:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's my say on this issue. Firstly, I came across that page by accident. No one ever told me about it. I just happened to be browsing through CSCWEM's talk page. I had been waiting for that RFA for a long time. This is a most amazing thing that has happened to RfA. But let us not spoil it for CSCWEM because of this. If the red-tape of bureaucracy demands that this RfA be nominated again, I am ready to vote again. But the thing to keep in mind is that CSCWEM had nothing to do with it and this issue is no reason to vote oppose for a superb candidate. - Aksi_gr e at 18:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How can CSCWEM have nothing to do with it? He accepted the nomination when he should have declined. And since when was noticing it on a talk page they way we scrutinise our admins? -Splash talk 18:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You think he should have declined it, I don't. This is a matter of opinion. I think we should exercise some common sense here. This is not a controversial candidate. The RfA was definitely going to pass regardless of all this junk about hte nomination procedure. Is it going to harm Wikipedia if this passes? I doubt it. He's a good candidate, and he was going to pass anyways, so let it be.--Alhutch 18:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See my comments on the RfA's talk. Johnleemk | Talk 19:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is extremely terrible for reasons I have explained here. If this was anyone but CSCWEM, I'd have opposed. I don't mind giving him adminship, but I do mind having an already foregone conclusion rammed down our throats. How we select admins is important - adminship is no big deal, but it's not that small a deal either. Johnleemk | Talk 18:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

He withdrew, probably for the best. let's make this seamless next month.--Alhutch 19:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * CSCWEM has removed all votes from his nomination and is withholding acceptance until April. This makes all the above discussion obsolete, and will only help him in getting promoted. <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P | Talk 19:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The votes are still there. This is almost RFC-worthy for those who have tried to pull this deceitful stunt. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 01:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To my understanding, NoSeptember reverted CSCWEM's blanking of the page, and closed the RFA (as any bureaucrat would have done otherwise, I'm certain). Hence the votes are still there. NSL E (T+C) at 01:10 UTC (2006-03-27)

And whatever happened to adminship being "no big deal"? NSL E (T+C) at 01:17 UTC (2006-03-27)
 * I like the idea that adminship should be no big deal, but I think that through its actions, the community has decreed that it is somewhat of a big deal (in terms of certain standards for promotion) and no amount of repeating a 2003 Jimbo quote is going to change that any time soon :-(. NoSeptember   talk  01:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AzaToth (Archive 49)

 * This discussion was moved to here from the Bureaucrats' noticeboard by Cecropia.

It has just been pointed out to me that I closed this RfA half an hour early. I didn't realise this at the time as the clocks went forward in the UK last night and I'm now operating at UTC+1 rather than UTC: the consensus was still only 62% (discounting the neautral votes) but I'm just wondering if anyone can advise the best course of action as I'm about to go to bed and am getting enquiries already. -- Francs2000 23:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 62%? When I counted, disregarding the neutral votes, I got 73%, but perhaps you count different there in UK :) → A z a  Toth 00:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a minimum of 6 more votes were needed to bring this up to 75%, and only 4 votes had been cast in the last 24 hours. This minor error did not change anything. We all make mistakes. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. (And it is 73%: 54/(54+20)=73%) NoSeptember  talk  00:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh but I do worry: I like to think I have a good reputation on here and I want to keep it that way. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Gay flag.svg|25px| ]] 00:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but this case was not really as close as it looks. With 20 oppose votes, you would need 60 support votes to get to 75% and 66 support votes to get to 77%, thats 6 to 12 more votes than in this case to even start to say this is a close call. Plus, a half hour on an RfA that has slowed down to a crawl is not a large amount of time. The good news for Aza is that many of the reasons for oppose votes are correctable on his part, he can try again and likely succeed.  NoSeptember   talk  00:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't heard that RFA had become a simple vote requiring precisely 75% or higher. In the past RFAs have sometimes been approved with 70% support. This one had 73%, was closed 36 minutes early, and the opposition was based almost entirely on the fact that the user contributes primarily in template space rather than main space.


 * I don't think Francs2000 was acting maliciously in any way, but when he somehow came up with the erroneous figure of 62% that was presumably far enough below par to forego any consideration of whether there was an actual consensus. Which is unfortunate because if normal consideration had been taken it seems plausible that this RFA could have passed. If even two of the oppose votes were considered questionable then it would actually be over the 75% thresh-hold.


 * Again, I don't think there was any ill-intent, but the fact is that this RFA was right on the line and could well have gone the other way. --CBDunkerson 00:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't see any truly unusual oppose voters when I scanned the list (anyone who would might be a newbie troll or sockpuppet). If regular voters use an unusual basis for their opposition, it is still hard to discount their votes for the simple reason that they are regulars and should be given the benefit of doubt. Besides, the error here was closing 1/2 hour early, and as I noted, only 4 people voted in the last 24 hours of the RfA, so even a single new vote in that 1/2 hour was unlikely. NoSeptember   talk  00:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing a very important aspect of CBDunkerson's comments. When you combine the fact that Francs2000 was wrong both on the time of closing and on the current ratio of the voting, and the fact that two oppose votes (10%) had already changed their vote—one to support and one to neutral—that there was a case and an opportunity for handling the RfA differently.  It would not take "6 to 12 support votes" if one or more of the oppose votes was either discounted or the editor casting the oppose vote changed their vote. (The basis for including the "12" vote figure is lost on me, unless it is included simply to create an impression of WP:SNOW, as I don't see 77% in any of the discussions.)  I think it somewhat disingenuous that the liklihood of this occuring keeps being characterized as insignificant.


 * However, I find it more troubling that the extended discusion on the merits of the request for granting adminship for a narrow purpose (editing protected templates)—a purpose separate from the lack of edits in the main article space, which was the primary reason given for the majority of the oppose votes—seems to have been summarily ignored in considering this RfA. I don't find evidence in Francs2000's comments to suggest that this discussion was even read before closing, perhaps because of the erroneous assumption that consensus stood at only 62%.  Again, I have to say that I'm disappointed by how this was handled and it suggests to me that perhaps the process for granting adminship needs to be reformed. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's unfortunate, I felt it should have (or could have) been successful. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well. now that I have had a chance to read this RfA, I regret not voting. Next time, I'll be there to help push him over the top, but I expect it will go a lot more smoothly next time. NoSeptember   talk  01:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I would point out, that at the current vote totals when closed, it would only take one oppose changing to support (which had already happened once on this RfA) and one additional support vote to cross that magic 75% threshold, or two opposes changing to neutral, or one oppose changing to neutral (which had also already happened on this RfA) and two additional support votes. I think, particularly given the entire discussion, that these scenarios are perhaps not so impossibly unlikely as has been suggested above. I'm just disappointed that this has been turned into a precise numbers vote and not one where common sense prevails. (I mean, even if just one additional oppose changed to support, that would be 74.3%...) I was under the impression from all of the contentious RfA's I've witnessed, that the closing bureaucrat was supposed to determine the validity of the votes, otherwise let's just write a 'bot to do it. Additionally, I see other discussions on this page (Bureaucrats' noticeboard) where close RfAs/RfBs are sometimes extended, instead of being cut short. I'm disappointed with how this was handled. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, especially with the bit about how the closer an RfA is to passing/failing, it seems to go totally by the numbers (which goes against what I keep seeing on RfB's lately). If it's only about numbers, why are we having humans perform promotions? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What's more, there were several oppose votes that gave reasons that had been proven to be misconceptions. They, at the very least, should have been discounted.  Any scrutiny at all by the crat and this RfA would have passed.  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 03:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is required to list every single oppose reason they have. By discarding "oppose" votes, you are fallaciously assuming that they have only one oppose reason and that they listed it on the page. Support and oppose votes should not be discounted and ignored; if the result is close, the process should be extended or restarted at a later date. Talrias (t | e | c) 06:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * While it would have been better to close this failing RfA the extra half hour later, this was properly done within Bureaucrat discretion. While true that 6 votes (and no further opposes) would be 75%, and even if a flurry of six votes in a half-hour is possible, it would have taken fully 26 additional support votes (and no further opposes) to reach the 80% which is the threshold beyond which we always promote without an extraordinary reason. Francs2000 made a simple error which did not impact the outcome. -- Cecropia 03:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't hide behind the numbers quite that easily. There were two oppose votes that were explicitly based on reasons that had been proven to be misconceptions.  Those oppose votes should have been discounted and considered neutral.  With that, AzaToth would have had 75% and he sure as hell had extraordinary reason for getting the tools.  If we can't expect our crats to put their thinking caps on when it's needed then who needs them?  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 04:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you are disappointed by the result and I find no need to "hide" behind numbers. I did not make the decision on this nomination, so I can't address the quality of the voting. You assert that he had "extraordinary reason for getting the tools," but enough voters disagreed to put it below the threshold where the promotion should not have taken place without extraordinary justification. Who "needs" the bcrats? No-one really, which, I imagine, explains our princely salaries. -- Cecropia 06:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cecropia, the problem is that this RFA could have passed... regardless of whether the totals would have changed. As it stood at the early closing time this RFA had a greater support percentage than some which have passed. No, it was not in the 'clear consensus in favor' 80%+ range... but it also wasn't in the 'clear consensus against' 62% realm that Francs2000 somehow arrived at. Maybe a bureaucrat evaluating the case in detail and considering the misconceptions and histories of the voters might still have said 'it falls just short'. Maybe nothing would have happened in the remaining 36 minutes to change that. Or maybe not. We can't really know... and that's the problem. What's done is done, but it was very unfortunate. --CBDunkerson 12:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Without a dramatic change in the numbers this RfA could not have passed short of bureaucrat error. A few exceptions in the past does not change the basic day in and day out standards for RfA promotions, and 73% does not cut it.


 * Also, let me remind you all that how a candidate and his supporters handle a disappointment is important in the prospects of future nominations. CSCWEM and Naconkantari handled their defeats with equinimity and were/will be rewarded with broad support during their next try. Please don't harm Aza Toth's future chances by doing things such as adding mathematical formulas to WP:Bureaucrats in what I must consider an offhand way to suggest that bureaucrats are mathematically challenged. How you handle disappointment does matter. NoSeptember   talk  13:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, I have to say I find it rather insulting to suggest that my adding the formula to the page is in bad faith. Cecropia has gone so far as to accuse me of vandalism for adding it.  This is after Francs2000, who is one of the more active bureaucrats closing nominations, has come up with the wrong ratio not once, but twice.  There is legitimate reason for concern, and certainly the possibility for performing the calculation incorrectly is not a theoretical concern, but based in history.  The additions to the Bureaucrat page were entirely neutral and taking them as an insult is ridiculous.


 * As to "rewarding" candidates, or for that matter, punishing them, for actions taken by others, that seems to be taking a low road in my opinion. I hope those were comments born of frustration and not any implication of future behavior.  AzaToth has been the perfect example of how a candidate should behave and I'd appreciate if you would not take what is a discussion of legitimate concerns regarding how RfAs in general, and this RfA in particular, was handled, and denigrate it into a claim of sour grapes. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 13:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that your edit summary "add formula for calculating percentage to help math-impaired b'crats get this part right" was completely well intentioned? NoSeptember   talk  13:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I will say this about that. That edit summary is the most damning thing you will find in anything I have said or done throughout the entire AzaToth RfA and the ensuing discussion here.  The comment is perhaps on the margin of having malintent, but it was based on frustration with what I view as consequences of Francs2000 having gotten it wrong.  If you have taken offense from this edit summary, I apologize as I intended you no offense by it.  But we are still left now with the issue that the fact of the matter is that the equation was not entirely obvious, at least to Francs2000, yet apparently, it would be insulting to provide the formula with the instructions.  So I repeat what I asked below: you tell me, how can we make sure the numbers are being calculated correctly? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 13:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Doug for your apology. The whole RfA process is very emotional for the candidates and supporters, and the bureaucrats as referees catch flak if they make a mistake while being unappreciated for their work day in and day out. When Francs was promoted I watched the discussion he had with other bureaucrats. He absolutely does understand the formula, the impact of neutral votes, the number of votes cast, and all the other little details involved. A calculation error is quite different from not understanding the underlying formula et al. While many spectators may not have a handle on promotion standards, I know that all the actively involved bureaucrats know that 73% doesn't cut it. It is time to look forward to Aza's next RfA, and not take this one so personally. NoSeptember   talk  14:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * and not take this one so personally The only thing I have taken personally is being accused of vandalism and bad faith for my completely neutral changes to Bureaucrats, not withstanding the above mentioned edit summary which I have explained. The discussion on AzaToth's RfA is not a personal issue for me, and until my character and motives for participating in the discussion here were impugned, I would have to say that my demeanor was impassioned, yet calm.  Apparently you and several others feel that Cecropia's comments on my talk page were perfectly in line, and on that I strongly disagree.
 * This discussion is no longer productive, nor pleasant, which I find extremely disappointing seeing as I have been operating under the assumption that the involved parties represented some of the best people here. If you want to respond to this or anything else, you can reach me on my talk page as I'm taking this page off my watch list. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 15:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll strike out my words about taking things personally, since I can't read emotions over the internet. Cheers, NoSeptember   talk  15:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's condescending and patronising, that's why. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I give up. You tell me, since RfA promotion is apparently all about and only about the numbers, how can we at least make sure that the numbers add up correctly? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 13:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not just about the numbers, but the range of marginal cases is fairly narrow, and 73% isn't in that range. NoSeptember   talk  13:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my impression... and seems to be contradicted by the adminships which have passed with less. However, if that is the case it might explain some of the apparent hostility and 'warnings' being issued. Please consider that many are under the impression that 73% is in the 'marginal range' and are making comments based on that view. Thus, the difference between 62% and 73% seems quite significant. If only 74.9% and up are even considered (other than for exceptions... though what makes them exceptions is then unclear) then the mathematical error could not have impacted the outcome. --CBDunkerson 13:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I consider CSCWEM's RfA (77%) to be the classic recent marginal case. There is a mile of sunlight between 77% and 73% (and an extra 12 or so votes needed to bridge that gap)  NoSeptember   talk  14:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you mentioned CSCWEM's RfA, that is illustrative of the fact that it isn't "all about the numbers." As with any "gray" action, I explained my action, which included many reasoned neutrals and the fact that the chief complaint (oppose and neutral) was that he didn't have enough time, which was a clear message that he should come back in another month or so. I'm surprised he hasn't. -- Cecropia 18:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your impression is presumably based on Luigi30's RfA that, by common consideration, was a new bureaucrat making a mistake. 73% is not in the marginal range. -Splash talk 14:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh goodness me. An RfA was closed at a level of support that, whichever way you spin it, doesn't earn a promotion, 36 minutes early. Big deal. Try a renomination after a gracious waiting period and when the nominee has addressed the concerns of the opposers. -Splash talk 14:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Since June 27, 2005 there have been two RfAs that had less than 75% support that resulted in promotion. As noted above, Luigi30's was done by Rdsmith4, and there was some acknowledged error in that nom. That particular nom had 72.41% support. It should also be noted that Luigi30's nom was closed 2 hours early. The other nom was Freestylefrappe, which had 74.51% support, and was closed a day late. AzaToth's was at 72.97%. Also note that Freestylefrappe has been de-adminned and has left the project. Citing these two RfAs as evidence that Azatoth should/could have been promoted is, I think, not terrific support for the position.
 * There have been seven other nominations since June 27, 2005 that had a higher percentage than AzaToth's and were not promoted. The highest of these was 78.57%. 14 nominations between 75% and 80% have been promoted since June 27, 2005, and 364 at 80% or higher have been promoted.
 * AzaToth may re-apply at any time. It would of course be best if he waited a month prior to another nomination, but there is no reason why he can not reapply. There is also no reason to believe that the Wikipedia project is going to be harmed in any significant way by this one individual not being an admin right at this moment in time. --Durin 15:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate to mar your statistics Durin, but I did promote one RFA with <75% of the votes. :) I can't recall the RFA though, but I put up my reasoning on the RFA talk. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing marred :). The nom in question was Freestylefrappe, which you promoted. I noted it above. --Durin 17:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why, oh why must I always make su much controversies? I accept that I didn't got promoted, I'm not angry, a bit sad thou because it seems trhat only 2% was missing. There is only one thing I would like to request, I would like to know what exactly made me not mop-worthy, so I can better my self on that part. Could any buerocrat answer that easy question? I'm not talking about missing percents here, there must be a specific issue that you object to. → A z a  Toth 15:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * AzaToth, this is not a bureaucrat question. You were not promoted because the numbers weren't there. Please remember that the area of Bureaucrat discretion is 75%-80% except in the most extraordinary circumstances. It is the voters who opposed you that can give you insight. Read what their reasoning was, and you might ask some of them what you could do better to make them want to support you (or at least not oppose you) next time around. Good luck! -- Cecropia 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, perhaps I was misstaken, but I assumed that an RfA was just a guidance for a buerocrat to make his/her decission. → A z a  Toth 16:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * AzaToth, this has been explained many times over the years, but I'll try to give you the short version for your understanding. Originally (over two years agp), there was no division between support and oppose votes. There were many fewer voters, with some RfAs having fewer than 10 votes total, and RfA was more like a discussion. Consensus was the key then and it is still the key now. Unfortunately, as the number of voters and admins increased, the numbers became more and more important. Over the protest of a number of "old-timers," the arrangement of RfA was formalized to support/oppose/neutral/comment. A nod to consensus-building was added with the "standard questions" to get the nominee to introduce him/herself better, and encouragement of back-and-forth discussion. BUT (you knew there would be a "but") it became increasingly common for those disappointed by the results of an RfA to do extensive "bean-counting" ("how come x was promoted with 77.4% but y was not promoted with 77.6%") then the involved bcrat (and some others as well, I try to support the other bcrats when they are being unfairly attacked--this was one such case) is expected to explain his/her reasoning in sufficient detail. And now we have a new phenomenon--an increased willingness to accuse bcrats of dark motives. I have sadly had to write to editors I have great respect for that they haven't been promoted, and have promoted some I really don't think were ready, because it is the community sentiment that counts most, not my personal wishes. In almost all cases, I have seen other bcrats do the same. So this is how we got to this extreme "numbers game." It seems many people understand numbers much better than reasoning. BUT (another "but") there is good news for you. Voters are much more willing than in the past to look favorably on a new candidacy than they were in the past, and many failed nominations get promoted the second, or third, or even fourth time. So read over those opposes, see how you can address them and how you would present yourself to the community the next time, then go for it! You can be re-nominated in just a month, if you feel ready. Cheers, Cecropia 22:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list post about Requests for adminship/Tyrenius (Archive 50)
Would just like to point out mailing list posts on the above RFA:. NSL E (T+C) at 06:54 UTC (2006-04-01)


 * Thanks for that. Those pointers lead to a quite long and thoughtful conversation thread that addresses many of the points raised here plus many more. Many great points raised by many great editors/admins... Recommended reading. (with a small sigh as to why it's all said there and not here but I haven't completely grokked the maillist vs. here social norms yet) + +Lar: t/c 14:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was the one who posted it there. :) Personally, I find email better suited to serious discussion. YMMV. Stevage 14:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

HereToHelp's RfA (Archive 50)
I guess my brain left the Bureaucracy before the rest of me. I closed User:HereToHelp's RfA but forgot to push "the button." So would an active bcrat do it for me, since I have thrown myself to the gerbils? Not an April Fool's joke. Thanks and cheers, Cecropia 14:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. <font color=#696969>Essjay Talk • Contact 17:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Slicky's RfA (Archive 50)
Slicky withdrew his RfA simply by deleting it. Could a bureaucrat fix this up please? - Richardcavell 18:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Was already done before you reinstated it. In fact, I was edit conflicted while closing it; another user got to it even faster than I did. In general, we will catch these things and take care of the closing in due time. <font color=#696969>Essjay Talk • Contact 18:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, Essjay. I did think of this possibility but wanted to make sure it didn't get lost. - Richardcavell 18:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, to be faster than Essjay. :-D M o e   ε  19:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Oscark (Archive 50)
User:Oscark added to the bottom of the RfA page. For now I have moved it to the top of the page. I have also left a note at Oscark's page explaining the RfA process. I did not know what else to do, or whether it requires a b'crat to remove the link. So any admin or b'crat - please do the needful and remove the link. - Aksi_gr e at 10:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the link. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawker's promotion (Archive 51)
Tawker was promoted at around 78%, with the last... 9 hours of his nom affected by the server outage. I'm wondering why Linuxbeak chose not to follow Essjay in adding on a couple of days to Jedi6's RFA (also around the same mark), and chose to promote instead, taking into account the oppose votes. I'm glad the guy got admin, which is what he wanted, but I have to question the circumstances. NSL E (T+C)(seen this?) at 04:36 UTC (2006-04-10)


 * While extending it would have been nice, there likely would not have been enough oppose votes made in the short time to tip the scales. Additionally, there is no policy, or precedent (that I know of) for extending it.  That said, I think extending Jedi's nom by a more than day and a half for a nine hour outage is completely innapropriate and potentially unfair, and should be reduced.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 04:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you mean Tawker? Either way, that would be unfair. Maybe extend it for nine hours, if you must? SushiGeek 05:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this appears to have been moved (in part) to my talk page, just a link for people to see. -- Tawker 05:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I said Jedi6's, which has been extended almost two days. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 05:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * iirc, there is no formal policy for situations when the servers go down. So it goes down to the judgement of any bureaucrat who wants to process it first. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In most RfAs, the last few days add little to the indication of community consensus. An extention is not all that worthwhile, we have enough information to decide the issue. The closing of both the AzaToth and the Tawker RfAs seem quite fine by me. As long as the bureaucrat is acting in a transparent honest fashion (and they are), I'm fine with it. NoSeptember  talk  05:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no issue with Tawker's promotion since it's up to the bureaucrat's discretion as to whether to extend or not in this case I think the right decision was made to not extend Tawker's nom. Pegasus1138 Talk 00:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

BradPatrick (Archive 52)

 * Our newest admin
 * on Meta
 * here - proof that a large edit count is not all that matters.


 * Does this mean he will be doing some of the WP:OFFICE functions, like protecting pages for legal reasons?
 * This will be a good thing for Wikipedia and clearly he should be an admin, but it would have been fun to cast a vote for him ;-).
 * Welcome aboard Brad. NoSeptember   talk  04:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, meta admins are meta admins, they have no special role in en.wikipedia whatsoever. --Doc ask?  13:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, that was the en.wiki bureaucrat log, and he is an en.wiki admin not a Meta admin (at least not yet). NoSeptember   talk  14:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, got you now, I don't see why we should get a vote on this. This guy is a lawyer, and I guess the foundation has given him rights to help wth legal matters. The foundation is not answerable to the community in how it deals with legal questions, because ultimately it is the foundation and not the community who are legally responsible (in so far as they are) for what is on their servers. If we found this guy objectionable (and I'm glad we don't), well then tough. --Doc ask?  14:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't complaining in the slightest way, in case that didn't come across through the internet. I agree that a vote is totally not needed. I only said it would be fun to do ;-). We should enjoy the fact that this is a very rare occurance. With the exception of readminning former sysops and the occasional test (like user:Angela1) or error (quickly reverted), this is the only occurance I am aware of, of a non-RfAed sysop being added since 2002 when there were fewer than 40 sysops in total. And I have gone through the entire history of sysop promotions back to September 2002 in the process of creating this page. I fully trust Jimbo, Danny, and Angela. I am enjoying the uniqueness of the occasion, come and enjoy it with me. NoSeptember   talk  14:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On that note. I shall rejoice with you too. :) --Doc ask?  16:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OMG, once he didn't leave an edit summary, where do I go to protest about this!!! Martin 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * File an arbitration case against Jimbo, Angela, Anthere, et al for promoting an obviously unqualified candidate outside of process. Johnleemk | Talk 16:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It was Danny who did the out of process promotion, and not for the first time (he attempted to) this year either ;-). NoSeptember   talk  17:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I advised Brad to ask Danny to promote him; Mindspillage concurred in that recommendation. Having Brad go through the motions of an RfA would have been pointless; Brad needs this level of access in order to do his job for the Foundation, and that should be the end of the discussion.  At least nobody is screaming too loudly yet. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Kelly, I don't think anyone disagrees with the promotion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, no disagreement after seeing what he does. Still, it would have been nice if Danny would have made a note here or somewhere else on Wikipedia why he promoted Brad, so that we don't have to go hunting around before finding out that he's WMF's legal counsel. --Deathphoenix ʕ 07:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, an RFA would have just been embarrassing, because some really would have opposed on the grounds of editcountitis/editsummaryitis etc. regardless of the evident qualifications. Martin 10:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, Danny has created his new sockpuppet Dannyisme as an admin and bureaucrat. Sockpuppets have been promoted in the past to test the bureaucrat buttons. This case is different, of course, see the statement on the sockpuppet user page. NoSeptember   talk  15:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/JudgeRoberts (Archive 52)
Google searches for misspellings sometimes turn up all sorts of wierd and wonderful things, but today my search for "admistrator" turned up the funniest fake request for adminship I've ever seen (linked above). I've put it in BJAODN, but what else should be done with it? I myself was fooled until I read the history. What kind of joke was this, and how did google find it? Graham talk 09:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that it's been moved to BJAODN already, I've deleted. <font color=#696969>Essjay Talk • Contact 09:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In case people can't find the link, here you go :)  jaco plane  21:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Request (Archive 53)
Since I figure it will get read here more likely than in the comments section on my nom I'd like to make an official request that my nom not be snowballed even if it has a lot more oppose than supports since I'd rather withdraw the nom myself if I feel that it has no chance of suceeding. Pegasus1138 Talk 20:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I take it you're asking that it not be closed early; I for one will respect your request (and lately, I've been the rouge bureaucrat who has been closing 75% oppose votes early :-D). <font color=#696969>Essjay Talk • Contact 20:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes that is what I'm asking, thouh I may or may not decide to withdraw in which case it should be delisted and archived if I withdraw. Pegasus1138 Talk 21:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Linuxbeak closed and delisted after User:Moe Epsilon noted it was piling on. NSL E (T+C) at 02:21 UTC (2006-04-23)


 * Yes, but he asked me about it first on IRC and I told him I didn't object. Pegasus1138 Talk 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerned about HRE's RfA (Archive 54)
I'm a bit worried about HolyRomanEmperor's current RfA. It seems that there are issues about ethnic tensions and people simply voting oppose because of nationality. This is simply unacceptable, and I salute Linuxbeak for taking a stand against that. However, I'm also worried about doing that to an extreme - in other words, challenging all people who seem to be the "opposite" nationality, even when the votes appear to be in good faith. To make it clear, I take no position - either supporting or opposing - HolyRomanEmperor's qualifications as an admin candidate and have not reviewed them at all, and also strongly agree that nationality should play no factor at all and that some people are trying to game the RfA (for instance, someone with 10 edits and an account created in the middle of the RfA). I'm simply concerned that challenging (for lack of a better word) every comment/vote from someone who comes from a Croatian background may be inappropriate, when the voter has a history of contributions and cites valid reasons - regardless of whether people believe that they are true or not - about his/her opposition. For example, Elephantus (and I'm simply using his/her vote as a random example) has several hundred contributions, dating back to last year and gave a paragraph of explanation regarding his opposition with valid reasons (such as "very little understanding of either WP:NPOV or WP:V"); yet his vote was commented on by Linuxbeak.

Now, don't get me wrong here - it's always good to cite diffs and provide evidence, and there's nothing wrong with asking a user to do so. However, asking certain users to do so because of their nationality and from the same bureaucrat who placed a message at the top of the RfA seems unnecessary. We should strive to assume good faith as much as possible, and singling out voters based on ethicity doesn't seem appropriate. Tag a vote if you believe it to be a sockpuppet, challenge a vote if you feel the reasons are inappropriate, but don't challenge everyone who happens to be one nationality. In addition, I'm also worried about the effects of this on the RfA - will people, simply because they don't have any diffs, be discouraged to vote? While I support having diffs and evidence to back up claims, there have been many well-reasoned and appropriate votes, both opposing and supporting, in the past. Simply because a person is from a certain ethnic origin shouldn't mean that they should be held to different standards. Thoughts on this RfA? As always, our goal should be the smoothest RfA that seeks to determine the community's true consensus, and I appeciate all that our bureaucrats have done for us. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I had also noticed that Linuxbeak, while well-intended, is, perhaps, a bit too agressive in questioning the oppose votes and crossing them out. I don't know what a good solution is, and it is a sad thing that ethnic tensions spill over to RfA votes, but such direct involvement by a bureaucrat may make some voters feel a bit intimidated I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am also worried about HRE's RfA. It's the problem with democracy - and no matter what anyone says, if there's a voting system, and there's a post to be passed before one receives a 'mandate', then it's a democracy by definition. I don't see a solution. - Richardcavell 01:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor RfA
Linuxbeak has now restarted this RfA (which is not unheard of) with a novel stricter ruleset (unique to my knowledge.) This bothers me a bit. What bothers me more is that he is now, as presiding b'crat, aggressively questioning an opposer, a longstanding RfA participant against whom no ground for suspicion has been cast. I ask other b'crats to examine the matter; I think it best if Linuxbeak recuse himself from this RfA, and another b'crat take a leading role in deciding what to do. Xoloz 03:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I will not recuse myself. I am not biased in this matter at all. In fact, I'm doing this so that HRE has a fair chance at getting a fair RFA. If you want the other bureaucrats to look at me, fine, but I'm not recusing myself. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you'd want to take a bit more time to consider. It is a mark of wisdom to recuse for the sake of procedural soundness. Even if you feel perfectly qualified, there is no reason one of our other b'crats can't handle this. Xoloz 03:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree... it does seem odd to add these new requirements. Has this been done before? Is there some precedence for this? Linuxbeak, if you wouldn't mind, please explain yourself a little further. The edit summaries simply say it was "tainted". Perhaps an explanation here of what you were doing. Thanks. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  03:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This RfA has had sock madness, I don't trust half the votes. Whilst Linuxbeak's actions are a little extreme, given the obvious socks it is necessary -- Tawker 03:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind trying to prevent socks and meats from taking over. I do object, however, to oppose-voters having to cite specific exampes in the candidate's career to justify their vote while supporters do not. Also, I'm concerned about Linuxbeak's professed purpose here of giving HRE "a fair chance" at RFA. With all due respect, LB, is not the point here not to gather the community's opinion? If you insist on different standards of argument among opposers and supporters, you are being unfair to the community. Like the others, I think you may have gotten a little to close to this. <font color="#DF0001">Buck  e <font color="#DF0001">ts ofg  04:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering that the racially-biased votes were all "Oppose", I feel extra screening of Oppose votes is warranted. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the case, Kimchi: there were clearly Serbs who were supporting. <font color="#DF0001">Buck  e <font color="#DF0001">ts ofg  04:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's put this into perspective...
 * 1.) In order to vote, you MUST have had a user account for at least one week, starting one week ago.
 * Sounds perfectly fair to me. A recently-created user has almost no chance of actually knowing how things actually work... OR they are sockpuppets.
 * 2a.) In order to vote, you MUST have at least 50 total edits, assuming you are not involved in any Serbian, Croatian, etc, related articles, OR:
 * 2b.) You MUST have at least 100 total edits, regardless of topic, and you must be involved in more than one article.
 * Two things here. 50 edits is more than reasonable. It means you actually participate instead of just laying around. 100 edits is also reasonable if you are directly involved with Eastern Europe articles. It means that you're an active contributor instead of just a POV pusher (yes, it's a sweeping and incorrect generalization, but play along for now).
 * 3.) You MUST give a valid reason to support or oppose votes. Regarding oppose votes, you MUST provide a diff and/or specific example of why you are opposing. I will immediately strike out any votes that are ethnic-related. Do not take this personally.
 * Note that both support and oppose votes need valid reasons. Because a single oppose effectively cancels out 4 support votes, it is only fair that oppose votes are more qualified to a minor degree.
 * So, there you go. If you are actually "concerned" about this RFA, then just watch my actions and comment. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, LB, assume good faith. I have almost 3000 edits and none in any Balkan topics. I may be wrong and stupid, but I'm being wrong and stupid for what I think are legitimate reasons. Look at the first part of your 3rd rule "You MUST give a valid reason to support or oppose votes." That is fair: the same requirement for oppose and support. The second part of this rule is not: "Regarding oppose votes, you MUST provide a diff and/or specific example of why you are opposing." Here you demand that oppose voters provide something that supporters do not. That's not an appropriate way to gather the community's view. <font color="#DF0001">Buck  e <font color="#DF0001">ts ofg  04:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How am I not assuming good faith? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I had assumed that the quotes around concerned were meant to imply that I wasn't and that I was motivated by some partisan tendency. But I suppose in doing that I, too, was not assuming good faith. For which I apologise. (I still respectfully think that the second part of your rule #3 is not appropriate: both sides should be under the same strictures.) <font color="#DF0001">Buck  e <font color="#DF0001">ts ofg  04:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Linuxbeak, if I am allowed to be really skeptical - does rule.3 stop anyone from voting 'Support, good editor', or 'oppose as per User:xyz above' ? Won't that defeat the purpose of the rule ? Tintin (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an extremely valid point, and one that I expected to be raised. Yes, it does stop people from voting that way. It requires that all votes require more thinking than normal. If you make a vote, it's not because you just felt like it, it's because you've got a real reason. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Linuxbeak is trying to do anything other than get a proper RfA underway. I wouldn't mind seeing his rules become de facto in admin voting, regardless. There should be a minimum standard before a vote is taken as 'genuine' and not just disruptive. - Richardcavell 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that now the RfA is turning into a vote on the suffrage rules and not on the candidate, which is rather unfair for HRE. &mdash; Laura Scudder ☎ 04:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with rules imposed by Linuxbeak in HolyRomanEmperor's adminship. While bureaucrats do have some lattitude in what to do as far as adminships are concerned, this is pushing things too far. One thing clear, at least to me, is that Linuxbeak should recuse himself from deciding if HolyRomanEmperor will be promoted or not. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay... why? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 05:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Recusal makes no sense. There is no conflict of interest here. A bureaucrat has to make decisions, both during an RfA and at the end of the RfA, just as a trial judge has to. To start dumping bureaucrats who are doing their job is to invite the gaming of the system. We don't allow ArbCom to be gamed that way, we shouldn't allow RfA to be gamed either. If anything, the other bureaucrats should let Linuxbeak finish the job since he has been following it closely. NoSeptember   talk  05:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, recusal is silly. This means another Crat has to deal with the same socking and ethnic strife, and this second crat would also only have two choices: either 1) play hardball or 2) deprive HRE of a fair and square RFA. I think its inevitable that the rules have to a bit harsher in this instance. In the end, the suffrage rules dont prevent legit users from casting a legit vote. I for one am thankful for LB's efforts! The Minist  e  r of War  (Peace) 06:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no community consensus on any kind of suffrage. There is no rule that one should be blocked and his vote discounted for calling friends to vote (although vote stacking is clearly bad). While people should explain why they vote oppose, there is no imperative to provide diffs.


 * A bureaucrat should not, in my view, police RfA voting, at least not to such an extent. If there is suspicion of sockpuppetry, at the end of the vote the bureaucrat should do a check user, and not discount votes without evidence of sockpuppetry.


 * Linuxbeak should, in my view, not decide if HolyRomanEmperor will be promoted because he has been too passionately involved in this RfA (trying to keep the order, if you wish) that he may give people the impression that he is not impartial about the whole thing. If HolyRomanEmperor deserves to be promoted/failed, there are plenty of other bureaucrats who can make a judgement call. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find blanket accusations of ethnic-based voting very unhelpful here. While two of the original oppose votes were probably meat/sock puppets, the rest were from people with valid concerns about HRE. As I said already, only two weeks ago, another Balkans-Slavic editor passed RfA without problems and was supported by members of all ethnic groups. --Elephantus 07:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The final part of the constitution of this RfA is unfair and unevenly handed, and should be rejected. It is fundamentally not right to impose tighter requirements on opposers than supporters, particularly the importing of requirements from the failed DfA of insisting on diffs or examples. There is no reason not to require the same from supporters if this RfA is to be so-managed. Also, the use of the word "valid". It is not for Linuxbeak to determine the validity of a reason. He doesn't have to like or agree with the reason or think it sensible for it to matter. If it's presented by a non-sock, then you just need to live with it. Whilst the clearing out of the socks by a little bit of suffrage is a good move (clearly), I am concerned that a crat has decided to shape this RfA in their own image, essentially as a version of DfA. Bureaucrats control the outcome given the debate, not the debate itself, at least not in such a micro-managed way as this. There seems to be an unwillingness to entertain this fact, however. -Splash talk 12:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Requiring a diff in order for an oppose vote to be valid is a Really Bad Idea. Whilst some kind of special attention to the discussion is required in order to ensure HRE gets a fair RFA, in order to not have it shot down by a concerted and racist hate campaign, it should not directly countermand Assume good faith. Linuxbeak, as a bureaucrat, should know better. Nor should it make it more difficult to 'oppose' than to 'support', which this does.
 * Inserting a suffrage rule, counter to established Wikipedia policy, is also not a great idea. As a bureaucrat, LB should supposedly be capable of making his decision based on the discussion (RFA is not a vote), and could just as easily discount any invalid votes when closing the RFA, instead of this unseemly jiggerypokery. Yeesh.  <font color="#007700">Proto  <font color="#555555">||   <font color="#007700">type   13:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * According to you it's unfair and unevenly handed. You say that it is not up to me to determine the validity of a reason. Read this: yes it is. That's what bureaucrats do. There are also plenty of people who support this restart and the rules that have been imposed. You happen to not be one of them. As such, while your opinion is valued, it is also a minority viewpoint. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No no no. Yes, it is your decision to determine the validity of a vote. Read this: it is most assuredly not your role to invent and apply your own off-the-cuff policy to an RFA, no matter how infested with sock puppets it may be. You are capable of making a decent assessment of the validity of reasons, or you wouldn't have been made a bureaucrat. This doesn't give you carte blanche to impose your ideas on how RFA should be run onto an established procedure. I'm also not seeing the discussion where 'plenty of people supported the restart and the rules that have been imposed' - could you point me in the right direction?  <font color="#007700">Proto  <font color="#555555">||   <font color="#007700">type   14:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Minorities matter round here, particularly at RfA, so I'm pleased to be one. What a crat does not get to do is read my reasoning in an RfA and think "no, I disagree that the editor is too new/too few edits/too risky/etc" and discount me out of hand. Diagreeing with my reasoning does not make it invalid. Otherwise, you'd effectively be determining the outcome of the RfA based solely on your own opinion. If I said "editor is a floating pink cloud", then clearly I'd be invalid. I suppose I wonder what you mean by "valid". Do you mean "something I agree with", or something else? -Splash talk 14:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No. A bureaucrat's job is not to determine the validity of a user's vote or comment, but to determine consensus. While the latter may involve the former, a bureaucrat should not be judging the validity of every "vote"; for instance, if 10 people voted oppose on a RfA for, let's say "POV pushing" (a random example) and you disagreed with that, it's not your job or duty to say that those opposition votes are invalid; it's your job and duty to determine whether the community has come to a consensus about whether the candidate should be granted adminship. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between "valid" and "correct". "Correct" is almost always a matter of opinion, "valid" can be a matter of policy. A vote with the only reason being nationality is invalid whether you agree with it or not. A vote saying "needs over 2000 edits" is valid, whether you agree with it or not. It is the buros job to determine is a vote is valid, it is not their job to determine if it is correct. --Tango 10:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess we're arguing semantics here; I'm using "valid" and "correct" pretty much interchangeably. I would say that a "vote" based on nationality isn't invalid, it's a valid comment (as any one with a good faith comment can post) - but with reasons that are considered either invalid or incorrect. Anyways, I think you know what I mean. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Recusal (again)
In light of this comment:

"As a side note, I just want to make a note that a large portion of the 235 edits to Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina was from him creating the article itself. See here to see what I'm talking about. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)"

which I take to constitute a firm argument in support of HRE's adminship, I must reiterate my call that LB recuse himself from this RfA. Under no circumstances could I consider a closing by him in this instance legitimate, and I don't think I'm alone in that view. A partisan in a dispute must never be the judge of the outcome of that dispute. Xoloz 14:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the following: NO. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure I earlierd agree with Xoloz, but I do now. This is more participation in the RfA than is reasonable for the closing 'crat. JoshuaZ 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You must stop supposing you can give out order in that tone of voice, Linuxbeak. When you flatly refuse to recuse, do you imply that you have already decided that you will be the bureaucrat who closes this RfA, and will exclude all the others to that end? Or simply that you consider yourself eligible among the crats? For a crat to decide on arbitrary rules, make challenges to opposers and not supporters, to refuse to recuse and to deny all other crats the right to close the RfA is probably an arbitration case. -Splash talk 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I consider LB's tone flatly uncivil. I am no dog, and my requests deserve to be met with human politeness, even if they are rejected. I believe I am offended. Xoloz 14:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the tone with which this particular sub-section began, I think it hardly behoves you to be complaining about civility. The job of a bureaucrat is to run RFA discussions in such a way that the most appropriate result is generated—not the result which upsets the most/least number of people, not the result which garners the most kudos, not the result which panders to factional struggle within the ranks of Wikipedians. What would be your desired outcome: a situation wherein any bureaucrat can be intimidated into relinquishing the reins of a controversial discussion, and the available pool trawled to find a bureaucrat who will give the "correct" result? Would you be willing to become a bureaucrat if that were the situation? Would anybody want you to become one if it were known that you would simply melt away at the first sign of controversy? Go and have a cold shower and a hot curry in whatever order suits you best and come back and try again when you have calmed down. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are, what, 18 or so b'crats? I'd like b'crats circumspect enough to understand that a "rule-setter" in controversial case shouldn't close it; I'd like b'crats detached from their egos, and eager to recuse at the slightest legitimate concern for propriety. I am no troll, either, and I have raised legitimate points seconded by many. I appreciate JoshuaZ's remark, as I can't think of anything uncivil I said here. I phrased the request as politely as I would before any judge, and was given an... odd rebuff. Xoloz 15:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Linux using a large "no" seems to be far more uncivil than anything Xoloz said. And what do find uncivil in Xoloz's comments? JoshuaZ 15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Seeing that I said that I would not recuse here, questioned why I should recuse, and once more said no, I got a bit agitated. Should I have used all caps? No. But my stance remains. I'm not going to recuse. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Look. I have no interest in this case going one way or the other. I have never actually interacted heavily with this editor, so I'm not going to recuse myself. Period. I don't know how many ways I need to say this. As far as Splash's comments, I am considering myself eligible among the bureaucrats. As far as an arbitration case, if you want to start one, go right ahead. I'm not stopping you. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is not that you have never interacted with the editor. That's not really the key facet of deciding an RfA. The point is your extensive involvement, particularly in challenging opposers, quite aggressively, in this RfA. Arbitration can wait until the RfA is finished. -Splash talk 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether you are actually involved with him is in some ways immaterial, given that obviously you are percieved as partial on this issue. So if you close this debate it will be seen as unfair by a small-but-not-insignificant number of people. It seems obviously fairer to HRE for the nomination to be closed by someone whose neutrality in the matter has not been called into question, regardless of whether such questions are legitimate. Of course, you don't actually need to recuse in order to refrain from closing it. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm also concerned by Linux's use of a large font and all caps which indicate a level of emotional involvement that is not effective for an admin overseeing or closing an RfA. JoshuaZ 15:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The suffrage rules I can live with. The comments to voters I cannot. I just read it all and was struck by the exact line Xoloz cites. And then later, this challenge presented to an opposer: "Define propaganda. Propaganda is in itself a POV term..." It's commentary of the sort nominators present (who are naturally and acceptably partisan) and I feel it absolutely unacceptable for someone who is adamant they will close. Marskell 15:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Linuxbeak, I'm sorry but I have to join the chorus and at least urge you not to close this RfA, given your involvement in it. Especially considering that you've been talking about it on IRC, which you took a pledge not to do, including saying that this RfA will "almost certainly not pass". I'm just saying this as some random guy who'd be a lot more comfortable with another b'crat closing the RfA. It's true that nothing actually requires you to recuse yourself. --W.marsh 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So another crat who hasn't had to deal with the bizarre goings on from the RfA should be made to wade in and attempt to decipher what on earth happened instead of allowing the crat who's been dealing with this mess all alone to see it through? LB certainly hasn't done anything partisan and his attempts to restore sanity should be appreciated, not used to penalize him somehow. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Seeing as they were elected to "decipher what on earth happened" then yes, under the circumstances I think they could close the RfA. --W.marsh 15:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the controversy here, what if this RfA's outcome were to be determined by a [small] college of Bureaucrats? The venue for the discussion would be the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. The RfA would be closed in a timely fashion, but the final decison could come from two or three Bcrats, maybe a few hours later. It's definitely not praxis, but this is an extraordinary situation. Perhaps this could put to rest the concerns about a) Linuxbeak not closing this RfA on his own; and b) That it would not be ideal to exclude the bcrat who has been following the developments closely. I'm just brainstorming here. Redux 16:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The existance of controversy should not make us change the procedure in the middle of the process. If we do that, we again are inviting the gaming of the system. Trolls can easily create a controversy anytime they want, we should not send out invitations for them to do so in the future. We have a system. Under that system, any bureaucrat can close this RfA, not specifically including or excluding any one of them. Let the system work. NoSeptember   talk  16:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We elect bureaucrats to deal with precisely this kind of difficult situation, and Linuxbeak has come up with an imaginative and intelligent approach to it. I say we should let him get on with it and trust his judgment. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But he's there basically arguing with those that oppose. You don't think there is a, perhaps slight, conflict of interest? By setting these new (undiscussed or formed by community consensus) rules, and challenging those that oppose, I think he has shown himself to be slightly biased in this case. But I am more miffed at his non-explanation here, or at the WP:BN. Just seems a bit odd. How hard would it be to have a different 'crat step in here? That's all we ask. Is it that out-of-line? -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody is doubting Linuxbeak's integrity, good intentions, and competence in serving as bureaucrat. Linuxbeak, if you take things that way, that is not what is meant here. A recusal would be appopriate for appearance's sake, nothing else. Things are very charged at this RfA, involving maybe meatpuppets/sockpuppets, resentiments because of ethnic conflicts, etc. Linuxbeak, while with good intentions, has been involved in that too much. For appearance's sake, Linuxbeak should be the first to say that while he stands by his actions, he prefers to recuse himself from the final decision. That he stubbornly refuses to do so is simply unwise. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The "define propaganda" comment was inappropriate, but that's the only problem I can see in Linuxbeak's actions. A buro doesn't need to step back just because of one comment that has only a minor significance. If he is the one to close this RfA and you don't agree with his decision, there is a procedure to go through - wait until then. --Tango 18:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is no such procedure. I mean, an RFC or ArbCom could be started, but it would be totally unprecedented and I think everybody agrees it would be wrong to reverse a closure of promotion: this has not been done even in a case where mistake was admitted, Luigi30. Xoloz 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is: from Meta:Requests for Permissions#Removal of access: 1) Hold discussion on local wiki on whether or not level of access should be removed; 2) Gain consensus that it should; 3) Post the request at Meta with a link to the community consensus. 4) A Steward (whose main wiki is not this one) will review the process and de-sysop the user. And this goes for all the flags. Redux 21:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree completely with Oleg Alexandrov's comments above. I first raised the issue above a few days ago and received limited comments, but apparently the restart of the RfA has drawn more attention. First, I salute Linuxbeak - and all of our bureaucrats - for striving to ensure that RfA represents the true community consensus, and I have nothing but respect for him for tackling this tricky issue. It is unfortunate that ethnicity and race has anything to do with this RfA. However, I am still deeply troubled with the manner in which this RfA has proceeded; by implementing "suffrage" requirements, we're limiting potential commenters or voters simply because of their ethnicity or editing preferences. This is unacceptable; if someone feels that a vote is not made in good faith or is a sockpuppet, it should be tagged as such, but we should not be prohibiting potential good faith comments from other people on the basis of editing or race. Secondly, while the "requirement" to have a diff in each vote "vote" is admirable, the fact remains that the RfA standards do not require oppose voters or support voters to provide diffs; there are multiple, well-reasoned, valid, good-faith comments and votes without diffs everyday at RfA. We should not, and can not, change the standards for this one RfA.

In addition, I also have to urge Linuxbeak to not close this RfA himself. While not a recusal, allowing another trusted bureaucrat would lower the appearance of involvedness. While I trust you and your judgement, the fact is that some of your actions - like questioning oppose voters - gives the appearance of bias, even if not true. We trust each and every one of our bureaucrats to make the right judgement, and we should expect another one to view this unique RfA from an uninvolved perspective. Please reconsider your position, Linuxbeak. Thank you. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I also am going to ask Linuxbeak not to close this. Linuxbeak has entered the debate on whether this person should be promoted.
 * Regarding oppose votes, you MUST provide a diff and/or specific example of why you are opposing

This places a condition on opposition which simply doesn't exist for other candidates. I might also point out that the RfA not only has to be closed fairly, but it has to give the appearance of fairness. This is a basic principle that judges and bureaucrats must abide by. Linuxbeak no longer gives the appearance of impartiality. This alone means that it will be unfair for HRE's RfA if Linuxbeak closes it. I know that Wikipedia dislikes lawyering, but procedural fairness is exactly what it says it is; Linuxbeak is the judge of what powers he has (not us), and he owes it to HRE and everybody else to excuse himself from the RfA of his own volition. - Richardcavell 08:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am adding my name to this growing chorus of voices urging Linuxbeak to not close HRE's RFA. Linuxbeak has shown, from his comments in the oppose section, that he may be too involved in the RFA, for whatever reason. Challenging oppose voters with incivility is not the right way to go about things, even if you question the merits of a vote. NSL E (T+C) at 09:29 UTC (2006-04-25)

Role of bureaucrats
It is not the role of bureaucrats to "run" RfA. The community has delegated to bureaucrats the power to judge consensus in completed RFAs and to promote new admins. The community has also delegated to bureaucrats the ability to rename users upon request of the user involved, where bureaucrat believes the rename is in the best interests of the community; other than that, bureaucrats have no special power or authority over RFA or any other process.

There was, at the time of creation of the first bureaucrats, a considerable effort to be sure not to create a new class of users that had prestige, authority, powers, or responsibilities greater than ordinary admins (with the narrow exception of promoting completed RFAs). It is for this reason that the term "bureaucrat" was chosen, to highlight the role of admins as the servants, rather than the managers or architects, of RFA.

While I have a great deal of respect for Linuxbeak, I believe that his actions in this particular case are unhelpful both on their merits and because it is poor form for a bureaucrat to act as a moderator of an ongoing RFA. Controversial situations at Wikipedia are not neat and tidy and controversial RFAs are no exception. I believe we would be best off to allow the RFA to complete without any special rules. Once the RFA completes, I would expect that it will be clear whether or not HRE is deserving of promotion, and I believe that Linuxbeak and the other 'crats will be in a good position to evaluate the merits of any sock votes or votes that are of really dubious motiviation. I would hope that Linuxbeak will reconsider the addition of the header that amends the rules for this vote, since there has been some mild revert warring over it already and his removal of it would settle the matter.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Having only just become aware of this controversy, I echo UC's sentiments wholeheartedly, and encourage Linuxbeak to let the RFA run as it is intended to do. A bureaucrat is always free to disregard illegitimate votes at the closing of a nomination, but has no prerogative to prevent votes from being cast in the first place. &mdash; Dan | talk 21:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with The Uninvited Company here; bureaucrats are trusted to judge whether the community has come to a consensus to promote a certain candidate, not to "run" or "reform" RfA. While their input is certainly appreciated, it should be with community consensus and approval that any such changes are made. A bureaucrat responds to and serves the community. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Oleg and Uninvited and others. Imposing suffrage requirements, restarting RfAs which are populated with good-faith edits, and arguing with oppose votes is not the role of the bureaucrats, and Linuxbeak should recuse. -lethe talk [ +] 00:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that "arguing with oppose 'votes'" is appropriate when that consists of asking participants to give proper reasons; we're supposed to be ascertaining consensus rather than counting votes. That's sometimes not so important, but if I were a bureacrat I'd be reluctant to give much weight to a "vote" that essentially said "he shouldn't be an admin because he disagrees with me" or "because he's a Serb", or just says "no". Moreover, the original RfA wasn't "populated with good-faith edits" &mdash; it was packed with bad-faith edits and sock-puppetry.
 * The original RfA has 54 counted votes, and 8 crossed out votes, I see with a cursory glance. I consider that to be "populated with good faith votes".  Note that I didn't say "solely populated with good faith votes".  Restarting the RfA may help you clean out some invalid votes, but it also loses the input of many good faith people, who may not be back around the second time.  This is unacceptable. -lethe talk [ +] 05:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Having tried to help with Balkans-based articles, and having found myself in the middle of this sort of whirlwind of arm-waving hysteria by people who have no self-consciousness about showing themselves to be deeply and unthinkingly partisan, and who treat neutrality as bias against themselves, I can sympathise with Linuxbeak.
 * I'm slightly worried that he's been too trusting of the pro-votes, but he's certainly justified in being suspicious of some of the antis, and his voting requirements seem sensible to me. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 07:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll echo that sentiment. We agreed to trust our Crats to guide RFAs through heavy waters. Then lets do that!
 * The idea that the RFA will turn out fine if it is allowed to run its course seems naive to me. Sure, the Crat can dicount socks later, but in a situation as this you've got to police the discussion itself as well, because its going to get out of hand (just browse over Balkan related articles to see the collateral damage).
 * To my mind, its even better that LB challenges several votes, as some have taken up the challenge and explained their vote much better than they had before, thus clarifying the "oppose" camp as well. I dont see anything inherently biased in this. The Minist  e  r of War  (Peace) 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that rationales for voting, and especially for voting in opposition, should be challenged and refined so that the candidate gets a good picture of what they might want to address. But it seems to be that consciously challenging many oppose voters (while not challenging any supporters) is just a bad idea for someone whose role in the process is totally centered on his neutrality (i.e. the closing bureaucrat). Christopher Parham (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Right now the system is very hypocritical. I could vote Support with no explanation on every RfA on the page and not receive any comment. However, if I vote oppose, I'm sure to be challenged either on the RfA page or on my talk page. I don't vote on my RfAs because I feel that there ideally should be some level of interaction with the person before you vote. Sue Anne 21:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the situation being fairly unique, it probably would have been advisable for User:Linuxbeak to seek advice from other bureaucrats on how to handle HRE's RfA. It does not appear this happened, at least not on Wikipedia (perhaps off Wikipedia). In hindsight, the action to re-start the RfA does not appear to have made things any better, and in fact HRE's support is less in this second nomination than in the first. In my opinion, adding in the additional suffrage requirements lacks community support (based on a number of different discussions over time) and may be an unprecedented move for an RfA. Those opposing HRE's RfA may have seen the restart as a control attempt to get HRE to pass. Right or wrong, this may have motivated them to strive harder to garner oppose votes. Had the original RfA been allowed to continue, and had the bureaucrats been allowed to do their usual job of discounting sockpuppet votes, the outcome of this may have produced less bad blood and clearer consensus. That said, I think Linuxbeak was attempting to handle a difficult situation in the best manner he knew possible. --Durin 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm thankful to Linuxbeak for his desire to ensure a fair RFA process for HolyRomanEmperor. But I, like many of the above posters, am concerned with the way of doing it. I believe bureaucrats are not expected to conduct the discussion/voting process, but to determine whether there's a consensus to promote. Demanding diffs from voters doesn't feel right, this isn't an arbitration case and bureaucrats are not arbitrators to decide who's right and who's wrong. That said, I'll have no problem with Linuxbeak closing the nomination. Conscious 05:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarify rules for HRE RfA please
Linuxbeak,

I suggest rephrasing your rules for clarity:

2. In order to vote:
 * a) If you have never edited any articles relating to Serbia, Croatia, etc: You must have 50 edits.
 * b) If you have: You must have 100 edits and you must have edited more than one article.

Feel free to delete my inserted comment for the sake of clarity - Richardcavell 04:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of special rules for HRE adminship
Since the discussion above does not support keeping these rules, and since Linuxbeak appears to have decided not to remain involved in this RFA, I have removed the special rules from the RFA. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Gator1 RfA stats (Archive 54)
Can anyone tell me what the vote figures for both of Gator1's RfAs? No need to undelete the pages. I would've put this on Wikipedia talk:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies, but seems like no one reads that page. Thanks! Kimchi.sg | talk 01:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Gator1: Final (33/18/2) ended 14:34 December 20, 2005 (UTC) I did not see a second RfA. -lethe talk [ +] 01:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Gator1 (2nd): March 17, 2006 (108/0/1) NoSeptember   talk  01:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! Kimchi.sg | talk 02:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just wondering, why were these RfAs deleted? JoshuaZ 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Gator1 was being harrassed by an anonymous POV-warrior 3RR violator whom he had banned. The vandal somehow figured out where he lived and worked, and mailed some vaguely threatening letter to his boss at his place of work, and Gator1 left wikipedia, and got his user and talk pages deleted, as well as other pages which contained information about him. This happened earlier this month, I guess. Long discussion at AN/I about it and on the mailing list. -lethe talk [ +] 04:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh. That's unfortunate. Thanks for the info. JoshuaZ 04:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's shitty. Make sure you're careful about what kind of personal information you let slip on wikipedia (or elsewhere on the internet) if you're going to take on the whackos. -lethe talk [ +] 04:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well its a bit late for that for me. I've already gotten at least one death threat on Wikipedia from a neo-nazi, and at least one vandal stumbled upon a set of links which if they had followed up on would have given personal information in great detail. And I'm not even an admin yet. Ah well...JoshuaZ 04:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Recieving a death threat? Oh my! You have my full sympathies. This should NOT be happening! -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me  20:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I already gotten death threats also, and I was forced to delete like 400 edits from my user page which had personal info. Hint never place personal info in this site. Jaranda wat's sup 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * An excellent hint. Does anyone feel energetic enough to go and edit User_name now? I think new users are given the User name link to click on when they are in the middle of registering, and before they have actually commeitted themselves to any particular name. It should contain some kind of caution. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 20:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA that fell through the cracks? (Archive 55)
I just came across this RFA: Requests for adminship/Mcphysical. It was created six and a half days ago, but never listed on the main RFA page. Obviously it's not going to succeed (the user in question has only four edits to the article namespace) but I'm not sure what the proper procedure is for handling things like this. Should it just be closed at the end of its run? &mdash;David Wahler (talk)  03:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I tagged it with the headers, figured I'd save a 'crat the job seeing as it was never listed properly and the note of it being a sockpuppet on its userpage, I'm just not sure if I should straight out delete it -- Tawker 04:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As the user is indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet, and the RFA had only 1 vote, I have taken the liberty of deleting it. I see no point in keeping a disruptive user's litter around once they have been banned.  Dragons flight 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Deleting this was fine because it was a banned user. Tagging it as failed was not correct. This was never an active RfA, and did not fail. Until an RfA is accepted and transcluded by the nominee or nominator, we should leave these RfAs alone. They are "Draft" RfAs. People can create a draft and work on it as they wish. Many people have draft RfAs sitting out there for weeks or months before they decide to accept. We should not be jumping in to add an RfA we find to WP:RfA without their consent (or casting a vote) or anything else. Just leave the draft RfAs alone, or contact the user to ask them about it. (Related discussion) NoSeptember   talk  11:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. My RfA nomination page sat for around 2 weeks while I worked on it. (hey, it takes time to come up with those longwinded answers!) I have a nomination out there with a draft RfA which is likely going to sit for over a month. It's not failed because it hasn't started yet.  + + Lar: t/c 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I encourage users not to use the Wikipedia: namespace as a drafting space; User:YourNameHere/RfA works just as well, and doesn't have the problem of gathering invalid votes and potentially causing problems (need I mention CSCWEM2 and the oppose votes that showed up on CSCWEM3 because of it...). Either copy/paste, subst: or move it to the right page when you're ready for it to start; don't create problems for yourself or others by putting it in the Wikipedia: space before it is ready. <font color="#7b68ee">Essjay <font color="#7b68ee">( <font color="#7b68ee">Talk  • <font color="#7b68ee">Connect  ) 05:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Users should use userspace. Unfortunately most of these draft RfAs seem to be created by someone who wants to nominate a friend and they get created without the immediate knowledge of the nominee, and neither the nominator nor nominee knows better than to leave it in WP space. So it still falls upon us RfA regulars to not transclude these draft RfAs without talking to the users first. If we find one of these that is not ready for use soon, we should tell the user to move it into userspace. NoSeptember   talk  09:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, excellent points. But the guides don't say that now. Perhaps a quick add to say after you use the automation to create your page, (as outlined here: Requests_for_adminship/nominate the page created is Requests for adminship/USERNAME) do a quick move to your userspace??? or change the automation a bit to create it in userspace??? I dunno, but if the automation creates things a certain way, and the docs around it don't suggest doing it differently, we can't fault people for going with it that way, can we? IMHO anyway.  + + Lar: t/c 19:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (reviving stale discussion) I revisited the nomination form, and what we could do is to change the default pages created to Special:Mypage/RfA for self-noms and User:NOMINEE_USERNAME/RfA for friend-noms. The form that creates the RfA page has a text field for the name of the page to create, so smart people who know they want their RfA page in the Wikipedia namespace right away can still change the page name in the text box before pressing "nominate", and it'd do what it does now. Thoughts? Kimchi.sg 02:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Megaman Zero 3 (Archive 55)
This apparently was put up and then withdrawn (by the nominator, I beleive) in a fairly short time, which must be rather frustrating for at least Zero himself if not for others as well. Strikes me that a bit more research by the nominator might have been a good idea, but it's not clear how one would ensure such an outcome other than asking for common sense...  + + Lar: t/c 11:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I withdrew it to protect him. I am (or thought) I had checked Zero out and have followed his edits since he started here, so it was a surprise to me that he had been blocked several times in the last month. He didn't mention it to me prior to nomination, and since it was obvious he would fail now a third time, no reason to continue the pursuit. Had I known about the blocks my advice would have been to wait another few months at least. Not sure what the common sense part is about.--MONGO 12:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Checking the block log perhaps? Putting the nom on hold to work on it for a few days or so and see how things develop, ask others for their views, etc? No slight intended but maybe one of those things would have helped... the whole thing ran for less than 10 hours from first start to finish. That just seems short, and there is no rush. (I support withdrawing it, that was a kindness in my view, my point is that it would have been better if it had not been placed)  + + Lar: t/c 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why put the nom on hold? I should have checked the block log. It's tough to know all the details about even those I watchlist. I'm not perfect and don't pretend to be.--MONGO 12:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Zero signed it (he wasn't nominated without being aware of it), and Zero knew about the recent blocks. So it is Zero's responsibility to have said something about it. NoSeptember   talk  12:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I assumed this was all common knowledge. I didn't revert without good, solid reasoning, and the respective talkpages depict my willingness to discuss matters. On this rfa, I saw quite a bit of discordant views. Most were misplaced, I believe, but had the rfa remained, I would not have raised counter-arguments. I think it comes to mind that one with as much contirbutions to the community really doesn't have an alternate agenda, but I don't mind. As I noted on the rfa, I won't run for the tools again. -ZeroTalk 12:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's too bad, you would be a good one. NoSeptember   talk  12:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well in any case you've done so much good work, I hope you won't let this discourage you. Cheers, jaco ♫ plane  12:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Possibly a wise choice by now ^^;; Kim Bruning 12:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Kim, that's not very fair...he's young and in six months he may be one of our best Wikipedians...I wouldn't be trying to discourage any future potentials.--MONGO 12:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh Kim is right. It took me awhile to comprehend this, but I finally concluded that I'm a completely inept wikipedian and I don't think I ever will be a suitible member of the community. I'm certainly far for being perfect which I suppose I needed to be to pass the nomination. Oh well, no harm done. -ZeroTalk 13:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You might not be suitable admin material right now, you have some issues to work through, but not being admin material right now is not the same thing as being a "completely inept wikipedian". There are lots of hugely valuable contributors that are not admins. Be a good contributor. Work on your equanamibility. Work on not acting too rashly (except when rashness is needed...) Work on judgement to tell which is which. Oscillating wildly between morose statements of unsuitability and excessive enthusiasm is not the right approach, though. Adminship is not a trophy, it is not a validation of your inner worth. Don't get hung up on it. Hang in there, think positive, learn from events, and keep contributing. If you have to be perfect to pass, the system is broken. But you don't. I am not perfect! (close, just ask me, but not actually perfect) None of us are.  +  + Lar: t/c 13:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to discredit the blocks, but MegamanZero was dealing with one editor that has been repeatedly warned and keeps reverting warnings on his talk page...User:BIG, who is actually just this side of troll. The accusation on the Rfa that was also made was that Zero had taken a newcomers award and put it on his own userpage...what Zero actually did was to simply take the image in the award and add it to his page, which he did simply because he liked the image and no false misrepresentation was intended by Zero. (the full thread is here) But blocks are blocks, hence the withdrawal.--MONGO 14:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, there's nothing wrong with being an editor and not an admin. We have some very well respected Wikipedians who are not admins, nor do they want to be admins. We also have some long-time Wikipedians who have tried and failed to be admins, and after a while, are perfectly content to remain editors. Perhaps you should just stay an editor for now, and maybe even stay an editor for a good long time. Adminship isn't for everybody. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If look at what I said in context (see discussion above, and see my admin status ;-) ), you'll understand why I am currently fully in support of Zero not rerequesting admin status :-) I'm sure he's a fine editor, and we shouldn't ruin him/her/other with our stupid broken procedures. Kim Bruning 20:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Jesus on Wheels (Archive 58)
Can a 'crat please close this? It wasn't on the main RFA page and needless to say the candidate will not pass. <font color="00FF00">D G <font color="00FF00">X  19:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was BOLD and delisted this as WP:SNOW and probable trolling. But yes, a crat should probably close it, or perhaps just delete it. --Doc ask?  19:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. <font color="#7b68ee">Essjay <font color="#7b68ee">( <font color="#7b68ee">Talk  • <font color="#7b68ee">Connect  ) 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And probably shouldn't have been. There's no reason to believe this user was trolling. He's not a vandal, and does not fit the profile of WoW. Further, he's been blocked before for his username, and appealed the block and was cleared. He's not the most active contributor in the world, and his attempt at RfA was misguided, but this has never been grounds for deleting an RfA before. If you're going to delete this RfA, then you should also delete Requests for adminship/ShootJar, Requests for adminship/RAbbott, Requests for adminship/Kbandy, and Requests for adminship/Joan53. All of those were RfAs for editors with fewer edits than User:Jesus On Wheels and were posted during this month. There's no more evidence to presume Jesus on Wheels is a troll than those other editors. Failing the presentation of any evidence that he is, in fact, a vandal and/or troll, I will undelete this RfA. --Durin 13:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Restore and archive. <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 13:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Undelete it. --Tango 15:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I heartily endorse this event or product. While he's been warned about the dangers of having a username like that, he should still be allowed the rights of a normal editor, albeit one who will tend to be watched a little more (like another user who had "WOW" in his name, WOW junkie or something like that). In fact, as of now, he is still indef blocked for his name. Looks like the blocking admin isn't online right now, but I don't know if I want to wheel war over this. I'm going to post on WP:AN about this case. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've undeleted. I don't know exactly what archiving old RfAs entails, so I've not done that. -lethe talk [ +] 17:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added it to Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies. --Durin 17:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, duly chastized. Will find something else to do. <font color="#7b68ee">Essjay <font color="#7b68ee">( <font color="#7b68ee">Talk  • <font color="#7b68ee">Connect  ) 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's constructive criticism, meant in good faith. Please take it as such. I well recognize that bureaucrats tend to be targets of complaints. The above isn't a complaint per se, but more a request that we handle that situation differently. --Durin 13:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the wiki concept working at its best - Essjay boldly deleted it, it turned out concensus disagreed, someone undeleted it and no harm was done. Perfect.  The whole point of a wiki is that nobody is perfect, so we work together to achieve something closer to perfection. --Tango 13:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Durin 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. :) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 13:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad so many agree. I guess I'm off the hook for reversing this bureaucrat action without telling anyone ;-) (yes, this is tongue in cheek) NoSeptember   talk  14:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm filing an RfAr against you. How dare you do that! :) --Durin 14:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, he did confess. Let's just throw some rotten vegetables and eggs while chanting some catchy wiki-song. ;) Redux 17:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question (Archive 58)
Why hasnt a bureaucrat closed Joturner's RFA? Its now twelve hours overtime, and oppose votes are now piling on from all directions. However if discounting the votes that were made after the ending time, he should be promoted, right? (It has been done in the past). <font color="navy" face="Garamond">Oran <font color="green" face="Garamond"> e  <font color="blue" face="Garamond">(t)  <font color="deepskyblue" face="Garamond">(c)  <font color="mediumblue" face="Garamond">(e)  20:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see the BCrat's noticeboard for relevent discussion. -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  20:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Griffjam closed early (Archive 58)
0/17/0. Closed early with sufficient pileup. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And in its place...


 * User:03Rotpar who didn't have a single edit to his/her name prior to creating his (malformed) RfA has attempted to add his/her own RfA. After multiple editors, including myself, removed his RfA (multiple times, obviously), he posted to my talk page the following:


 * i know im kinda new hear but i really want to try for admin even if i fail. thanks 03Rotpar 22:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope no one will jump on me if I saw that this RfA is bound to fail, but it is. How are we supposed to deal with this. This page is for requesting adminship, not just doing something just because. I don't want to bite this newcomer (or any other), but I think we need to send the message that this is purely for serious requests for adminship; if someone wants some feedback on their editing abilities, they should be directed to Editor review. But I have a feeling that if I (or anyone else) were to continue to remove this RfA, he/she will just repeatedly re-add it. joturn e r 22:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If they really want to add it then what little harm that will come from leaving it there for a while is much better than edit warring over the main page. I would suggest only ever removing any rfa nom once in total, with a polite note to the user as to why it might be a bad idea. If they persist, then it's likely to be quickly snowballed and closed, but that which would give a clearer signal in my view than than if it was removed because it was "bound to fail". It's one thing telling someone they have 0% chance of passing, and another to tell them they're not allowed to run at all. Regards, MartinRe 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think 0 edits is slightly different than usual. I'm all in favour of all editors being able to run for adminship, but someone with 0 edits isn't an editor, by definition. Also, if you're going with WP:SNOW, it applies in this case before anyone has voted on it - no-one that should be taken into account will support someone with 0 edits (them voting support is reason enough not to take them into account). --Tango 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is where do you draw the line? no edits? 10 edits, 100? We've had some editors with quite low numbers put themselves forward recently, and while they were suggested to withdraw, no one forced them to do so, whereas in this case, 03Rotpar was basically told he'd be blocked if he didn't accept the forced withdrawal, which seems a little on the harsh side to me. Regards, MartinRe 00:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I draw the line at 0 edits. That was the whole point of my comment... --Tango 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/03Rotpar, will someone close it down now? <font color="00FF00">D G <font color="00FF00">X  00:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll delete it if no one objects, per this edit. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 00:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I also found an old one which noone has noticed; Requests for adminship/04nunhucks. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD!  00:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please close ILovePlankton's RFA (Archive 59)
ILovePlankton has withdrawn and is asking to have his RFA closed. --Bishonen | talk 02:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been delisted, closed, and added to Unsuccessful adminship candidacies Nacon kantari  03:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone can remove it if the candidate has withdrew, am I right? -- ReyBrujo 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, non-beaurocrats can close RfA's as long as they have failed. -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 03:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if they have withdrawn, not "failed". Only BCrats can close a "failed" RfA. We specifically chose them to determine consensus, I propose we let them do so. -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  03:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he means removing them from the page, if a crat has already marked them as failed but didn't remove them from the page. I can't see that happening, but whatever. --Rory096 06:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-bureaucrats may close and remove RfAs that are clearly snowballing, it's better to protect the candidate than wait for a bureaucrat to decide that (0/19/0) might just be a consensus to not promote an individual. Whilst not everybody agrees with this practice it certainly does, and should, happen. The purpose of bureaucrats, at least as I understand it, is to promote candidates and make the close calls on consensus, not to necessarily carry out every action on RfA. Although I would stress that if in doubt a non-crat should not close a request. Rje 13:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So if a user with 2 edits who joined 3 minutes ago applies in good faith, you (a non-crat) can remove it to prevent too much pile-on, right? Master of Puppets FREE BIRD!  13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking I would not, this would set a terrible precedent; however, if the application was mangled I would (and I have). Although all circumstances are different, I would advise non-crats to not close requests before the pile-on has actually occurred. There are several reasons for this: the most obvious being that there is no such thing as a sure-thing. I imagine many people would consider any candidate with below 750 edits a certain snowball, but I can remember a candidate with under 400 edits getting (16/11/1) a while ago. I think we have to assume good-faith and that all requests are made with sufficient forethought, especially now that an account has to be four days old to edit WP:RFA, therefore they should all run to at least the point where a conensus is clear (and a snowball at (0/12/0), or so, would be sufficient proof that the candidate will not be promoted). Rje 14:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/OzWrestlemaniac (Archive 59)
Could someone please delete this. It is a bad RFA nomination that was started by a sockpuppet of the nominee. Theres really no reason to keep this. <font color="CD2626">The King <font color="CD2626">of Kings  04:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. <font color="#7b68ee">Essjay <font color="#7b68ee">( <font color="#7b68ee">Talk  • <font color="#7b68ee">Connect  ) 04:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/USERNAME
And this one too. <font color="CD2626">The King <font color="CD2626">of Kings  05:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Gone. NSL E (T+C) at 05:22 UTC (2006-06-08)

Can a bureaucrat please archive Sean Gorter....? (Archive 60)
I think that RfA is from someone who doesn't fully understand the rules and customs of Wikipedia, possibly a young person. The opposers seem to have all missed the point in that regard, and are piling on reasons to oppose, criticisms, and accusations of bad faith. I think this is sever, albeit accidental, newbie biting&mdash;which I think might lose us a potentially-valuable editor&mdash;and I really think someone should put a stop to it and smooth things over. -- SCZenz 19:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of this RfA, is it just me, or did Deskana list the RfA BEFORE the user accepted, then people opposed because the user didn't accept? --Rory096 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the user listed it, I removed it, Deskana re-listed it. NSLE 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, k. Anyway, it was closed a while ago. --Rory096 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrat please archive Jake0geek (Archive 60)
Similarly to above, I'm asking a bureaucrat to archive Jake0geek per WP:SNOW. Having it out there isn't good for the community's relationship with Jake, and he doesn't seem to be around to withdraw it himself. moink 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed the RfA as impossible to succeed. But a good thing is we didn't clobber him with 30 oppose votes with no supports (which has happened before). Kimchi.sg 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/68.39.174.238 (Archive 60)

 * An IP has added their "own" "RfA" to the bottom of Doktorbuk's. (been removed now) Made by one ip, about another ip, and seems to be signed by a user, but that could be fake. Could someone.. uh.. do.. something. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 17:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been removed from the page now, but this subpage still exists if something needs to be done to it. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Bah, edit conflict. I was trying to say that I removed that: On the same request for adminship, 149.151.192.145 added a request for adminship of an IP address at Requests for adminship/68.39.174.238. I just wanted to make note that I removed this. I don't think much explanation is needed other than that... I'm assuming it was just some sort of joke. Cowman109 Talk 17:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, it is not possible to promote IP addresses to adminship. Well, it can be done, but you would need to make all IPs sysops, you can't promote just one. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

They added it to the bottom of Mtz206 or whatever it is. I would probably vote support for User:68.39.174.238 (talk • contribs), but I have no clue who this 149.151.192.145 guy is. Kotepho 17:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * IPs can't be promoted. Well, either promote none, or promote them all... so effectively, IPs can't be promoted. An IP who wants to be an admin needs to register first, then continue making good edits as that new user. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He could always log in as User:68.39.I74.238 (though it got blocked the minute I created it, I'm sure someone would unblock). I'd support for sure. --Rory096 22:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've closed it. I'm not yet convinced it needs to be deleted, but it's certainly not helping to build an encyclopedia, so I'm not against anyone deleting it if some others agree. - Taxman Talk 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA/BJAODN (Archive 61)
This somehow managed to alert me to the existence of this. Offhand I forget what the procedure is for this kind of thing, and as I'm connected to the net agonizingly slowly and expensively right now I'm not in a mood to investigate. -- Hoary 23:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I'm connected cheaply and quickly, but busy-ness means I'm still not in a mood to investigate. I'm inclined to leave an avuncular message about the reality of administration on this person's talk page, and then just to zap his extremely botched attempt at a self-nom. Any objection? -- Hoary 01:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Jkelly 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I notice that Konstable has already left a splendidly avuncular message. I'll let the RfA attempt live for a few more hours (while still not transcluding it, of course). -- Hoary 01:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When we made you an admin, we expected that you would willingly dig into your pocket and pay those expensive connection fees if necessary as a condition of the job ;-). NoSeptember  18:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So you did, so you did. I sit corrected! -- Hoary 07:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Salman01 RfA (Archive 61)
Are people aware of what is going on here? Salman has created a self-nom, and answered the questions, although not technically accepting his self-nom - but has not submitted it to the main RfA page. Since then, he seems to have spammed about 10 user talk pages, all belonging to fellow and perhaps what could be regarded as prominent Muslim editors with Requests for adminship/Salman01. I asked him whether he was going to post his RfA to the main page, but he deleted my question, as seems to be usual with all comments which are inquiries, information, etc but not compliments. (He has done this before, eg when I asked him about why he uploaded explicitly copyrighted Getty Images AFP photos to the Waqar Younis and Muttiah Muralitharan page). I was wondering what would happen if he has marketed himself to a few people, but then left the RfA going indefinitely? Should I just post it to the main page. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just posted it. I presume his campaigning and eself-nom amount to an acceptance, although he deleted my question as to whether he was going to list it himself.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reasonable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 02:29Z 


 * It's been withdrawn. Little surprise.  Slightly surprised to realise he's been spamming people with  but I guess people will cope.  Regards, Ben Aveling 08:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not technically withdrawn; I closed it early as unlikely to achive consensus. <font color="#7b68ee">Essjay <font color="#7b68ee">( <font color="#7b68ee">Talk  • <font color="#7b68ee">Connect  ) 09:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He also deleted your notification.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't really bother me; it's still closed, and will stay that way. <font color="#7b68ee">Essjay <font color="#7b68ee">( <font color="#7b68ee">Talk  • <font color="#7b68ee">Connect  ) 08:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/TPIRFanSteve (Archive 62)
Hi folks. I just removed Requests for adminship/TPIRFanSteve from the listings.


 * 1) There appears to be no communication between the nominator and the nominated.
 * 2) The nominator is a brand new user.
 * 3) The nominated hasn't a snowball's chance.

Would a b'crat like to consider properly closing and deleting the page?

Thanks. ➨  ЯEDVERS  13:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * At the moment, it's not been accepted, so it's doing no harm, and hasn't really been "opened" in order for it to be "closed." If the user accepts and lists it, then we can reconsider the matter. <font color="#7b68ee">Essjay <font color="#7b68ee">( Talk )  14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sensible. Cheers, Essjay. ➨  ЯEDVERS  15:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

User:The Mad Bomber the first RfA candidate blocked during candidcay period? (Archive 63)
Just for the record, I have blocked this user for wind-ups...for lack of the T word....on his own RfA. He had been making racist attacks in June, when I gave him a onoe month block, and has since made a few more dubious antics between then and now. Is this OK? It not, then unblock. Blnguyen | rant-line 08:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent. How has he been allowed to get away with this name anyway??? Tyrenius 08:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2 (Archive 64)
It appears that Sean Black was promoted with (159/63/6) which is a 71.62% support votes. I believe this goes against the consensus of 75%. Also, with due respect to Danny, this is not the first time he does such controversal actions.

Add to that the debacle at Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents related to this RfA, and I am becoming worried that Wikipedia as an open, consensus-driven community is in danger. Sad to see. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

RFA is not a vote. It's a discussion for establishing who can be trusted with the administrator tools. Sean Black can obviously be trusted. -- Cyde↔Weys 17:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion. Apparently at least 60 users disagree.  Grue   18:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a single oppose vote was able to demonstrate an abuse of the admin tools by Sean Black. It was all just grasping at straws ... "Ooooh look, he said fuck once in an edit summary!  Very Strong Oppose!"  -- Cyde↔Weys  18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm as sure as the next man that he will not abuse his restored Admin status. My oppose (#40) was based mostly on lack of willingness to communicate and make himself accountable for his actions, not abuse of admin tools. This is the responsibility of any editor, but particularly so for an Admin when new users may not understand the rules. I hope he takes this on board as a constructive criticism. It's good to see flexibility in the counting too - I never supported the idea of strict percentages. Stephen B Streater 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unbelieveable. Cyde, you totally miss the point again and again. Read the oppose votes for comprehension and try and realise that people disagree with you. I don't care if you diagree with me, I do care when you warp my arguments to suit your agenda. David D. (Talk) 22:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just thinking, answering to Oleg, if he (or someone else) has done that before, there are precedents. -- ReyBrujo 17:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it strikes me that hewing strictly to a percentage is far more dangerous to the idea of consensus. Mackensen (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it is ludicrous that we have taken trust down to measuring it in percentage points, or rather 1/100th of a percentage point (71.62). For a community that prides itself on "community," there seems to be a lot of mistrust and latent anger here. Danny
 * The number 71.62 has four digits as this is how MATLAB outputs things. By the way, there is no hidden anger, as you suggest.
 * I don't doubt your intentions. But it was bad judgement on your part to do this promotion, and that for two reasons:
 * The consensus is 75%. At the very least, you should have consulted with other bureaucrats on what to do before promoting.
 * You voted support in this RfA which makes you a biased party.
 * Add to that the fact that you are a very powerful person working for Jimbo in the office, and what we see is a person using one's weight to push one's positions. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize Danny voted in the RfA. Bureaucrats who vote in particular RfAs really should not close them unless the consensus is clearly for promotion; if what Danny did was so correct, he should have left closing it to one of the other bureaucrats who didn't comment in the RfA. I hope the bureaucrats discussed this decision before making it, especially considering how much Essjay was fried in his request for bureaucratship when he mentioned the number seventy. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 21:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I could be wrong, but judging from the totals, the people who actually voted support only added up to 69.74%. (I didn't vote, but I watched from the sidelines).-- Firsfron of Ronchester 18:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (And, yes, I'm aware it's not a "vote" in a strict sense) :) -- Firsfron of Ronchester 18:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When the percentage is worked out, the votes included are only the support and oppose votes. The neutral "votes" are not included in the percentage. So there were 159 support votes out of a total of 222 support or oppose votes, which is 71.62%. DarthVad e r 05:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which of course you have admirably smooted over. I thought it was funny the way you mused "I wonder how many other admins would be elected again if they were to do the same thing", when the answer clearly, is that, with you around, just about all of them would be. -Splash - tk 18:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Danny's statement on this RfA closure. NoSeptember 18:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When people keep enemy lists based, in large part, on who opposed or supported an RfA, it certainly kills trust. Jonathunder 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Enemy lists? That's horrible! Can you provide an example? Misza 13 T C 18:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It is also funny how Cyde and Mackensen have misunderstood "not a vote" and "consensus" respectively to mean "outcome is arbitrary depending on whether Danny closes it or not and/or wrong if it does not align with my opinion". -Splash - tk 18:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Danny mentions "community" but has completely dismissed that community by promoting when there was clearly no consensus (by generally accepted standards) to do so. If he had disregarded certain votes, that would be one thing but his statement above shows that he has instead decided to simply change the percentage himself. By using emotional language such as "ludicrous", focusing on the issue of the % precision and accusing people of being motivated by "mistrust and latent anger" he is avoiding the actual issue - why he promoted with a level of consensus that is clearly outside of generally accepted standards. Such use of emotional language and diverting the discussion to irrelevant points, does not seem to be a unique response to questioning of his decisions. TigerShark 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Danny's usual response is just to desysop (and/or indefinitely block) anyone who gets under his skin, so do tread carefully. -Splash - tk 18:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely outrageous!!!, I don't live anywhere near a Walmart and it didn't even rain last Friday! TigerShark 19:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just wow. Wrong side of the bed this morning? Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you actually got a counter argument to what I have said, or any comments other than "wow" or asking me whether I got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning? I expressed an opinion and backed it up with reasoning, perhaps you'd like to provide a reasoned response. TigerShark 19:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was responding to Splash, actually, regarding his rampant incivility. Regarding your comment, I'd say that given the number of established users in favor of Sean regaining adminship, and given the lack of evidence that he had abused the tools previously or would do so again, I'd say Danny was well within bureaucratic discertion to close as he did. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry for misunderstanding - I was judging by the identing of your comment. I don't personally see how Danny acted within any established bounds of discretion, but the current, vaguely defined, concept of AfD discretion means that it can be used to justify pretty much any decision. Cheers TigerShark 19:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call by Danny in this case, balance of comments clearly weighed in favor of returning Sean's adminship. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the fuss. He won't abuse the tools. NO BIG DEAL! --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's right. We'll never ever be able to solve the "it's not a numerical vote, it's a consensus judgement" vs "it's clearly not consensus when such a large number of editors oppose" riddle. The best we can do here is to try and predict how someone will use the tools. In this case it seems pretty clear that there will be no abuse. Rx StrangeLove 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, and this probably won't be popular, is that it should be a vote - with the only discretion being to discount votes (and even that should have clear criteria). If we need to give further discretion, the question should be "why do we need that discretion?" The "consensus" and "discretion" concepts basically provide an excuse for a bureaucrat to promote those that they think should be admins. Other discussion, such as AfD, need to be discussions rather than votes because they are debating objective critera that have been pre-defined (e.g. notability), but RfA is down to whether individuals believe that an candidate is right for the role. We should bring in binding objective criteria that can be debated, or this should be a vote. Cheers TigerShark 19:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is too simplistic for me. An oppose because someone only has 98% minor edit summaries is completely different qualitatively from an oppose because someone is a persistent vandal. But quantitatively, it is the same. If anything, the bureaucrats should be able to take more account of the strength of support/opposition. Stephen B Streater 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * RFA is community-based decision-making because we assume that this community of people writing an encyclopedia can make good decisions. And we do - people don't support persistent vandals and people don't oppose because of 98% use of edit summaries for minor edits. Now, you can argue that hierarchical decision making is superior - one such hierarchical model would be "Jimbo's deputy decides on the merits of the case after listening to community input". You can make a perfectly valid case that this is better than community-based decision-making. The perceived problem here is that some people feel that we are getting the latter but pretending that it is the former. Haukur 00:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK
I think we've gone into this enough, I'd just like to throw in 2c before this becomes a "we don't trust anyone" type argument. Sean Black's RFA was a unique case (and before someone screams bias, yes, I did support) - are we here to write articles or are we here to freak out about every little policy decisions. If Sean screws up, ArbCom can take care of it. If I screw up, I'm sure ArbCom is going to take care of it. It's not exactly the hardest thing in the world to de-sysop, so I say let's let this one rest and move on to bigger and more important things (like breakfast for me for one) -- Tawker 06:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems Danny and others have misunderstood the reasons given for the opposes. I don't think that anyone is suggesting Sean's actions might warrant ArbCom. Stephen B Streater 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I will ramble a bit :). Sean's RFA got me thinking about the process, and comments about contributers even more. Much like AFD, these RFAs often have one or two (sometimes relatively minor) points raised and then often having people latch on these; both the candidates and even the people who oppose them often get HAMMERED. In addition, many of the comments make character judgements about people. Much of this was prevalent in Sean's RFA - when I read it, I was overwhelmed - over 100 opinions on the page; some claiming gross incivility and others claiming much the opposite. I guess you could say I was "looking for a good reason to oppose" since my opinion was somewhat biased towards the negative side from the little I thought I knew from various WP:ANI posts and such from when I was A7ing pages and other routine activities. Originally, I was more convinced of this after reading some of the good points raised by the opposition; had my "vote" written up and everything (something like "incivility and claims of not following process are troubling"). It wasn't until I started doing comparisons to myself that I started to invest even more time and even more contributions - nothing appeared to be particularily systematic either way to me; which made me realize even more how hard it is to determine whether particular groups of edits are evidence of systematic editing or just an attempt to paint a broad brush, as it were. I thought about the fleeting nature of editors in general - about how I could be responsible for possibly denying a possibly good administrator based on general feeling and a few random edits while deleting pages (in particular the run on meta with David Gerard and others). The more I thought about it, the more I realized that I was more confused about how much personal opinion I wanted to interject - on AFD it is much easier because there are rather concrete policies (WP:V etc.). I suppose one idea would be for comments about contributers themselves were not allowed and instead comments were directly specified for particular edits, and more emphasis was made on improvement; less on "renomination time." Also, as per Voice of All's comment below the policy for renomination gets even more interesting with former admins and more longer-time contributers because of the greater chance of the latching-on; keeping it in perspective is difficult for any process I suppose. RN 09:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What should "consensus" be in a re-RfA?
Well since Sean asked to have his tools taken away voluntarily and then re-applied, I think that only a consensus to NOT promote should be what makes his RfA possibly fail; so when I look at it that way, I don't see anything wrong. There was a consensus to promote him the first time, he gave it up after some issues, and asked for it again; we then tested to see if there was a consensus to overturn the first consensus and confirm that he should not be an admin. That did not happen, as he still has majority support. Voice -of-  All  19:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit had a proposal in which these standards were discussed. NoSeptember  19:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, that makes sense to me. Thanks.  -- Cyde↔Weys  21:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend on the "issues" that cause someone to resign. They don't seem to have been problematic this case, and if someone just resigns because of general stress then I have no problems with it just being a temporary thing...  but if an admin 'voluntarily' gives up the tools as part of an agreement in an ongoing ArbCom settlement or something similar, they shouldn't get any special treatment if they decide to try and get them back.  When someone resigns in a situation like that (or decides to 'fall on their sword' rather than go through de-adminship), there's an understanding that they're not just going to turn around and regain the position next week. I would hope, in any case, that the closing b'crat would be able to take all this into account without needing pages of detailed rules and guideline percentages... --Aquillion 21:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that doing a "Nixon" resign should not give them the respect of "voluntarily" resigning. On the other hand, if it was that bad, I'd image that consensus would swing the other way. Voice -of-  All  22:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A little off point I know, but this request made me wonder how RickK would have done if he went through a similar process during his heyday - he was far more controversial than Sean, but also a fantastic admin - I very much doubt he would have got anywhere close to 70% of the "vote" in the current climate. Personally I feel that if an admin gives up the keys of their own free will they should get them back on request: I see no real difference between this and a normal editor going on a "Wikibreak". All "re-RfAs", like all RfAs, should be decided at the discretion of the closing bureaucrat; given the nature of RFA, I see the relative percentages of votes cast as totally meaningless in relation to the reasoning behind them. An irrelevant point becomes no more pertinent when it is shouted loudly, nor does a damning argument become any less serious if it is not hitched onto a bandwagon. Rje 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If so, we should call it something else - not RfA - or change the rules, rather than bend/break the rules and conventions of RfA when it is convenient. We already have some proposals in that direction. Tintin (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it these are the rules now, we would have no need for bureaucrats or admins if a simple supermajority was enough in our Rf*s (a bot could close all debates in such a situation). Any number we choose as a limit for supermajority is by definition arbitrary, the 75%/80% numbers that are often mentioned serve as indicators of consensus rather than its minimum bounds. It is worth pointing out that the use of these numbers is not policy, it just kind of developed over time. Rje 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps naively, I always saw the 75-80% "threshold" as an example of what most passing RfAs recieve, and not necessarily the absolute must-reach number. Thus, in a case like Sean's, a 70% could pass and perhaps an 82% could fail if the arguments went heavily in one direction.  Perhaps calling it a "threshold" is part of the problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the idea of forcing administrators in good standing who voluntarily gave up their op bit to go through RFA again, but if it must be done, I would say the "threshold percentage" should be 50% or so. This builds in some leeway for all of the associated trolls and malcontents who are pissed off at the admin for past necessary actions taken, but if the admin really is a bad apple, he won't meet the 50%. -- Cyde↔Weys 18:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

While I have no problem with crats making exceptions to the 75% rule if they think the %age isn't representative of concensus, I do have a problem with a crat closing an RFA that they've voted in - without even removing the vote first. I'm not sure if there is strictly a rule against it, but it's certainly a very bad idea if you're closing below 75%, as it's obviously going to be contraversial. --Tango 19:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tango. With no comments about this particular case, bureaucrats should generally steer clear of closing RfAs in which they have voted, unless the consensus is very clear, just as admins should avoid closing AfDs that they started or have voted in. EWS23  (Leave me a message!) 19:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that someone who voluntarily resigns their adminship (with no accompanying cloud of problems) and later wishes to get it back does not need an RFA, but to simply ask a bureacrat. Raul654 19:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but Sean chose to take the WP:RFA route. His choice. --Durin 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just hope Sean appreciated all the advice which we spent so much time crafting. I think it is good practice to suspend Adminship before a long Wikibreak to reduce risk of hacking. Suspended accounts should be restarted without an RfA. This is different from someone resigning, when they lose the automatic right to re-promotion. As others have also said, the re-RfA percentage should be lower: it can be quicker to make enemies who will oppose than friends who will support, as most support is tacit. Stephen B Streater 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A brute-force password attack is so easy with this software that there's really no point in going through the hassle of desysopping and resysopping every time an admin wants to go on vacation. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't encourage people to resign every time they feel like it. We should point to how close this RfA was to failing for minor issues. And Silsor got some heat for the act of leaving adminship behind too. Readminship should not be automatic, or at least there should be a time limit of say a month, so if someone leaves in a huff, they have a bit of time to reconsider, but not forever. NoSeptember 05:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus1138 (Archive 64)
appears to be leaving Wikipedia (deleted userpage, deleted talk page, etc, etc). I originally removed the nomination for the user, but reverted as I didn't want to step on the bureaucrats toes (after all, we all though HolyRomanEmperor was dead, but left it there for several hours). What should be done? --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 19:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove it, burn it, be done with it, smite it I don't really give a flying fuck atm what you do with it. Pegasus1138 Talk 19:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To be quite blunt, you're really only proving the point that RfA usually does work. Having a temper tantrum when your RfA is going poorly isn't a sign of a good admin candidate. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 19:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See what i wrote below. Seriously, you could easily have got promoted with strong arguments. Instead we get this? David D. (Talk) 19:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a chance s/he may come back so I would do nothing and let it run its course. Problem now is that such behaviour will torpedo any chance the RfA may have had.  It's a shame, since with well reasoned arguments and diffs i suspect s/he could have changed turned the tide. David D. (Talk) 19:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my nom so people won't even have a chance to jump on this, I am also going to be unsetting my email address. Pegasus1138 Talk 19:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't you think this reaction is a little extreme considering that non of the criticim in your RfA was particularly harsh? If you decide to come back, and i hope you do, consider that people respond well to reasoned arguments. Your actions here, on the other hand could turn people off for a long time. David D. (Talk) 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I can definitely sympathise that getting opposed can cause stress, but the oppose votes here were fairly benign, and in my opinion, your responses to them were polite and commendable. It seemed that either you could have gotten the opposers to turn around, could have gotten enough supporters to overcome the opposers, or would have gotten adminship in a fifth nomination if it's not too soon after the fourth. Please reconsider your actions, it's okay to be hurt because of your RfA, but leaving when you're hurt isn't the best way of dealing with it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting opposed in your RfA is extremely stressful. Lets be understanding here. He was a good editor, he can start out from the beginning and I hope to see his contributions in the future, from whatever name he chooses. --mboverload @ 20:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In this situation, "from whatever name he chooses" is the best we can hope for. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So peg, it was nice knowing you. I'm sure I'll come across you again =D --mboverload @ 20:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Ambuj.Saxena (Archive 65)
Would a bureaucrat please close this RFA; it's already 12 hours overdue; the actual time for closure being 5:50, and currently it is 16:30. -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the crat's are consciously letting it go a little longer since it is so close and previous votes are moving around. JoshuaZ 16:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe there has been a flurry of activity recently. Oh the tension! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have extended this RfA until 16:50 (UTC) on August 4. In advance, please do not ask for the specific reasons, as those will not be discussed while the RfA is still active.  Thank you.  Redux 16:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange situation on rmrfstar rfa (Archive 66)
Several people have stated (paraphrased):
 * Oppose Great user, made 2 FAs, and I'm sure this user will never abuse the admin tools, but I'm not letting him have them anyway. -- john doe.

There's also several neutrals in the same vein.

Kelly Martin has been marking some of those edits, I think.

Poor bureaucrat who gets to close that particular case!

See also my rant above. I suppose rmrfstar is a fair example of that situation. I took the time to really rake him over the coals in person while at wikimania, and he did pretty well. And then he went to a birds of the feather talk, and showed enormous insight in his questions and comments there.

You can imagine I was pretty surprised when I came home(-ish) today, connected to the internet, and discovered he was doing badly at RFA! ^^;;

Why is his RFA doing so differently from my perception?

Did I miss something in my observations? If so, what did I miss, do you think?

Kim Bruning 07:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's the RfA which misses something, namely the essential character of the candidate. Too preoccupied with exam questions and statistics.Tyrenius
 * Part of the problem is that people who are focused not on the statistics but on the character of the person and whether he will misuse the tools etc. have a hard time coming to the same conclusion about every candidate of this sort. So those who have interacted with the candidate (at Wiki or in this case in person) perceive things that someone who is merely digging into the person's contributions may miss. So there are not enough support votes because not enough of us have that personal involvement with the candidate. Perhaps we should rely on the judgement of voters we respect, so when Kim says "I know this guy and I trust him", we should give that a good deal of weight even if we didn't perceive that when we dug through the contributions. NoSeptember  10:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * God, I wish Kelly hadn't done that. I firmly believe rmrfstar should have the tools, and voiced my opinion. But copying and pasting notices for the closing 'crat to ignore votes like that just doesn't seem right, and I bet several (or many) people will be upset, with good reason. This, coming on the heels of the user lists thing, I think was a bad idea. :( -- Firsfron of Ronchester 08:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's Kim Bruning's fault for starting it previously. However, I'm now coming round to thinking it's not such a bad thing. It makes it a bit more rowdy, but it does mean opposers can't be complacent. Tyrenius 09:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * :-) Kim Bruning 09:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, opposers can do what they often do: don't respond on the RfA page. In which case, it's not really opening up further dialogue, especially when this RfA is so far along. Had there been some grandstanding like this when the RfA was first opened, it might have convinced some people to change their opinions. But this far along, all it's doing is telling the closing 'crat to ignore many !votes, which I don't believe will happen. I feel it's just going to open yet another can of worms. Pity, too, because he should have been promoted, IMO.-- Firsfron of Ronchester 09:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My biggest concern about this RfA is the sudden liberal use of the extension of the discussion period beyond 7 days. That's fine on a close RfA, but this one was not even close to being close. Even with all the extra votes added, it remains far from being close precisely because it had so far to go. Having a failed RfA is not the end of the world, you can come back in a month or two and pass. We have a candidate who made some mistakes on this RfA that cost him, doing a bad job with the questions right off the bat, having an RfA when he was busy, etc. Live and learn, this is a good candidate, but the mistakes were his own. Next time, he should get a nominator who will deliver a rousing nomination statement, he should work out well thought out answers before the RfA gets submitted. This is all quite doable, just not on the current RfA. But extending an RfA that would require either 33 more support votes or the retraction of 11 oppose votes just to reach the 75% level (which is where it stood at the scheduled close) is not the right thing to do IMO. We should not start creating special rules for specially deserving candidates, especially when he should be able to sail through next time if he gets it done properly. We are setting a precedent where any candidate with as low as 60% approval can request extension, and that is a big ongoing mess just waiting to happen. NoSeptember 10:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kpjas' RFA (Archive 67)
Many users have opposed this editor's Request for Adminship based on "lack of experience" and "low WP space edits", apparently ignoring or not aware of this user's 5K edits on English Wikipedia, 37,000 edits on Polish Wikipedia (including 2,600 to WP space), and Admin status on Polish Wikipedia. While I feel these facts should have been mentioned in the nomination, it's disturbing that the majority of people have opposed or voted neutral based on "lack of experience" or "lack of dedication to the project", without digging a little (like checking Kpjas' user page, where his number of edits on both Wikipedias is listed at the top of the page).

As I have provided links on the RFA to relevent facts which support Kpjas' dedication and experience, a few opinions have changed, but I'm not even sure how many people will bother to check back on this RfA. I've asked a few user to reconsider their opinions, but I don't know how many will consider it. If this RfA fails, it will be because of a, IMO, somewhat poor nomination and many editors' willingness to overlook easily obtainable evidence. -- Firsfron of Ronchester 01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would not have supported him in his RFA, as his reply to the first question is very weak. He has indeed a low amount of English WP namespace edits. The fact that he is a terribly experienced user at the Polish Wikipedia doesn't mean he should be given administrators rights in the English. As I said, he does not really need administrators tools to do what he wants to do. -- ReyBrujo 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh BOGGLE! A dude from 2001 fails on edit count criteria?

2001. And 10Ks of edits across all wikimedia.

Just to be sure, 2001 is the year wikipedia started. It means we're dealing with one of the first and earliest contributors to wikimedia projects.

So... someone like that gets rejected for lack of experience? I don't know, I don't think many current admins pass under those criteria, somehow.

Kim Bruning 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'd say he was a good user and well deserves admin status on the polish wiki, however, as has been said, despite many edits (and obvious knowledge of policy) the poor answers to the question lead arise to another - will this person actually use the tools. He says so but if he cant put the effort into his RFA statements then it just doesn't feel like he wants or needs the tools. Thats not a good reason to oppose I admit but it's just a feeling people end up getting -> hence loads of opposes and neutrals. If he fills out his answers properly then the will sail through :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please check the various time stamps. I originally opposed (and was the first voter period) because of all the things he said he wanted to do, the only thing that required the sysop bit was CSD, and his edits here show absolutely no familiarity with the deletion process.  Please look at the state of the nomination when it was posted and tell me if that looks like a person who is interested in being an admin and has some experience in admin-like areas.  I was actually thinking of recommending espernza's admin boot camp and a revote in 1-2 months.  It's hardly my fault (or any of the oppose voters) that the nomination did not mention that he was an admin on pl.wiki with 30K+ edits. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk to Kpjas why he didn't say that in his RFA. ForestH2  t/c 02:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's no excuse. The onus is on you to check. Kim Bruning 02:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't read Polish; so I have know clue if he's an admin. ForestH2  t/c 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kim, how would the onus be on Forest to check? Should he have gone through every Wikiproject and check their logs? JoshuaZ 02:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the most important attributes of an admin is the ability to communicate effectively. If a candidate neglects to include pertinent information in their RfA, it's not up to other editors to do the work for them. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 02:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm trying to tell Kim. ForestH2  t/c 02:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Editors should be encouraged to go beyond the info included on an RfA and look at a candidate in greater detail, but expecting them to hunt for information on other Wikiprojects isn't very reasonable. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Change Wikiproject to another languge, by the way. ForestH2  t/c 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone expected anyone else to go hunting for information on other language editions. The info on user:Kpjas' number of contributions is found right on the top of his userpage. Who doesn't check user/talk pages when voicing an opinion?-- Firsfron of Ronchester 02:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yes I did. Whatever makes you think you'd get away with being so insular and lazy on wikipedia? :-P Kim Bruning 09:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (de-indenting) Well, I hope I haven't opened a can of worms by mentioning this here. I did not not and do not mean to imply that the oppose voters weren't doing their homework, but I do hope those editors who opposed based on "lack of experience" and/or "lack of dedication to the project" will switch to support, or, as Thatcher has done (completely to his credit), switch to neutral. I don't believe after this that anyone can genuinely oppose due to a belief of a lack of dedication to Wikipedia, and I think people who will come back and read the RfA after voting may switch to support... the problem is, many people won't check back.-- Firsfron of Ronchester 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (double edit conflict)I believe he did not comment on that because he does not deem that necessary for adminiship in this version. Otherwise, as stated, he would have informed that lack of WP edits would not be a problem since he is already knowledgeable in the general policies of Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, shape up! (Archive 67)
I won't name names, but you'll know if I'm talking to you. If you placed an opinion on Kpjas' RFA, and actually reviewed the candidate beforehand, that's fine, this rant is not aimed at you. :-)

As per above on Kpjas' RFA... if someone says they're on the polish wiki, it doesn't hurt to check there. All the buttons and labels are in roughly the same places as on english, so it's not that hard to guess what's going on. (if you don't know the location of the controls by heart by now, perhaps you should get some more experience first?)

But ok, if that's one bridge too far for you, I can almost live with that.

The thing is, I found this information at the top of his user page. So could you. That's the first place you look when considering a candidate, and people simply did not look there. I don't mean to merely imply that the oppose voters weren't doing their homework. I'm willing to go out a limb here and suggest that maybe those specific oppose voters were acting outright lazy and stupid.

Please. We're all intelligent people here. If you make a mistake, that's fine. But don't go and compound your error by pointing the finger at someone else, or hiding behind this one mistake the other guy made too. That's irresponsible childish behaviour. If you're driving your car and the other guy makes a small mistake, you compensate for it, rather than cause a crash. Why do you think you're absolved of such responsibility on the wiki?

Even many of our teenaged contributors know better than that, so why don't you? Be a (wo)man, square your shoulders under the blame, and dangit, LEARN from your mistakes, and do better next time. You're a wikipedian, you're smart, you can do it!

I'm not saying you are stupid and lazy. You're likely very intelligent and probably score in the top 5-10% of any kind of test your countries' school system can throw at you. I'm just saying your current behaviour is stupid and lazy... ... But behaviours can be changed. Would you consider changing yours? :-)

Kim Bruning 08:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ''Note especially that I don't deny that you might wish to oppose for other reasons. I'm only pointing out that this one particular motivation ('lack of experience') simply does not compute in this situation. Kim Bruning''


 * Strong and heady words Kim, if you ever ran for adminship I would have to vote oppose just for this ;-) Seriously though although the words are strong the point s good, and sort of applies ot the general RFA voting climate IMO... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 09:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note that "Lacks dedication to Wikipedia" is another reason why people have opposed Kpjas' adminship. 43,000 edits, and 5 years of experience just isn't enough for some people, apparently. :/ -- Firsfron of Ronchester 09:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * actualy the most trivial and most robust way to find out if someone is an admin on another wikipedia is to remeber that special:Listusers works on any mediawiki project.Geni 10:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It now seems to have gone the other way, from people opposing without checking to supporting without checking, and the normal questioning has flown out the window. I have added some questions to correct this. It is still necessary to examine the candidate as usual. Tyrenius 10:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * *sigh*. I'm too tired to go flame those supporters now too though ^^;; Thanks dude :-) Kim Bruning 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, since the questions are supposed to be optional, isn't !voting based on them also optional? In which case, the supporters haven't failed to examine the candidate as usual... -- Firsfron of Ronchester 10:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, after the quote Titoxd dug up (basically pinning part of the blame for the transition from nupedia to wikipedia on Kpjas ;-) ), I don't think any question you could come up with could top that. Kim Bruning 10:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, *confused* what is this 5000 edits in 5 years thing that everyone is talking about if I see 43,000 edits up here? Anyway, I guess this falls into the pool of treating RfA canidates the same, and people figure "well, since you've been here for x amount of time, you should have x amount of edits." Edit counts rather than how long one has been here seems to outweigh the qualifications. -- Pilotguy (<b style="color:#0000FF;">roger that</b>) 12:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I did review, but I looked at contribs; it never even occurred to me to look at the edits on the Polish WP, so I've learned something there. I don't always look at the user page itself -- I've taken the attitude that it's what people do, not what they say, that counts. I'll take more time to look around in future. Mike Christie (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Mike, thanks for taking more time. I just cannot believe we've just gotten another "not experienced enough yet" vote on this RFA. Kim's comments seem more and more apt.-- Firsfron of Ronchester 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guiding Light (Archive 67)
Could someone delete this? — <font color="00FF00">The Future 00:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Deleted =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) — <font color="00FF00">The Future 16:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... (Archive 68)
I just found an interesting link about me Hope this proves my past points about my RFA's.. — <font color="CD2626">Moe Epsilon 02:55 September 03 '06
 * Which 'crat closed your RFA? This might be something to bring up with him. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but to be fair, only two of the oppose !voters have less than 500 edits, meaning that the sockpuppetry was minimal, at best. Ral315 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt many people on that site (other than the poster) have ever heard of you. Look at the responses. Michael 16:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo's re-promotion (Archive 68)
Carnildo was an admin who was caught up in an unfortunate argument for which he was deadmined. Based on statements from members of the arbcom, we believe that this was meant as a temporary measure, a cooling off period, and in that time Carnildo has proved his loyalty and value to the project. While we recognize that there are many users who are opposed to his adminship, we believe that special consideration should be given to the extenuating circumstances of this case and that we should act in the spirit of forgiveness and reconcilliation which is integral to the success of our community. Carnildo has shown good will to the project despite his desysoping, and continues to contribute. We therefore reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom. - Taxman Talk 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (On behalf of myself, Danny, and Rdsmith4, primary writing credit to Danny :)


 * I still would like to have seen a better explanation from Carnildo than we got. I wouldn't have done this myself, but then, I'm not a 'crat, and I don't know everything that the 'crats, arbcom, Danny, etc... know, and given that it's probationary I'm willing to support this. I will expect that a hard look will be taken in 2 months time. We choose our crats to make hard decisions. This obviously was one of the hardest they've done in a while. Support. Not that it matters whether i do or not but i'm just sayin... Oh, and Carnildo.. you MIGHT wanna hold off on adding yourself to category:Administrators open to recall for a day or two! ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm stunned speechless. I've never had to fight so hard to avoid writing something I'll regret. This is not going to be good. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All I will say is 61.2% is remarkably low for this to pass, even on a probationary basis. – Chacor 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems the votes of 3 crats count more than those of over 70 mere peon Wikipedians. This goes against every notion of consensus, precedent or policy. If it were 71% I could see it, but 61?! It is nothing short of CORRUPTION, of the most base and petty sort, masquerading as "forgiveness and reconcilliation". Let's just do away with this charade called Rfa now and have Jimbo, the cabal, the Crats and the Arbcomm appoint admins at their pleasure. I'm none too surprised by this, but I am still sickened.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Accusations of corruption from someone who ring somewhat hollow. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it corrupt? Karmafist asked me if I would cast a proxy vote for him. I gladly did so. The Crats are, of course, free to count it, strike it or move it to comments as they see fit, long as it stays on the record. It would be small change compared to some of their other actions/statements here. If I'm corrupt, I'm only a student, they are the masters. I also find the latest ban on Karmafist to be especially petty and unjustified...but that is another issue.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

All I'd like to say is that we are an encyclopedia project. That should take primary focus above all else. We appreciate that some people would not be happy, but sometimes you just have to do the right thing anyway. We need to do whatever we can to focus efforts back on improving articles and minimizing the time we agonize over meta, organizational issues, as this one is. - Taxman Talk 04:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How very simple it must be for those of you with your right thing detection machines. Do they sell those at Fry's yet? I guess I should pick one up. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So basically you're saying "GET BACK TO WORK! NOTHING TO SEE HERE! MOVE ALONG!" The arrogance of power, vividly displays itself once more. A great number of us don't think you did the "right thing". This is not a Meta, organizational issue but one of fundemental policy and practice, which you choose to completely IGNORE. This isnt your project, it is Jimbo's. I wonder what he has to say on the matter?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Like they say "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Grafikm  <sup style="color:red;">(AutoGRAF)  15:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And power held for too long, absolute or not corrupts absolutely. This is as good a case as any in favor of term limiting admins and the crats who love them.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And power held for too long, absolute or not corrupts absolutely. This is as good a case as any in favor of term limiting admins and the crats who love them.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I heartly suggest anyone coming here with curses and lightning spells to take a break, drink a coffee or tea, and sleep. Indeed, there is no precedent for this, but there can always be a first time. Use common sense: if you complain, do it in a civilized way. -- ReyBrujo 05:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There have been numerous cases of decent guys who were failed because of oppose votes made for very trivial reasons. Except for one very controversial instance, I can't remember any instance when someone was promoted despite getting less than 75%. If the b'crats continue to be bold enough to reject spurious opposes and promote people despite the cut-off, this would serve as a nice precedent. Otherwise, well.. Tintin (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Requests for adminship/Luigi30 3 passed at 72.4%. If I recall correctly, within that same timeframe an RFA failed at 77. – Chacor 05:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Holy crap, WP:OMG. --Rory096 05:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, that does not apply to my paragraph! I hide them well! -- ReyBrujo 05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, there sure are a lot of people who seem to be under the impression that bureaucrats are nothing more than vote tallying machines and that everything should be run by strict percentages. Well guess what ... that's just not how the system works. -- Cyde Weys 05:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure everyone is aware that rfa is not based on strict percentages, but it is not is to say that the numbers should be completly ignored. I am deeply disturbed at this result, and very disappointed in the decision making process. If the arbcom wanted to re-admin him, they are welcome to, but doing by rfa where the result is a forgone conclusion regardless of the opposition expressed by many members of the community is quite insulting. Taxman's comment that it was the "right thing" was inappropiate in the extreme, as it belittles the concerns of many long standing members who honestly do not believe it was the right thing to do. I also think that the controversial decision is very harsh on Carnildo by putting him in a permanment spotlight, as any mistakes will not only reflect badly on him, but also reflect badly on the judgement of the bureaucrats. If this Rfa has shown anything it is that trust, once lost, is difficult to regain, and losing trust in one admin is nothing to losing trust in the bureaucrats as a group, and this decision has badly shaken my trust in them. MartinRe 10:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you hit the nail on the head here when you say, "Trust, once lost, is difficult to regain." In my view, that is a problematic attitude, symptomatic of what has happened to RfA. To much emphasis is focused on mistrust, past mistakes are highlighted, and good work is often ignored. There is no belief in a learning curve--that people can and do learn from their mistakes. So, for all the people who have turned "Assume good faith" into a trite little mantra that can be used or diregarded as it befits them, think of what that really means. Consider whether any past mistakes are forgiveable, or whether they are some indelible stain on the user that made them. If the latter, what kind of community would that lead to? As for the readminship of Carnildo, someone with whom I have had no dealings in the past, it was based not only on a tally of the votes but an assessment as well, something which lies well within the role of the bureaucrats. If not, the adminship process would be automated. Danny 11:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should be more open to promote admins and forget about that magic 70% wall (or whatever it was) we had in the past. What strikes me, is that this standard change had to happen exactly on Carnildo's RfA. We had a bunch of RfA's in the past which would have passed given this new standard you are doing now. One such example was Requests for adminship/AzaToth. I'm sure we can find more to reevaluate. My point is that this sweeping change in standards should be applied equally. --Ligulem 11:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not oppose that. Danny 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that I said trust is difficult to regain - not impossible. There is nothing "problematic" about being cautious. If you read my comments on the RFA, I did not ignore the good work done, and I agree that past mistakes are forgivable. No stain should be indelible, but I believe that the user should at least have made a good effort to clean it themselves, or at least acknowledge that they got dirty. I do not believe that happened here, which is why I did not have the confidence in the candiate to support. As the rfa showed, a lot of other users did not have that confidence either. I also hope that the bureaucrats' assessment included the cost vs benefit of this promotion - was the addition of one extra admin worth the potential damgae to the trust of the community in them? Personally I think not. Regards, MartinRe 12:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, wouldn't the sensible thing to do in that case be to simply drop the whole "trust from other editors" bit? We can have a process that attempts to determine (however crudely) whether a nominee enjoys the trust of the community, or we can have a process whereby we attempt to determine if the nominee is a good editor or trusted by the ArbCom/bureaucrats/WMF/whatever; but to run the latter in the guise of the former is the worst possible scenario, since it produces enormous resentment among editors who were under the (apparently mistaken) impression that their explicitly stated distrust of the candidate would have some actual impact on the process. Kirill Lokshin 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to judge the merits of this readminning, but the facts are that RFA is not a vote and percentages are only part of the rationale for promoting, not promoting or readminning.--MONGO 05:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I voiced support for Carnildo, but to blatantly disregard many (over 70!) long-standing good-faith editors opposing with concerns just isn't right. – Chacor 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is no concrete percentage required for promotion; this, I assume, all those commenting above know. I should mention also that this particular RFA contained several votes from users of questionable legitimacy, as well as votes from legitimate users which were themselves spurious, including some which admitted complete unfamiliarity with Carnildo with the exception of a brief skimming of his arbitration case. I will not give a complete explanation of which votes were not counted, since it is neither my intention nor my place to give unnecessary offence to the oppose voters who did not consider the matter with due seriousness; nevertheless I feel obliged to mention the fact that this RFA, like many other contentious nominations, required close scrutiny before a decision could be made. &mdash; Dan | talk 05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I opposed, but I see this as a fair compromise. This decision was not an easy one to make, and no one will be entirely happy, but what it comes down to, like Sean Black's re-promotion a month ago, is a judgment call. Firsfron of Ronchester  06:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia's most disgraceful day. There can be no going back now, every future RFA is condemned to be a meaningless charade dependent on how chummy the candidate is with the 'crats. No one will ever trust the 'crats or the process again. Wikipedia has soiled its bed now it must sleep in it. Giano | talk 07:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I second Giano's disgust. Does WP have any debcrating procedures we could launch against Carnildo's buds? -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  08:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I protest the suggestion that my part in the decision was based on my being "chummy" with Carnildo. I am not particularly familiar with him, and can recall no significant interaction. I made my decision based on users' votes and, for context, my reading of the relevant arbitration case. I am confident that the other two involved bureaucrats exercised similary impartiality. &mdash; Dan | talk 08:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So do you now plead incompetence instead of corruption, or temporary insanity?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh well. I'm stunned. After you (Taxman et al.) have seen that this RfA "failed", you are going to promote Carnildo out of consensus. At least you could have had the boldness to do that before his RfA had started. It seems like our voices are not needed here anymore. A pure waste of our time. If you do have other such candidacies, then please readmin them now, so we can spare us the "consensus of idots" charade in the future. --Ligulem 08:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the violation is blatant enough to be discussed in a separate WP:RfC and possible WP:RfAr (although after Mindspillage's vote I don't count on the present ArbCom too much). -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  08:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that someone fixes the lemma on the project page here. It wrongfully states "The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies". This is now out of reality. --Ligulem 08:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please cool off. There were such instances in the past. Bcrats know too well that, if their aberrant behaviour is not exposed in ArbCom, all their mistakes will be buried in the archives of this page, as have been in the past. The question is whether the community is willing to trust these bcrats any more. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly the Peter Principle is alive and well here on Wikipedia, so as far as I'm concerned..hell fuck no.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to offer around some chill pills here. If Carnildo screws up, he'll be quickly deadminned, and any damage can and will be easily repaired. I'd like to see this treatment extend to other RfAs that haven't passed on ridiculous grounds. Ambuj.Saxena's and my second one come to mind. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 08:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting standpoint. Can I start listing failed candidates here? ;-) This would give sysophood a strong boost I believe. --Ligulem 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice idea, but I don't think this is a retroactive thing. I personally think that a promotion should occur if the candidate gets simple majority support and a bureaucrat is willing to promote. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 08:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. I agree with that majority idea. Just a bit odd to see it happen on Carnildo's RfA the first time. But well, let's give it a try. I was puzzled numerous times in the past why the hell oppose voices count three or four times the support ones. All I want is that we have a uniform standard. Otherwise RfA is going to be a cabal election ;-) I see my chances for sysophood are rising --Ligulem 08:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that in any official capacity. Heck, I'm not even an admin yet (although a lot of people think I am). And RfA is already a cabal election. There's a group of RfA-dwellers that you have to please to become an admin. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 09:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * NO, NO, NO! Sorry to shout but the above thread is EXACTLY why this incident is so troubling. If one of Wikipedia's operating rules is that we make decisions by consensus, then we should stick to that principle EVEN when making exceptions.  User:Werdna is suggesting that we abandon consensus for future RFA's and go to "simple majority plus a bureaucrat who is willing to promote".  It is far, far better to say that the bureaucrats decided to make an exception for User:Carnildo than to decide that this exception now sets a new precedent for ALL future RFA's.


 * --Richard 17:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is what we have beaureaucrats for. Personally I'd be happy for 'reapplication for adminship requires a lower support threshold' to become a bcrat guideline. The Land 09:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. I think that idea may have merit, however those who have been involuntarily desysopped may require additional sensitivity. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 09:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No. No double standards. --Ligulem 09:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This was a very encouraging initiative by the bureaucrats. Nothing makes me more ashamed of Wikipedia than the disgusting rabble that RFA has become.  Bureaucrats should take the initiative and award the bit on merit.  Whether an editor can pass a "beauty contest" is of little use in deciding whether he'll wield the bit well. --Tony Sidaway 11:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly, strongly agree. I'd like to see this happen more often. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 11:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgo re-RfA if Arbcom says so?
"Based on statements from members of the arbcom, we believe that this was meant as a temporary measure..." OK, fair enough. Should, in future, what is supposed to be a temporary desysop not be brought to RfA but simply remain filed with the arbcom until they re-sysop at their discretion? Wikipedia is not a democracy, so this is fine. It's actually preferable to have a formalized means of skirting RfA, then to have an RfA nom and ignore long-standing promotion standards. Marskell 09:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom already has descretion to exactly do that. If they send Wikipedians to RfA again, then this is their decision. --Ligulem 09:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. The past few cases suggest that if re-adminship is left to RfA in these cases, it is a long time coming. If ArbCom wants removal of adminship to be a cooling-off period or temporary in a given case, it should itself re-examine the user after a given time. Hopefully this will be a learning experience and allow similar events in the future to be handled more smoothly. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There are different flavors of "desysopping". There's "temporary with a set time limit", "temporary with an indefinite time limit (new RFA required)" and "permanent (no new RFA allowed)".  ArbCom chose not to set a time limit for Carnildo and therefore required a new RFA.  The B'crats decided 61% was enough "consensus" for this case.  That is their right unless someone wants to try and change policy.


 * FWIW, I think the B'crats decided to interpret the ArbCom's meaning of "temporary" to mean six months and two RFA's. They could have decided it to mean "until an RFA is passed with 70%+ consensus" and might do so again in the future if we decide that this case was exceptional and not a "cast in concrete" precedent for all future RFAs.


 * Carnildo could probably have passed an RFA with 70%+ support in another 3-6 months. In fact, he probably would have passed this RFA with 70%+ if he had been a bit more forthcoming with an apology as I and a number of "oppose" votes indicated.  Apparently, the b-crats didn't think the apology was that important and went with the 61% who voted to support.  By promoting Carnildo despite the lack of 70%+ support, the b-crats took away our leverage to extract that apology from Carnildo.  In essence, they are endorsing his position "it was a mistake, the damage wasn't that great, I don't need to apologize, get over it".  I'm sorry that they did that but we will all survive.  Carnildo will be a good admin.  Now, take a pill, chill and get on with editing Wikipedia.


 * --Richard 17:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm hoping ArbCom won't make a similar mistake again. It's pretty clear that RfA isn't useful for determining the endpoints of a temporary desysopping. So hopefully ArbCom won't use the process again. If they intend a user to get adminship back after a cooling-off period, they should realize that RfA isn't up to the task and take the job themselves. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? So why was the community bothered with a scarring charade of an RFA at all?
Agree with Marskell. The ArbCom are prepared to reinstate Carnildo on a probationary basis on their own authority, without reference to the community? OK, fine, they have the authority to do that, and they were the ones who desysopped him. But to first bother the community with a charade of an RFA is disgraceful. An unusually bothersome RFA it turned out to be, too, which has left scars of its own. Arbs and bureaucrats, have you considered that it would have looked a little better if the RFA had today been declared to have failed, and you had then gone on to reinstate Carnildo in say a month or so, without any reference to the community? This was done in the worst possible way. I feel like turning in my bit. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC).


 * My sense is the 'crats decided 63% was borderline, so they looked to the ArbCom ruling for guidance. For me, I think 63% was a bit low to be borderline, but our concern now should be about what's best for Wikipedia, not about mending hurt feelings or punishing people.  Is there any good way to de-bit Carnildo?  Perhaps there should be, but I'm not aware of one.  Would Wikipedia be better off if Bishonen was bitless?  I don't think so.  The only thing that does worry me, is does this set any really bad precedents?  I don't think so, but I'd like to be more certain of that.  Regards, Ben Aveling 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hopefully by this time next year ArbCom will have developed its admin sanctions a bit. Do you remember the nightmare when Stevertigo (IIRC) was desyssopped and made to go through an RfA immediately? At least things have moved on a bit since then - I am sure that they will do in future. The Land 09:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What everybody seems to be forgetting is that the RfA had a simple majority. Therefore, you were pleasing more people by promoting than you were pissing off. This 75-80pc rubbish is unnecessary, and only a guideline. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 10:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. Even if you think that Carnildo will make a good admin, which I do, that doesn't mean the end justifies the means.  I can imagine that even Canildo might be wondering if becoming an admin was worth the stress it's caused.  But we are where we are.  It's a pity it wasn't a clearer result, but it wasn't.  Either way, Taxman has said this is probationary and ArbCom will review in 2 months, so people will have a chance to make a submission then.  Peace be with you.  Ben Aveling 10:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - perhaps someone could make it a bit clearer for me whether this is a decision by the ArbCom, or by a subset of our bureaucrats. I'd be interested to see the views of the other members of the ArbCom and of our other bureaucrats.

Is this decision specific to this case, or will it be applied more generally? Will "probationary" adminship be granted to other failed RFAs in the 60-70% band going forward? Will previous failed RFAs be reviewed so "probationary" adminship can be granted to previous candidates who failed on such technical grounds being unable to demonstrate a community consensus? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fuck: Did ALoan just blank his userpage and talk? Tell me I'm mixing up red and blue rather than seeing a great editor leave for the third time in 24 hrs. Marskell 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Geez, this has been a dark, dark day. We've lost three admins in a day. It's Black Tuesday for Wikipedia. Yank  sox  11:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a read of GoodBye. It's nothing more than theatrics. If he wants to leave in bloody protest, he's more than welcome to. He'll be back within a month. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Touché, I forgot about that. Yank  sox  12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Changes in standards aren't easy. A few clapping doors are inevitable ;-). Although I wonder if they all manage to keep their doors closed forever (turn on your sock detector! ;-). --Ligulem 12:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks mightily for your wisdom, Werdna. Who'd want to come back with glibness of this sort abounding? As for theatrics, he wasn't acting with eight successful FACs. To lose some like ALoan over bullshit here makes for a dark day indeed. Marskell 12:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I refuse to allow Wikipedia to be bullied into doing something because somebody gets pissed off about something ridiculous like this. Did you read the link I gave you? &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between allowing yourself to be bullied and showing due sensitivity to people who've contributed to this place. Happening to intersect with three people who have left today is making me morose—responding with "Good, screw off" is no better than "We'll do whatever you want, if you stay." As for the meatball essay, pass the tomato sauce. Marskell 12:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * People in this community constantly overreact. I live in Pittsburgh, where it can be dark and cloudy for weeks at a stretch. I can live with it, and so can we. Everyone needs to get over this- now- and keep doing what we're here for, which is to write an encyclopedia. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're so tied up in your own importance that you'll leave over someone else getting administrative rights over your objection, we really don't want you here. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, we all make little goodbyes from time to time. A while ago you said "I no longer want anything to do with the community" and yet, here you are. I tried to leave too at one point - it's tougher than it looks :) Haukur 12:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, that wasn't a goodbye; Kelly sometimes uses "community" in a more specific sense than might be immediately apparent. Kirill Lokshin 12:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, but even under Kelly's limited definition it is the community that is discussing things on this talk page. In any case my point is that we've all had stressful times where we want to leave. We should speak gently of people in that situation, hope that they come back and make it as easy for them as possible to come back. We should not shout 'good riddance' and link to a hackneyed essay saying that their goodbye is a "passive agressive ... vehicle for violence". Haukur 12:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that I took an actual break at that point. And in that case I was pissed at "the community" because they were attacking me almost continuously.  That wasn't a case of my not getting my way or feeling that my "rights" had been trampled by some person "disregarding process"; it was a case of me being subjected to huge heaping volumes of uncivil monkeyshit from "the community".  Let's keep perspective here.  Kelly Martin (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You were upset because many people didn't want you as head clerk and some were quite vehement about it. That's understandable. You made some posts where you lambasted the community and said you were leaving it. That's also understandable. Then you took a break from the community for a while. Understandable, probably a good idea. Then you came back. That's great! All I'm saying is that it's okay to have some empathy for people who exercize their right to leave, even if they post a goodbye message and even if they end up only taking a break. Attacking ALoan as a "drama queen" which we're better off without was just completely uncalled for. Now he's clarified that it isn't even this issue which caused him to leave. As far as I can see no-one has left over this issue - but if they do then they're perfectly entitled to and we should not villify them. Haukur 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Smack bang on the nail's head. We can't allow self-important people like this to bully their way into having other people's admin privileges taken away. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but then we allow people who spitefully block three good-faith editors indefinitely to get their admin tools back. Also adminship is not a privilegy, and I'm going to vote oppose on your future RfA just for that.  Grue   15:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Kelly, please don't imply that people are upset because their personal objections were ignored. People are upset because of a perception that the actions of an authoritarian few violate the normal standards and practices of the community.  Whether or not you agree with that assessment, it is not helpful to miscast the complaints of others or suggest that their opinions are not welcome here.  Dragons flight 12:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Whistle whistle!! Guys were getting off track, off topic and a little personal here some of the above comments aren't really needed... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

People, people, it was not 60 some percent support. We didn't just look at it and say yeah, it's 60%, but we want to promote anyway. There were a huge number of supports and a lot of sockpuppetting on the oppose side. So we read what the community really had to say, not just what came up on paper. When we say extenuating circumstances we meant it. Give us some credit that we didn't throw consensus out the window, we just didn't read it based on a narrow reading of the percentage. - Taxman Talk 12:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say I'm truly shocked at this suggestion - where's your evidence for the sockpuppetry? --Mcginnly | Natter 17:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly can I say that I personally accept the decision of the crats (especially Danny) to reinstate Carnildo, espeically if it is on a probationary basis. However I would question the decision. Not with respect to Carnildo's re-adminship that decision is based on these crats basing personal trust into Carnildo - based on his recent record. Rather I would question the lack of consultation. I know such a decision ultimately rests with the Beurocrats but they must have known this would be a controversial promotion. Rather than just promoting I wonder whether closing the vote on time, then announcing their plans to reinstate on the trial period to the community for the to respond would have been better. Sure there would have been many similar comments those above but I wonder how many others would have supported the idea of a promotion on a trial basis. This kind of action could undermine the Beaurocrats respected and responsible position in our community - a position that really requires openness and discussion rather than decisions inside a 'closed room'


 * As I have said I fully support your choice to re-promote Carnildo and I genuinely hope and believe he has changed (and learnt his lesson) but I do feel slightly let down by the lack of respect for the rest of our community. Please talk to us...--Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (last note was an edit conflict and I missed Taxmans latest reply) I find it positive that you chose to look at the discussion rather than the percentages. But then I would hope that happens anyway ;-) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just how much additional consultation do you require? The bureaucrats had a whole page full of discussion on the merits of the candidate.  Do you feel that somehow you lacked a sufficient opportunity to make your opinion known? Kelly Martin (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Err yes but when was the possibility of promotion under review for 2 months suggested? Did I miss that somewhere? It would at least have been nice to hear about it as an option! Thats all Im saying --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I'll give you some credit, as it was a good judgement. Also, this may have already been addressed, but can it not be argued that the 60% result showed there was no consensus to remove adminship from said editor? I see it as essentially a request-for-deadminship, as the adminship was not removed by consensus in the first place. Also, it has to be said, that if every admin had an RFA right now, many would fail, because being an admin does not make you any friends, and yet the system still manages to work somehow. Martin 12:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that this is going to sound uncivil and I hope you will not take too much offense by it as I am not meaning to attack you personally but a really dangerous idea that you probably didn't mean to express. The above is one of the best examples of doubletalk that I've seen.  You cannot cast this RFA as a "request for deadminship".  Carnildo had already been deadminned by ArbCom.  Are you now saying that ArbCom decisions can be overturned by consensus?  Or that ArbCom decisions are subject to review such that their decisions can be overturned by the lack of a consensus to support their decision?  If so, this is a new and potentially disruptive proposal.


 * As I understand it, the purpose of ArbCom is to put an end to a dispute finally with the only recourse left to parties being an appeal directly to Jimbo. If Jimbo has any desire to keep his sanity, he will choose to leave most decisions of ArbCom intact so as to minimize such appeals.  --Richard 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "the system still manages to work somehow". No it doesn't. Many admins would fail? Only those would fail whose actions are rejected by community. As long as Wikipedia is democracy, all admins should be reelected. If it is an oligarchy (as Tony and Kelly like to see it), then we should abolish talk pages and shut up. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's convenient, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Martin 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"We believe that special consideration should be given to anyone that Danny likes". "The rest of you can just stuff your heads down a hole." -Splash - tk 13:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering that I have never had any interaction that I remember with Carnildo, and considering that I was asked to give an opinion on his RfA less than two hours before it was over, not even knowing that there was such an RfA before that, I am at a loss as to what your basis is. Or is it just that you prefer personal attacks when things don't go your way. Or should I assume that your comment was made in "good faith"? Danny 14:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake. "We believe that special consideration should be given to any RfA that Danny likes. The rest of you can just stuff your heads down a hole". Better? Different? -Splash - tk 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be wise of the bureaucrats to work hard to remove heat from this discussion and add light. Some of the above is definitely fuel for the heat. Obviously this is a contentious decision. We won't progress things in a good way by throwing knives at each other. --Durin 14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, everyone please remember to remain calm. I know some folks think RFC is a sham, but one on this issue might actually be useful (I'd love to see Bishonen's statement written as an outside view.) This isn't the end of the world, but I think many editors want clarification on this issue, and rightfully so. I think this was handled in the worst possible way and I want to know who actually thought this was a good idea and who didn't. Friday (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies - I acted without thinking through how the sudden red links would alarm some people. I have added a comment so they are blue.  This, incidentally, was not the trigger, although it was one of the straws in the wind. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Some other points of discussion on this
I'd like to raise several points which I don't think have been addressed above:
 * Was Carnildo offered to reject decision?: I'm curious as to whether any bureaucrat contacted Carnildo prior to making this decision public. From a reading of his talk page, it does not appear so. It had to be obvious that this decision was going to be controversial, and would most definitely place Carnildo in a most searing public light. Such a decision is virtually a sentence for Carnildo, rather than something to feel good about. Even if he clears ArbCom's review of him in two months, he will always be viewed as something of a pariah among a significant set of users. By promoting him under such a harshly controversial decision, this negative view has and will be sharply focused. He will never be able to fully leave this limelight. He should have been given an opportunity to reject the decision before it was implemented. It does not appear he was given such.


 * Full consideration of outcome:I'm concerned that the bureaucrats may not have made a careful consideration of the consequences of this decision. While I agree 100% that it was within their purview to act as they did, the impact of the decision could not have been seen as anything other than extremely controversial. Apparently we've had a number of admins leave the project over this decision. This is both unfortunate and highly predictable. It isn't bullying. It's simply people who are disgusted by what is perceived as abuse of a well established process. We should respect all users who contribute here in good faith. These users who have left over this certainly fall well within that group. Their departure is a significant loss to the project. In the past year, we've had two bureaucrats step down over less constroversial decisions. Certainly the bureaucrats had to have some inkling that this decision would cause a very significant amount of fallout, even if not among themselves. I'm curious if the bureaucrats considered this, and weighed it against the value of promoting Carnildo.


 * Carnildo should not be a special case: Carnildo can indeed be desysopped if things turn out other than the bureaucrats expect. But, if that is a significant basis of the decision then RfA should be changed to permit this sort of access to admin functions for all would-be administrators, and not just a lone person who is well known in the community. Carnildo should not be a special case.

--Durin 14:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * RfA descending into anarchy?: The bureucrats have certainly stated the case that they acted within the bounds expected of them. I fully support that they in fact did do so. However, as can be seen from a number of comments above, the community's expectations of them were radically different than what transpired. Over the last few months, there's been a gradual increase in the division of people within the RfA community. There's a significant number of people who feel RfA is broken, and I would venture to guess that virtually every one of them feel that this decision by the bureaucrats was 100% spot on. On the other side, there's a significant number of people who feel the process works, and works better than any alternative that has been proposed (and there's been a huge number of proposals). By making this decision, the bureaucrats have starkly drawn a line between these two groups. There's distrust from both sides, insults from both sides, and heated debate from both sides. I fear now that even if the system we have at RfA is as perfect as we can get, it will not matter; there is now such a strong divide between these two groups that RfA as it is now may crumble. What I think will evolve in its place is a process more in line with how one group feels than with both. Regardless of how good that one group feels about it, this will be a very negative outcome. If the bureaucrats hope to avoid this, they need to go to signficant effort to reinstill trust in the consensus based nature of RfA, which has been seriously undermined by this decision. It isn't enough to simply say "we acted within the bounds". You have to rise above that, and lead where others can follow.

The only sense in which they acted "within the bounds" is in the sense that noone knew the bounds might exist that this decision could be outside of. The bureaucrats were never scrutinised for the ability to make up arbitrary rules as they went along, to specify probationary adminships, to haul people before arbcom on their own, minority-collective authority. Noone expected the bureaucrats to dramatically alter the approach at the last moment without telling anyone, either support or oppose, that their !votes and comments would have a radically different meaning (i.e. basically none at all) under the scheme they were scheming. What purpose does de-sysopping and RfA serve if three bureaucrats have some beer and say "nah, this looks fun, let's do it"? -Splash - tk 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I used to think that bcrats were here to judge consensus on RfAs. If the ycan seea consensus here I am amazed. They are clearly basing their decision on something else. The Land 15:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to add one more: --Dragons flight 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the role of Bureaucrats?: No, really.  From one perspective Bureaucrats exist to judge consensus and this is their only function in RFA.  Though some of the statements above discuss consensus and votes, many talk about a broader picture that might be called "doing the right thing".  Certainly Taxman et al.'s initial statement is phrased primarily in terms of what the result ought to be rather than judging what the result was.  Likewise, the invention of probationary sysophood is a rather novel compromise by which the Bureaucrats might be said to be imposing their will on the community rather than simply interpreting community will.  It strikes me that this action declares with it an potential shift in the role of Bureaucrats from promoting "only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community" (WP:BUR) to some standard based on doing what the Bureaucrats believe is right, even when that conflicts with traditional community views on promotion.  Such a shift will undoubtedly please some and anger others.
 * Indeed. We are clearly well beyond the territory of conventional arbitration and beaureaucracy policy here. Bcrats and ArbCom are of course entitled to Ignore All Rules and I am sure the people involved wer aware, at least in the back of their minds, that is what they were doing. I don't have too much of a problem with RfA for new admins. I think the community as a whole needs to decide what sanctions for misbehaving admins should be available and how they are enforced: I don't think it is possible for any former admin, voluntarily or involuntarily deadminned, to go through a 'normal' RfA because enough people are wound up that the decision will end up in a result of No Consensus (as this effectively did), and probably with a lot of hurt feelings all round.
 * Perhaps ArbCom itself needs to consider reapplications for adminship from people it has formerly sacked?
 * Perhaps BCrats shoud consider them but in a process based on RFC rather than RFA?
 * Perhaps no-one should be deadmineed permanently but always allowed to reapply to ArbCom every two months?
 * Regards, The Land 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What part of sockpuppeting do people not understand? I am dumfounded that no one is simply saying, hmm, maybe they knew what they were doing. On top of that we have the extraordinary circumstances of the arbcom having taken away his adminship and none of them opposing him getting it back. If people want pure numbers to make them happy, without questionable votes on both sides the numbers were within range it didn't take much special consideration to send this one over. But apparently people would rather have fun sniping at those making decisions rather than trying to help with anything. By that I'm not referring to constructive comments, but the insinuation without evidence that this was because we were chummy with Carnildo, etc. - Taxman Talk 16:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If sockpuppeting was the real issue here, you could have saved lots of grief by making this clear in the explanation given. Friday (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Was it really only sockpuppeting? I've heard many difference possibilities; none was officially given. How many opposes were suspected socks? Three, four, maybe five. Take away another ten or so for opposing based on the bot? Were "bot's stupid" and "no admin needed to run bot" discounted? There are many possible interpretations as no official reasoning was given, except "we believe ArbCom only meant desysopping as temporary". – Chacor 16:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It would need to have been massive sockpuppeting (which, looking down the list of names, doesn't seem obvious, at least to me) to significantly change the number here. I'm guessing, given the original bcrat remarks here, that certain reasons for opposing the nomination were given less consideration than others; perhaps the bureaucrats might be able to make some general comments about how they regarded the various point made? Kirill Lokshin 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if Carnildo had a supermajority of support, given the strength of arguments given against him, I'd be surprised if you could see a consensus. However, I'm no bcrat (can't even spell it properly). The Land 16:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (to Taxman) I don't think pure numbers are at issue. Further, saying in essence "We know what we are doing, trust us" is tantamount to refusing any constructive criticism of decisions made by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats were put into their role to evaluate consensus on RfA. That in no way means you are above any negative feedback. The decision had to have been seen as controversial before it was implemented. There should be no...no...surprise that people are questioning the decision. Rather, there should be considerable effort to explain this decision, in detail, to help calm down the situation as opposed to criticizing people for their positions. The onus is on the bureaucrats to explain their decision in a rational, thoughtful way. The onus is not on the users to lockstep with the bureaucrats and not question their decision. --Durin 16:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Taxman: kindly go and reread your first few posts in this thread. See how you only started talking about sockpuppetry later, after people (oh so surprisingly) expressed some unhappiness? The initial announcement said things like "we believe that special consideration should be given to the extenuating circumstances of this case and that we should act in the spirit of forgiveness and reconcilliation which is integral to the success of our community", not "there was massive sockpuppetry in the oppose column". Why was that? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * BoG got it right. By bringing out the sockpuppet allegations now, the Bcrats involved are discrediting themselves.  You're making it sound more like you're saying "Well, we decided the outcome amongst ourselves, for reasons only we're allowed to know.  And, we'll make up a series of increasingly-implausible sounding excuses for why we decided the way we did."  And you wonder why people are raising eyebrows at this?  Damn.  Friday (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fun theory, but sockpuppeting was brought up well before the closing and if you look into it you'll see why there was good reason to believe more was coming. - Taxman Talk 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Taxman, that's hugely implausible. Your original appeal to forgiveness and blah was presumably a sham then, because really it was sockpuppets all along? Come on, you can't have this both ways: either your were simply making it up as you went along (your original assertion) or you weren't and the reason was sockpuppetry among the opposers (you'll be able to write them down here, in that case). If the latter is now the case, why the attempt at the former? (Please omit the lecture on good faith. I'm fresh out.) -Splash - tk 17:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it was only sockpuppets either, I was responding to people that acted like we decided to promote one at 60% at a whim with nothing else involved. - Taxman Talk 18:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm, can we please get a slightly more detailed explanation of how the bureaucrats arrived at their decision, then? Given the sheer level of weirdness here, I think having the reasoning explained would significantly help defuse the situation.  (As an aside, aren't sockpuppets being abused to manipulate an RFA supposed to be blocked?) Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if that was what people were complaining about (and it obviously isn't) you'd need the most extraordinary quantity of socks on the oppose side that I refuse to believe you have enough of them to get you anywhere near the region at which you get to start making it up. And that apart from the fact that the support side isn't clean either. It's not much of an excuse. -Splash - tk 18:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I, and undoubtedly other editors, don't vote in an RfA if it is well outside the usual threshhold and I have no particular inclination to contradict the way it is headed—after all, I am not going to investigate every single candidate to little effect. If there had been some information that an otherwise failing ~60% would in this case result in a sysopping, I would have looked into an obviously controversial candidate further, where otherwise I would not have any particular reason to do the extensive examination that would be necessary to write a comment that could possibly convince a 15% increase in support. If the level of support needed to pass is going to be changed for a certain RfA, that needs to be advertised beforehand. If the lower support that could have resulted had it been clear that 60% was passing, would also have been disregarded, then there is no reason to have an RfA in the first place.

Also, I looked through all of the opposing users' contributions, and didn't find any sockpuppetry; there are a couple of users who seem to contribute disproportionately in AfDs and RfAs, there are a couple with less than 500 edits, but all but a couple of opposers have had an account for over a month and more than half were well-established editors and admins that I have directly encountered. Perhaps there are forged signatures, but I have looked at the page history and at least most are not. There doesn't seem to be any unusual sockpuppetry in this RfA that would warrant a deviation, in that respect, from the usual RfA practice. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, User:Mostly Rainy is an EddieSegoura puppet... oh, wait, he voted support. Centrx, I think you are entirely correct about the tendencies of voters not to take the time if an RfA is clearly failing; I did not actually vote here either (to try to avoid stressing myself out, truth be told) but certainly wish I had in retrospect. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there in reality anything that can be done about this situation? - Or do we like sheep, just go baaah and then go back to writing, while our masters further police us. Giano | talk 16:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Centrx is right when he writes: "If the level of support needed to pass is going to be changed for a certain RfA, that needs to be advertised beforehand". I considered opposing but did not envy the investigation into his recent editing to determine if an oppose or support was valid. As it appeared he would not pass i decided not to chime in. I should have known better afterthe Sean Black RfA.  It would seem that the precedent that is being set here is that a simple majority could be enough for resysopping.  Is this the case?
 * I would also appreciate those who made the decision to calrify the decision, and to identify the so called sock puppets. David D. (Talk) 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the promotion would have been more palatable if:


 * The lower threshold was announced before or during the RfA. As was pointed out above, users tend not to oppose when an RfA is clearly failing. Hovering around 60% support, some users likely viewed an oppose vote as "piling on".


 * Immediately following the closure, detailed reasoning for the promotion was provided. This should have included the names of all people involved in the decision as well as strong arguments for ignoring the general promotion guidelines. If sockpuppets and weak reasons for opposing (OrphanBot, for example) were discounted, then mention it. By explaining the reasoning after the fact, it seems that it's being made up as objections are raised.


 * Carnildo had acknowledged that his actions (the ones that led to his desysoping) were wrong and should never be repeated. Instead he barely addressed the concerns of opposers and seemed to shrug off his actions as not being a big deal.

Transparency is getting to be a serious problem on Wikipedia. Decisions are being made with little or no explanation. It's important to not only make the "right decision", but to also explain why it's the right decision. SuperMachine 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you could announce a different threshold, because I don't think that it was known before the bureaucrats' evaluation. Also, I don't think it makes much of a difference, but in my case with a weak oppose vote, a probationary period is sufficient to turn that into a weak support. &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Were the right people making the final decision?
Why is it that Danny is the 112th support on an RFA he was later consulted on to make the final decision? -- nae'blis 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Danny, why did you just use the revert button to remove Nae'blis' question? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That I had to revert a rollback by Danny of this is really, really disappointing. It's a perfectly valid question - we'd confront any other bureaucrat who voiced an opinion. – Chacor 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is most odd indeed. &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've asked Danny for clarification, see User_talk:Danny. Remember, rollback is a one-click process.  Let's just assume a simple mistake until told otherwise, eh?  Friday (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't an accident, that's just messed up. There are a lot of irregularities going on here. :( Firsfron of Ronchester  17:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is too strange to not be a 1-click accident. As for the voting irregularity, it's a bit strange too (being the very last vote!), and I'd certainly like to hear a response.  &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is, of course, the third time that Danny has voted in support of an RfA and then been involved in the promotion (in fact he actually promoted the other two). -Splash - tk 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In general I trust a bureaucrat to not give their own vote any weight if they are involved in a decision. In this case, 1 vote probably didn't mean much.  But it was a contentious vote and he obviously had to know that it would cause *some* amount of controversy.  It's bad form, and it looks like a final support vote was just thrown in at the end to bias or legitimize the result.  I'm not saying that was the intention, only how it looks.  Of course the last vote could have been added well before he knew he would be helping taxman with the result, I don't know.  &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This would have looked much better if that hadn't happened. In the future it would be strongly appreciated if crats and Danny did not vote especially if they were considering some more or less out of process implementation anyways. JoshuaZ 18:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "We'd confront any other bureaucrat who voiced an opinion" -- this is fast becoming a witch hunt. I have closed many RFAs in which I voted, often with the opposite outcome of that for which I voted. This is true of almost all the bureaucrats, whose having been chosen by the community to do this job reflects their ability to participate in the process and decide its outcome impartially. &mdash; Dan | talk 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, let me rephrase that to any bureaucrat who voiced an opinion in the direction of the final result. There have been cases in the recent past where crats have gotten too involved in RFAs. – Chacor 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This was hardly a typical RfA and your examples do not seem that relevant to this case. Bureaucrats should be astute enough to realise when their actions could be seen as a conflict of interest, whether that is the case or not. One can easily cite AGF but that is a weak argument when a little foresight could have predicted this mess. David D. (Talk) 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: The rollback was an accidental click. Thankfully. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * At least, a damn good explanation ;-). --Ligulem 08:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol! Three simultaneous phone calls. Someone should do a cartoon... Carcharoth 09:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I like the part "I did not see what I was clicking" most ;-) (but it was a damn good click ;-). I wish I would be able to draw this cartoon, really. I would write that sentence in the cartoon. (Now, I'm finally going to edit the encyclopedia, promised. Cheers.) --Ligulem 09:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Taxman's RfB promise
'4'. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?

A'. Of course. Transparency is very important for a process like this that affects the community, so keeping conversation among bureaucrats, but open to review is an important part of that.

Didn't last long, unfortunately. -Splash - tk 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Touche. I can take my licks. In light of that statement I have made a mistake, no buts about that point. I just knew there were problems with some of the votes in Carnildo's RfA and I instinctively sought out trusted people. Even though I didn't intentionally break that pledge, that doesn't change the fact that I did different from what I said I would. However, I would like to know how you think your present politicking is helping move the project forward. So you didn't like the decision, but that doesn't also mean that your present efforts are helping either. - Taxman Talk 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But I'm never really of the mind that, when seeing something obviously wrong, one should simple sew up ones mouth for fear of upsetting someone. And before we broaden this out, I trust you aren't saying that everyone should simply fall in line because, hey, we're not changing anything no matter what you say. -Splash - tk 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That didn't answer what I asked. I gave you a straight answer and I think it would be only fair for you to give one. And yes, that would be correct that's not what I'm saying. It's more the manner in which you are approaching your efforts that is the problem and I'd like to know how you think it is valuable for the project to approach it the way you are. - Taxman Talk 19:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I had been reasonably direct. Anyway. Overlooking the "project" implications, because tonight is not a night I feel like writing articles, when you go and make wacky decisions you can expect to be held quite thoroughly to account for them. When the reason changes from "love and forgiveness" to "it's the sockpuppets, duh" (with the obligatory detour through "it's not a vote") then the bullet dodging needs to straightened out. How does this help the "project"? By, hopefully, making sure that the bureaucracy considers itself rather more thoroughly and carefully in future, that it knows it will be held firmly to account and thus that the admins they promote are those who will help the project. If they go promoting wacky RfAs, we'll get admins that harm the project (like Carnildo did). This particular subsection is hard on you, certainly, but if in future you stick to that promise then that too will have helped the project by making sure that thunderstorms aren't whipped out of the bad on a moment's notice. -Splash - tk 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don' mind being taken to task for a clear mistake. What I do mind is the personal attacks and the outright abrasive method with which you have conducted yourself. - Taxman Talk 23:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The real issue here is not politeness but ACCOUNTABILITY, both yours and Carnildo's. Now that you admit it was a "clear mistake", would you be willing to resign for it?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that question, in light of Taxman's pledge when he ran for bcat. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The clear mistake I was referring to was forgetting about the pledge from my RfB and that should have been clear from this section. The mistake was not in promoting Carnildo. As we said before we believed there were enough extenuating circumstances to make promoting Carnildo the right thing to do. That decision was not solely my own. I don't say that to deflect criticism, because I stand by the decision, but so that people remember three bureaucrats discussed that RfA and came to the same conclusion (incidentally at least one more did after too). It was not something I just decided on a whim to do. So no, I don't think the community or the most important thing, the encyclopedia, would be better served by resigning. I did what I did in the best interests of the project and I feel good about that. - Taxman Talk 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again you offer nothing but spin. No apologies, no admission of wrong-doing. The self-same arrogance of power which caused so many woes for poor Carnildo. At the very least, Taxman, you broke your promise...Splash has done an outstanding job catching and calling you on it. If your word is worth anything at all, if you have any sense of decency or honor left, you would resign.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Taxman has already admitted the mistake and apologized for it, numerous times. What else is there to say?  Unless the only "apology" that is acceptable is a resignation, there has already been one.  Taxman is a great bureaucrat.  He shouldn't resign.  If you have an issue with him, take it up in an official channel (such as ArbCom, etc.), not on this page.  Obviously the answer to the question is "No", he won't resign.  There is no need to ask it again. I voted against Carnildo, but it is important to separate my opinion of the decision with that of this totally separate admitted mistake.  The two issues must be judged independently to be fair and unbiased. -- RM 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion Essay
(de-indented) Resignation would be an honorable and gracious gesture suitable for Japanese CEOs who make mistakes. However, it seems like an excessive atonement to exact for Taxman's transgression. However, I think that Taxman has not yet acknowledged the gravity of the transgression. Perhaps it is because he does not recognize it as being all that grave.

I would like to point out that, not only was there a lack of transparency DURING the decision to promote Carnildo, there was a lack of transparency AFTER the announcement of the decision and that lack of transparency continues to the present.

In announcing the decision, Taxman did not explain adequately how the decision was reached nor the rationale for it. He never acknowledged the exceptional nature of Carnildo's RFA and the exceptional resolution of b'crats deciding to promote Carnildo in the absence of a consensus to do so.

As a result of this failure to lead by building a post-hoc consensus to support the decision, there has been a lot of heat and the absence of light in the discussion that ensued. We have just seen Tony Sidaway and some others who think as he does change the RFA front matter to assert that "RFAs are not a vote" and that the b'crats have the right to decide an RFA just about any old way they want to without giving much consideration to the numerical outcome of the RFA non-vote.

This is a major change in how people think about the RFA process. Maybe it's always been that way and people have just been led to believe that their vote counted for something. Silence from the b'crats at this point would endorse Tony Sidaway's interpretation of how the RFA process really works.

Instead of calling for Taxman's resignation, I call on all the b'crats to step forward (perhaps through a spokesperson) and define what they believe to be the RFA process.

I thought their primary job was to determine the consensus for the RFA process. Perhaps I was wrong in believing that when I read it. If so, please disabuse me of my misconception.

In response to the uproar ensuing after the decision to promote Carnildo, the b'crats said almost nothing. Perhaps the philosophy was "Say nothing and the uproar will die down." However, I maintain that it would have been far more useful for Taxman and other b'crats involved in the decision to take a proactive, leadership role in forming a consensus to support the decision.

Instead, they have left this job to editors such as Tony Sidaway whose dismissive attitude has been more divisive and antagonistic than healing. As a result, the dissension and unrest have gone on longer than it needs to have.

I have already argued elsewhere on this page that the b'crats should clearly state that Carnildo's promotion was a rare exception and that, in the vast majority of cases, they will honor the consensus of the RFA vote. I still hope that they will do this.

But, if they will not, they should clearly state what they believe are the long-term implications of the Carnildo promotion. Are they asserting, as Tony seems to, that the numerical outcome of RFA votes are, in fact, minor inputs into the promotion decision? (Tony rejected language that would have asserted that the numerical outcome of an RFA vote was a key consideration in making the decision to promote.)

Hopefully, this little essay will motivate the b'crats to step forward and speak authoritatively about the RFA process. Now is the time for all good b'crats to come to the aid of their 'pedia.

--Richard 03:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this assertion fully. I agree with Richard here that calling for Taxman's resignation is a little harsh so long as a better solution can be found.  The solution specified above is reasonable and is asking for bureaucrats to be forthcoming and open in the spirit of what this community is about.  I see no negatives in this, but I see negatives in silence and hidden discussion.  The latter is not conducive for a happily working encyclopedia.  With all that said, in my recent RfB, I said that I would give any bureaucrat the benefit of the doubt in any decision unless such a decision was so egregious that it required a potential resignation or removal.  I'm not convinced that this is the case, but I'd certainly entertain the thought if the bureaucrats are unwilling to address these concerns. Honestly, it only makes total sense to spell out the terms used in making these decisions.  I've had to scour countless archives to try to piece together the whole process so that I could understand it for my RfB.  It isn't easy, and it isn't as clear as it should be.  Perhaps RfA/RfB isn't broken, it just needs to be a clearly published process. (One note: Taxman is a great bureaucrat who does a lot of useful work.  But being a bureaucrat has great responsibility attached) -- RM 03:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked for more input from the other bureaucrats and the ArbCom 4 days ago. We have 15 active bureaucrats (not to mention 8 inactive ones). I would interested in hearing, for example, what User:Angela, User:Essjay, User:Linuxbeak, User:Nichalp, User:Pakaran, User:Raul654 think. -- ALoan (Talk) 04:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent question Aloan! It would also be interesting to see what The big kahuna himself has to say on the subject.
 * Richard, even if the mistake itself does not provide enough reason to call for Taxman's resignation, then certainly the poor way in which he has handled its aftermath does. The only places where admins and crats are held accountable to the community are Rfa and the Arbcomm. Both have clearly failed in this case. Barring some sort of divine intervention, we have no other means to address their wrongs other than attempts to appeal to any sense of honor or decency they might have left. Though such attempts are usually futile, there's no harm in trying. If only more people acted like those steotypical Japanese CEOs you mention...with honor, graciousness and humility and take responsibility for their own actions, this world, including this Wiki world, would be a better place.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny from the guy that tried to have two "votes" in the RfA, and is now clearly just angry because you didn't get your way. - Taxman Talk 04:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not angry because I didn't get my way, I'm angry because of the way you and your two colleagues got yours. If you had just taken a few moments to strike or move my proxy vote it would have been neither harm nor foul. You would have been well within your rights to do so and neither Karmafist nor I wouldn't have minded. I openly passed along my friend's opinion. You privately decided that your 3 votes counted more than 70. So who stinketh most here? Instead of trying to discredit the messenger because you dislike the message, why don't you do the right thing, for a change, and RESIGN?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a couple of points to make here. Firstly, Bureaucrats are not obliged to make any specific decision in a Request for Adminship. We don't promote them to become vote-counters, we promote them to become intelligent judges of who can gain the sysop bit. By convention, they will follow the consensus of the community (which, again, is, by convention, between 75 and 80 percent), however there is no sacred law to state that this is correct. We cannot have the double-standard of requiring Bureaucrats to have significant experience in Requests for adminship, and then use them exclusively as vote-counters. Secondly, while Taxman did the actual promotion, discussion on the actual promotion, from my contact with Taxman earlier that day, had occurred between a number of users, including Danny Wool and Rdsmith4 (not sure which, if any, other bureaucrats were involved). If you're going to ask for Taxman's resignation, go ahead and ask Danny Wool to resign, I'm sure him and Jimbo will be more than willing to oblige. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We had already explained that there were extenuating circumstances in this one. We then went on to explain more about those extenuating circumstances. Just because those got lost in the noise and weren't 100 page essays doesn't mean we didn't explain that this was an exceptional case, in fact we stated there were extenuating circumstances. And no there are not likely to be many if any future RfA's with such extraordinary circumstances. But when the unfounded personal attacks and vitriol come out there isn't much that can be said to improve the situation. The people that want to stir and create further controversy will anyway. - Taxman Talk 04:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Let Arbcom resysop an Arbcom-desysopped user
I removed this comment because at the time, it was more relevant to the overall concept of Arbcom and how they desysop admins. While I voted to support Carnildo (and I am very sympathetic to how difficult it is dfor desysopped admins to be resysopped), I wasn't happy with how this RfA was closed and in light of what happened here, I don't think Carnildo should have been subjected to an RfA (actually, two RfAs) in the first place. I really don't think RfA is the place to get these users resysopped. If Arbcom decided to desysop an admin, they should decide whether to resysop that user in a certain amount of time. Does this mean we should immediately desysop Carnildo? I would tentatively say no. This whole thing is a lesson... first of all, if Arbcom expects the desysop of an admin to be temporary, they shouldn't subject that former admin to an RfA, and instead just perform their own review of that former admin after a certain period of time. If arbcom expects the desysop of an admin to be permanent, then say so. I think this is probably more of a lesson to Arbcom and how they should hand out admin sanctions. Carnildo's case shows an example of how the sanctions can be wrong, and how the RfA can be a total mess. Hopefully it will help Arbcom to further refine how they hand out sanctions. --Deathphoenix ʕ 07:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a developing situation on another RFA (Archive 68)
This could get quite out of hand. I'd ask a bcrat to call WP:SNOW on it. – Chacor 18:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like an obvious promotion to me. Can I be a bureaucrat now? -Splash - tk 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I almost de-trascluded it off my own bat. However, I'd prefer at least a 010 tally before I called SNOW, not being a crat and all... The Land 18:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeez, it's deteriorating into a Massiveego repeat, only instead of trolling it's CIV and NPA. – Chacor 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, at 7 oppose to no support I have de-transcluded it on two grounds: 1) WP:SNOW; 2) It isn't an RfA because the candidate, even though hte's fileld the form in, show no desire to be an administrator. Obviously anyone can re-transclude it if they want, and a probably a 'crat should actaully close it. The Land 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that would be the best course of action. Michael 18:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been reverted by someone, so I'm not doing it again. The Land 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless the candidate himself withdraws, only 'crats can remove requests. Although I believe common sense could be applied to remove it, those participating should also have common sense not to stack to the point of humiliation. -- ReyBrujo 18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since when? If you look at the page history there are plenty of non-crats removing requests. However, I am happy to be corrected... The Land
 * My mistake, there is actually an exception for users that are not 'crats to close RFAs. Nevertheless, I find it sad that, after such a long discussion about the moral support, people still need to be stopped from piling on. -- ReyBrujo 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted it to make sure a crat sees it, rather than it just sitting there forever. I changed my mind though, it's clearly a fail, I'll just close it myself. --Rory096 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. Michael 18:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just blocked him to his RfA could be settled without his 'helpful' comments disrupting anything furhter. Ah well perhaps even so 3 hours on ice will help him calm down. The Land 18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on the diff provided by User:Netsnipe, it appears that User: Adriaan 1's problem is not just about this RFA. I doubt that the block will help much as he seems to have a huge chip on his shoulder about being from Africa.  Nonetheless, the block does send a message which may eventually sink in over time.  One can always hope... --Richard 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that 3 hour block will calm him down. He sounds like the type who'll become a vandal just to "teach us all a lesson". --  Netsnipe  ►  19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmpf. Trying to manipulate me with your stupid arguments on my talk page and this is what you say behind my back. But who the hell cares anyway? Certainly not me. --Scotteh 22:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, hang on you guys! Please view my comments on his talkpage. This is getting into a serious misunderstanding. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me  05:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis (Archive 68)
Just an FYI, the edit summary said that the nom only had 2 edits. I checked, and User:Jarlaxle Artemis was a an impersonator. An apparent accidental (though understandable) typo by the nominator. However, User:JarlaxleArtemis has apparently declined as per: this statement on his talk page - jc37 02:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Rectification (Archive 68)
I'm writing this to rectify something that I wrote in a couple of edit summaries (which cannot be altered): I accidentaly misread the deadline on Ram-Man's RfB, which was September 7, and not September 9, as I accidentaly read it. This means that, when the RfB was to close normally (which was noted by Ram-Man and Voice of All at the appropriate time), I misread a withdrawal. I have explained the situation in detail to Ram-Man in his talk page, so feel free to read it. But I wanted to go on the record and say that Ram-Man did not withdraw, and his RfB ran its full term. I have assessed the end result as I would normally at a regular closing time, and I've arrived at the following result: insufficient support consensus to promote to Bureaucratship. I arrived at a final result where 87% of the participants supported a promotion, which is below what is required for promotion to Bureaucratship, which is higher than for Adminship. Redux 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've accepted this as a simple mistake, so let's not have any undue fuss over this (in light of the Carnildo decision and other recent criticisms of the process). I'm thankful for all the comments made during the RfB (and I won't be spamming anyone's talk pages about it either).  I'll work on addressing the concerns raised, and I may be back again later for another attempt. -- RM 17:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're taking it in the ideal way. - Taxman Talk 19:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well of course. The way I see it is when I initially proposed the idea of becoming a "specialist bureaucrat", I didn't know what to expect.  I don't think anyone else has ever done that.  So I was both somewhat surprised by the amount of criticism (mainly citing lack of RfA and AfD experience), but on the flip side I was surprised that I did as well as I did at 87%.  I assumed from the start that this could be contentious.  -- RM 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Who knew, but I became an admin with 6 unanimous informal votes. My have times changed in just over 3 years. -- RM 20:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Forged RfA? (Archive 68)
There is a dispute between a young editor and other editors concerning the formation WikiProject. After I warned this particular user for his civility, I saw a userbox in his archived user page that said he was an admin here. I went to his RfA page at Requests for adminship/Emir214 and was shocked to find that it was an exact copy of my RfA - just the support votes - at Requests for adminship/Christopher Sundita. Any thoughts on how I should go about handling this? Or if I should even do anything about it all? Needless to say, a bureaucrat did not give him any sysop rights. --Chris S. 05:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've blocked them for one week. Impersonation of an administrator under any circumstances should not be tolerated at all. I suggest you forward this to WP:ANI. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The fake RfA should be deleted, too. Michael 05:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've deleted that page because it's forged. --WinHunter (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and post a note on WP:ANI. --Chris S. 06:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Then again, he (claims) to be twelve years old. How incivil was he? Did he threaten anyone? --  Netsnipe  ►  05:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He said in Tagalog "WALANG UNIFICATION! WALA! WALA! WALA! NAGMAMATIGAS AKO, ISA PANG NABASA KO YANG MERGE MERGE NA YAN AY BAKA I-AFD KO PA YANG TAMBAYAN NYO!" Which in English means (I'll spare the caps) "There is no unification! None! None! None! I am standing my ground, if I read one more about that merging I might just go ahead and put that Tambayan of yours up for AfD! --Chris S. 06:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So he got a little excited... Not that big a deal really. I've seen Wikipedians who are probably a lot older than him get a lot hotter under the collar.  Someone should tell him to cool down and explain to him why faking adminship is a blockable offense.  Anyone volunteer?
 * --Richard 06:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, I don't mind anyone overturning my block when he appeals and is repentant about it. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked for now based upon and given a stern warning instead. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

RFA closed far too early (Archive 68)
(Crossposted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Everyking). Everyking's RFA has been open for ten hours only. Because the matter is controversial, we should expect people who have been involved in some way in these matters to vote early. However, I believe that the RFA should stay open longer to allow the community at large to voice their opinion, not only the few people who happened to be online in these ten hours. Tony Sidaway invoked WP:SNOWBALL when unlisting, but I don't think it has anything to do with the snowball clause at this point. I propose relisting it and letting it run for at least another full day, if not longer. &mdash; mark &#9998; 18:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Crossposting is probably not the best thing to do, let's keep the discussion in one place only. Thanks! &mdash; mark &#9998; 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Although there is a related discussion at WP:BN as well. NoSeptember  12:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My Failed RfB and Bot Approvals (Archive 68)
I'm not sure where to bring this up, so I'll mention it here, since it is related to my recent failed RfB. This could be a problem with the current Bot approval process, but two bots are currently awaiting bot flags and there are no bureaucrats paying attention to the situation, so perhaps they will notice it here. I was hoping that the recent exposure would have caused more bureaucrats to pay attention to the situation. The bots are listed at the Bots/Approval log. It isn't terribly difficult to do, afterall, but it does point to the reason for my RfB. Any assistance would be appreciated. -- RM 02:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I sympathize entirely with your frustration; yours is in my view an example of a request that failed, to the detriment of the community, because of oppose voters' specious justification. I've granted bot status to the two approved accounts; I wish I could promise to watch the bot pages for future approvals, but I doubt I'll remember it. If it ever becomes especially backlogged, please do drop me a note and I'll take care of it. &mdash; Dan | talk 02:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If qualified users wanting to help the project are being delayed because of bureaucratic (no pun intended) delays, it seems to me that is an unfortunate and counterproductive situation.
 * If the issue is that bureaucrats, because of their manifold other duties, miss requests for bot approval that they need to review, then either create a special page requesting bot flags for approval-group-approved bots, and have all the 'crats watchlist that page, or post the flag requests on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard, which exists for the express purpose of advising the Bureaucrats of things they need to know about.
 * Alternatively, if the bureaucrats simply rubber-stamp the approval by the bots group without any independent role beyond formally affixing the flag, which I gather may be the case, and this is causing delays, then the flagging function could simply be delegated to the head of the approvals group.
 * Perhaps matters are more complicated than this, but I don't see it. Regards, Newyorkbrad
 * There is no "head" of the group now. The idea of letting the group have the bot flagging right is interesting, though perhaps the extra "oversight" of a bcrat might in some way be useful. Voice -of-  All  03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't clear to me why bot-flagging is a crat only thing anyways. The level of trust required doesn't seem to be more than what we normally give admins. JoshuaZ 03:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Letting any admin do it could cause problems and conflict of interest issues. I think that giving it to the approvals groups is far more reasonable, but giving it to crats is more security. Voice -of-  All  03:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well we don't really want admins randomly giving their powerful accounts bot flags. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. I the above meant to be sarcastic? JoshuaZ 03:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (ec)Giving admins the ability to set bot flags basically adds the risk of a bad admin setting bot flags to users that shouldn't be granted those abilities. And a bot just flies under the radar in terms of avoiding RC detection.  This is the reason they go through such a vigorous process to ensure that they are acceptable.  The bureaucrat setting bot flags issue is one of added security.  As for the process of alerting bureaucrats to new bots, the BAG is going to be working on streamlining the process so that future approvals are faster.  But for now, we are stuck with the old somewhat broken system.  -- RM 03:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (ec) How about this: the flag can be conferred by a member of the bot approval group who is also an administrator? That would ensure the combination of tech expertise and community trust. I understand why bureaucrats were included in the process, but if they are automatically flagging all bots approved by the approval group, I don't see value added. Newyorkbrad 03:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically a bureaucrat must verify that the approval is authentic, although I can't say if they actually do that. They also have the option to look at the discussion for the bot to make sure that they agree.  It isn't hard for them to do, and would be an added layer of security that would be great.  As for allowing members of the approval group to set bot flags, they'd have to be bureaucrats or there would have to be some sort of WikiMedia software change.  Letting bureaucrats do it seems easier that adding yet another extension... maybe. -- RM 03:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about the software so I will defer to you on that issue. In which case, see above for suggestions about where to post things so the 'crats will see them.  (I also think we should make everyone read this exchange before your next RfB. :) ) Newyorkbrad 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about the software to be an expert. I'm kinda guessing on how this works.    But for a change like that, you'd at least need 1) community consensus and 2) developer approval. -- RM 03:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it would be very easy. "$wgGroupPermissions['makebot']['makebot'] = true" in the php (any of them). That would add a "makebot" usergroup. Voice -of-  All  03:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Which, with the current software, could only have users assigned to it by stewards. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey well there you go. Easy to accomplish.  Still though, I for one LIKE the idea that a bureaucrat has to do it.  The added security it helpful.  If you can pass an RfB, I trust you to do it. -- RM 03:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is what the Bureaucrat's noticeboard is for. Quickly after they are mentioned there, things get taken care of. - Taxman Talk 12:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was trying to find that page, but apparently I must have searched for it under the wrong name. I should have assumed that if there was a AN, there should equally be a BN, but I don't always use shortcuts, as I tend to use bookmarks and I've never needed BN before.  Well, now I know. -- RM 12:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Though it shouldn't have to be posted there. BCrats should be watching bot approvals anyway. Voice -of-  All  15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Messedrocker 2 (Archive 68)
Any crat gonna close it? Raul promoted him this morning at close but it hasnt been closed off and people are still voting - is that a concious decision or did Raul forget :P --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 14:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what people normally do, but I wrote You can stop now. He's been promoted. --Tony Sidaway 14:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I closed it. --Durin 14:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot. It's been a while since I closed one of these things. Raul654 14:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the relevant archival templates are:
 * Template:Rfaf - closing header for failed RFAs
 * Template:Rfap - closing header for passed RFAs
 * Template:Rfab - closing footer for all RFAs
 * HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that this promotion was the sixth of six consecutive promotions done by six different bureaucrats. Good to see so many bureaucrats participating. NoSeptember 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A bureaucrat's take on the Carnildo RFA (Archive 68)
I only recently learned about the bureaucrat's noticeboard or, more precisely, I only recently discovered that there was content of interest to me being posted on that noticeboard.

Specifically, I discovered that there was discussion about the recent Carnildo RFA there. I think there is a recent set of posts that should be read by everybody interested in the longer term implications of the outcome of the Carnildo RFA.

What is posted below is part of a longer discussion but I am just cross-posting the posts that I think are most pertinent. The original posts can be found at WP:BN. --Richard 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ... All of us who are regulars at RfA have standards of one sort or another on what makes a good admin. The core issue here is not what our standards are. The core issue is the schism that has recently generated between the RfA regulars and the bureaucrat corps. John Reid's question, though apparently regarded as insulting, is more directly aimed at addressing the schism. The bureaucrats have largely been silent of late in this debate. Now is not the time to be silent, to hope this problem will go away if enough silence is given. I'd strongly welcome a concerted effort on the part of the bureaucrats to address the schism that has generated. --Durin 12:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've always been a staunch supporter of the bureaucrats, but I agree in this one that silence at this point is *not* constructive. As I recently discovered, being a bureaucrat is different from being an admin.  While an admin may be "no big deal" to many people, a bureaucrat position is considered a "burden", one with a lot of work associated with it.  My point here being that the issues raised recently should be addressed by bureaucrats, as interaction with the community is an important part of being one.  Radiant's question was very helpful, I believe. -- RM 13:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been following all of the discussions here. So far, it seems to me like an enormous generalization.  All of this has been generated by a decision made in Carnildo's RfA, not by any kind of decision making pattern on the part of the Bureaucracy in general.  Taxman has been addressing the criticism that the decision (and its process) sparked.  He has even admitted that the way in which the decision was made was perhaps not ideal.  I have no reason to believe, given all that, that this situation would be repeated in the forseeable future. To derive from this situation a conclusion that Bureaucrats could be  looking to "ignore community consensus [and rule RfA with an iron fist]" is completely unjustified.  Everyone who is a regular in RfA knows how the old saying goes: "we elect Bureaucrats to make the tough decisions, determine consensus in difficult scenarios", etc.  Well, sometimes, in order to do our job, we need to think outside the box, try new solutions -- as former Bureaucrat Cecropia did in putting forward the 75-80% margin of discretion for promotion in troubled RfAs.  Most of the time, it works.  Sometimes, it doesn't.  People have spoken in the sense that the solution that Taxman tried did not suit them.  We hear you.  It is, after all, a human process. Without going into any specifics of Carnildo's RfA, since I wasn't involved in the process of closing that RfA, let's also not forget that those difficult RfAs can yield complicated scenarios: in extreme cases, an apparent consensus in the neighborhood of circa 60% could, in theory, result in promotion, assuming a scenario where a RfA has been spammed by sockpuppets and bad-faith or bandwagonning !votes.  After going through all the participants,  a Bureaucrat could arrive at a real consensus, amidst the good-faith, well-reasoned participants, that would be sufficent for promotion -- and as a matter of fact, whenever people feel that we have not done that, they protest as well, asking if all we ever do is just count votes.  At the same time, if a user is promoted whose RfA had an apparent consensus of 61%, people also protest, saying that we are overlooking consensus and doing as we please.  It's almost a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation.  But that's fine: addressing people's concerns and answering questions as to how decisions are made (or how they were made) is part of the job -- and Taxman, as the principal Bureaucrat involved in closing  Carnildo's RfA, has been doing it: he has not refused to answer questions as to how or why the decision was made as it was.  It comes with the territory. However, I'm sure you will agree that it is not possible for us to do our job as you yourselves would want us to do it if, whenever a controversial decision is made, people start asking us to line up and renew our "vows" to the project officially.  The bottom line is: we are here to make those decisions.  The community is not only free, but in fact expected to protest if it feels that any of our decisions were not in keeping with its expectations.  But to go from there to suggest that Bureaucrats could be looking to ignore consensus altogether and take over RfA entirely is a giant leap, and one that is completely unjustified by the big picture. Let's not confuse things: the Carnildo decision was not appreciated.  That's one thing.  Questioning the Bureaucrats' commitment to the project, that's quite different.  Redux 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Redux's post above is the best that I've read in the torrent of words that has been written since the closing of the Carnildo RFA. I have posted in several messages on WP:RFA a call for the bureaucrats to "address people's concerns and answering questions as to how decisions are made" because, IMO, Taxman's failure to do this adequately is part of the reason that the discontent has been so high.  I think the more extreme reactions have been "over the top" but I also think that it is inappropriate for bureaucrats to say "get over it, it's done, let's move on".  If there is a significant discontent, it is incumbent on the bureaucrats to make an earnest effort to address the reasonable basis of that discontent.  Redux's post is a first step in that direction.


 * Unfortunately, not everybody who watches WP:RFA watches WP:BN and so Redux's fine post is not likely to be read by all who should read it. For this reason, have crossposted it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship.


 * --Richard 15:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have not been following the discussion, a fair amount of recent comments added over the past week or two have been "archived". The edit history reveals all. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion request (Archive 69)
Can an admin delete Requests for adminship/ReyBrujo, please? Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 05:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Yank  sox  05:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

AzaToth's RfA (Archive 70)
Carl is eating his own dog food and runs his own second RfA using his proposed format (to my surprise). Could we please let this fly as a pilot? I understand this might be a bit shocking first, but why not? --Ligulem 16:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like the answer has been given. Duh. . --Ligulem 16:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would recommend concensus be gathered for such pilot before starting it or else we would end up evaluating the format instead of the candidate in the RfA. --WinHunter (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added it back, with the normal format. --Alex (Talk) 16:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would note that the discussion section has been included in the most recent 10-15 RfAs and has been almost entirely ignored, showing that the practical consensus is for the use of the support/oppose/neutral sections. Gwernol 16:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Let's go with the old format. Thanks to Alex for fixing it :). --Ligulem 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wanted to see how it was recieved by the comunity, but it wan't recieved as good as I was hoping for :( I though it wasn't any wrong doing that, becasue there isn't any policy how the process of nominating and administrator as I have seen. → A z a  Toth 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * After all it was a nice try. And I applaud your courage! But let's run it now as it is. --Ligulem 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hang on. Can you just delete an RFA like that? I thought that once you withdrew you had to wait for a bureaucrat to archive it properly. I'm probably wrong, though. Moreschi 17:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? Nobody deleted the nom. It's here. Carl has withdrawn it, which is in due compliance with current RfA standards. A nominee is free to withdraw at any time during the RfA. At that point, the RfA ends and is delisted. All within current process. And we don't need crats to archive withdrawn RfA's. They are not archived anyway, just listed on the recently failed/succeeded noms pages. --Ligulem 17:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That I really don't know anything about, as this is neither a failed or a succeeded nomination, but an aborted nomination, I feel that it's ok, just to delist it. → A z a  Toth 17:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Apologies for the misunderstanding - I thought he'd blanked it altogether. Moreschi 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Rory's RFA (Archive 71)
Could someone please properly format this RFA? The current count is (41/32/4/17). Apparently there was a section for "Tangential oppose", and I don't think changing standard formatting is going to offset or change anything. If it's an oppose, it's an oppose an should be marked under the right section. If someone could fix this, it would be most helpful. — Moe   Epsilon  02:08 October 04 '06
 * Why would you care? I do not see any harm. Let it be. FloNight 02:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It just seemed like "This section I've crafted for people who aren't piling on because of IRC over this supposed "bitch" remark." seemed like a rather strange reason to change standard formatting. — Moe   Epsilon  02:16 October 04 '06
 * It could be helpful to the closing 'crat. Yank  sox  02:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It could also cause problems for the bots. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Bots count votes. RfA is not (or should not be) a vote. The point is therefore moot. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 06:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely if it's a problem for the 'crats they can fix it themselves? --Spartaz 07:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus for TawkerbotTorA (Archive 71)
Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA

Scratching my head at this... (Archive 74)
Was at Template:Signpost-subscription when I clicked on what links here I found this mistake.

Requests_for_adminship/Peregrinefisher

Found it funny when I saw this RfA sub-page, anyway I didn't want to tagged a wikipedia subpage for speedy del without knowing if I should or not as its not an article/picture etc but an somewhat copy of a user page, with the request for RfA boxed in with the user boxes. ▪◦▪ ≡Ѕirex98≡  11:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a malformed RfA - they are templating their userpage from somewhere, and that template had been stuck in the opening part of the RfA - have fixed it for now, but I will now find out if the template is in the right spot or not. It is a very old RfA that appears to have never been added to the front page - I'm not sure what the user wants to do about this, but I will contact them to find out. Viridae Talk 11:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Found the problem - it was subsituting his userpage because he used a colon: instead of a straight up line:  . Viridae Talk  12:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ah, I was wondering why the Signpost was going to the RfA with a userpage, Hope I didn't embarrass the applicant, just one small typo, Thank you Viridae :) ▪◦▪ ≡Ѕirex98≡  12:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The RfA was written nearly 2 months ago and never got posted to WP:RFA. I have contacted them to ask wether they would like to proceed. Viridae Talk 12:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If they do not, please move it to their userpage or add a CSD tag. ( Radiant ) 12:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. That would have been the next question I asked at WP:AN. Viridae Talk 12:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Did they spend two months checking back to a malformed page and wondering why no-one was participating in the RfA? Or did they decide not to proceed and never spotted the malformation of the RfA page? Well, I guess we might find out. If the RfA goes ahead, I predict someone will ask what happened. :-) Carcharoth 13:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The date and time will be altered to the correct week long running time, so they may not. Viridae Talk 13:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the user in question here is contributing, but hasn't responded yet. How long before Radiant's suggestions (move to userpage or add a CSD tag) can be considered? Carcharoth 17:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests_for_adminship/asams10 (Archive 75)
I just stumbled accross this, and I'm not sure what the procedure is for RfAs that are half over without being transcluded. Could somebody with more experience in this area take a look at it? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The nomination is not "half over" - the nomination begins when they are listed on WP:RFA. I've reset the timer to take that into account. Tito xd (?!?) 04:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks, I'd assumed it was half over seeng as the page was started 3 days ago and the standard length for an RfA is 7. Cheers! Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Tonywalkton (Archive 75)
I've nominated User:Tonywalton, but I can't sort out the format - apologies, jimfbleak 13:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a link near the top of the RFA page. Go to Requests for adminship/nominate and follow the instructions. ( Radiant ) 13:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle withdrawn? (Archive 75)
Kizzle seems to have withdrawn from his RfA, but three more !votes have come in since. I'm not sure what to do here, but perhaps a 'crat decide whether to count them or not.--Kchase T 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They could be marked as coming in after he withdrew. His withdrawal message was not prominent and easily missed. I left the votes there because they were good faith votes and the exact count is not that important here, since we are just measuring community consensus. I suppose it would be OK to remove them too. NoSeptember  03:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone has withdrawn from an RfA, the !votes don't matter at all, so there's not much for a 'crat to decide upon... EVula // talk // ☯  // 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Sganeshkumar 1989 (Archive 75)
I'm not sure what to make of this one - the candidate signed the acceptance statement in May 2006, and has transcluded it today. Is this OK? riana_dzasta 10:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the questions were not answered and the formatting was bad, I removed it and suggested that he clean it up and try later (he has only 800 edits and hence not much chance of success at the moment). He replied in my talk page that he'll try in March. Tintin (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, an eleven-month nomination process! Bet that's a record! —Doug Bell talk 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA closure (Archive 76)
Somebody has to close Requests for adminship/Asterion as it ended on 12:34, December 27, 2006 (UTC). -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up ®  14:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been closed. Thanks.  Redux 15:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Redux. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up ®  17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/BlackJack (Archive 76)
Um...this RfA should have been closed around seven hours ago, as of this writing. --210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I say we mailbomb Essjay. :P -Amarkov blahedits 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hahaha... Not funny! Grand  master  ka  03:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. MEANIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -Amarkov blahedits 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should be expecting that much of efficiencies during the holiday season. --WinHunter (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good thing a couple extra hours (read: half a day) won't affect it much. -Amarkov blahedits 04:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy closure of RfA for User:BrianRFSU (Archive 77)
I found a stray RfA for User:BrianRFSU and wasn't quite sure what to do about it. I'm hesitant to transclude it on the main page, because of the responses and user's low contribution history, it seems like a foregone conclusion... I feel that a pile-on wouldn't do much in the way of making the editor realize the error of RfA self-nominating so early and might discourage him from contributing to the project. Perhaps someone could ask him to withdraw and/or early close it, and leave a note on his talk page which explains why. -- <strong style="color:blue;">Kinu <sup style="color:red;">t /<sub style="color:red;">c  17:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Check out Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship – there are many requests that never made it on to the main page. In BrianRFSU's case, a note to his talk page would be sufficient. -- Majorly  ( Talk ) 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Chamillitaryboi94 (Archive 77)
That RfA will never have a snowball's chance in hell of making it; can someone close it per WP:SNOW? --<font color="darkblue" face="Kristen ITC">teh <font color="steelblue" face="Kristen ITC">tennis <font color="seagreen" face="Kristen ITC">man  21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone can close RfAs of this kind. Be bold! -- Majorly  ( Talk ) 21:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you had to be an admin to close RfA discussions. Well, I'll get right on that then. --<font color="darkblue" face="Kristen ITC">teh <font color="steelblue" face="Kristen ITC">tennis <font color="seagreen" face="Kristen ITC">man  21:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for closing RfAs when the candidates are woefully unqualified, but aren't the opinions of four editors (0/3/1) a rather small sample? SuperMachine 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably. The candidate, however has been around less than 2 weeks. -- Majorly  ( Talk ) 21:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with Majorly; not just anyone is qualified to close RFAs of any kind, and Bureaucrats should be closing the vast majority. When it's already been withdrawn by the candidate, that's different, but a simple snowball case requires a bit more consensus than four editors and twenty minutes in my view. There's no evidence of ill intent on the part of the candidate here, and I don't see where anyone took the time to wait for Chamilitaryboi to respond to the advice to withdraw (something that could have indicated a strength of character for a future bid). -- nae'blis 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah well, if I was wrong, feel free to reverse it. -- Majorly  ( Talk ) 21:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, no sense making the process more chaotic still, I just wish we played a little less Whack-a-mole here... -- nae'blis 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC) User_talk:Chamillitaryboi94

Don't quite know what to do here... (Archive 77)
Requests for adminship/Ali 786 appears to be stuck somewhere not fully there. How are you supposed to repair them? 68.39.174.238 08:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I corrected that apparently accidental page transclusion. The voting link still needs fixing though... - jc37 08:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And getting rid of the sockpuppets. --Deskana (For Great Justice!)  12:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just closed it. It's been "open" for over a year. If the user still wishes to be an administrator, they can open a new request. --Deskana (For Great Justice!)  12:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)