Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 1

Involuntary Renamings

 * 20:43, 16 September 2005 Pakaran renameuser (Renamed the user "KaitlynAnnCarlson" (which had 4 edits) to "Sollog troll") Requested by Jimbo on IRC. The original name is that of a young girl, and was being used by Sollog (or one of his followers, assuming he has any) to post insults about said girl's father.  Pakaran 20:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 00:30, August 30, 2005 Ed Poor renameuser (Renamed the user "Trollderella" (which had 828 edits) to "EnduranceFan"). There was some discussion about this in the form of an RfC at Requests for comment/User names/Trollderella.
 * 23:48, August 28, 2005 Ed Poor renameuser (Renamed the user "இ" (which had 4 edits) to "UniqueTamil")
 * 00:27, August 28, 2005 Ed Poor renameuser (Renamed the user "◌◌◌◌◌◌◌◌◌◌◌◌◌◌◌◌◌◌◌◌◌" (which had 2 edits) to "Dotty")
 * 19:49, August 24, 2005 Renamed  (which had 80 edits) to

Close-call RFAs

 * RobyWayne is currently marginal, a bit under 75%. I'm going to wait a few hours, if I had to close it now I wouldn't promote.  Pakaran 20:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. It's 82.6%, unless you count the late vote, in which case it's 83.3%.  I promoted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I may have done the math wrong, promoting was the right decision Pakaran 02:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Andrevan's RfB is very marginal. Is it worth extending for a day or so?  Pakaran 04:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * To be more exact, it's at a tad under 84.5% right now. Pakaran 04:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't be talking about my own nomination, but, are you counting Boothy443? Without him, it's more like 86%. Andre ( talk ) 04:24, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point. Also some of the opposes are based largely on too many bureaucrats.  That said, I recently noticed that I voted on your request, so I'm going to recuse from closing it. Pakaran
 * See User talk:UninvitedCompany


 * Ed Poor closed khan 2 (under 70%, Ithink)

Other

 * Please vote on Bureaucrat consensus poll. Andre ( talk ) 19:28, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

GordonWatts
I don't think Gordon Watts' nomination should be allowed to carry on. Given the fact that he kept on renominating Terri Schiavo in FAC, he might very well run for adminship a fortnight's time after this RFA is over. He is clearly not going to make it. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  18:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Requests for rollback privileges
Recently, Talrias mentioned talking to BCrats about this proposal. It would be helpful to get some BCrat's opinions there. At this point I think it specifically relates to BCrats. Thanks. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  15:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Guide to requests for adminship
WP:GRFA has recently been created and is under ongoing development. Bureacrats input into this resource either through contributions or through discussion on the guide's talk page would be most welcome. --Durin 18:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for user renaming
 User:Samivel has asked on the Admin Noticeboard to have his username changed and his edits reassigned. FYI. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That function has been suspended for the past 60 days. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This function is no longer suspended so he/she should be advised to possibly add it to the requests for name changes page. Jtkiefer T  06:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Luigi30's RFA
Hi, I'm inviting bureaucrats to offer their opinions on Luigi30's RFA, as he was promoted with around 72% support, which is quite low. There's discussion going on at the RFA talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Xandrix requested name change
I've been following a group of intermittent vandals, one of whom, User:Xandrix, just posted a request for a name change. The account was created today, immediately used to vandalize Pearland High School (their favorite target), a couple of nonsense notes were traded on the user page/talk page, and then this name change request. FWIW. (Users User:Wilfredo and User:Supervader007 are part of this band, too.) -- Kbh3rdtalk 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucrats, please make sure you do not close RfAs early
We've had another RfA (Pablo-flores) that was closed early, this time two days early. Please see notes at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship. Thank you. --Durin 14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Alert of possible new "Boothy-esque" voter
User:BD2412 has brought to my attention that User:Masssiveego is blindly opposing RFAs as User:Boothy443 did. I am not suggesting to ignore this user's votes; but to instead monitor and see if there is any pattern. WP:AGF and all that. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha
I totally forgot we even had this. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  19:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. Perhaps we can use it a bit more often? I'll archive the old stuff when I get back home tonight. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Random pat on the back -- I totally did the last 3 sysoppings :D Take that cecropia ;) (well...even though you've probably done 1000x more than me total) &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  00:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this was created by Ed (without telling anyone) to list his unilateral decisions. It doesn't mean we can't use it for its intended purpose tho. Secretlondon 01:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was what I was thinking. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  02:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

CSCWEM
In my humble, completely unqualified, un-asked-for, utterly useless, non-bureaucratic opinion, the RfA for User:Can't_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me here oughtta be discussed a bit amongst the group of b'crats as it posits an interesting challenge: he has a very large ammount of support, yet he also has a near-consensus-breaking level of legitamate, reasoned oppose votes. Just a thought, if y'all are one step ahead of me, please ignore me and carry on with my apologies for butting in. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He's still well above 75% at last glance which is the normal standard for approval though the final standard of approval is up to the closing bureaucrat. The bureaucrats should also take into account if sheep voting is involved which happens quite a bit when one person says this person is too new then a dozen other people second it for the sake of seconding it.  Jtkiefer T   02:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Or when one person says he's good and a dozen ditto it to go along. ;-) -- LV (Dark Mark)  02:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 76%, not taking into account neutral votes. Sheep voting is definitely a problem on the support side, too.  But of course, it's not a vote, after all... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 02:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All the oppose seem to be the same reason - lack of time. There doesn't seem to be anything else problematic that's come up. Secretlondon 10:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Who closed it? I think that I would have promoted -- 77% support and the only issue brought up being time. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  03:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Cecropia closed it, there was also some talk on CSCWEM's talk page afterwards about this IIRC. FWIW, CSCWEM didn't seem too bothered with failing and said he'd run again later. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A slighty non standard case
This case is rather non standard. As such it may be helpful if you would comment.Geni 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

RFB closure templates
I've created three RFB closure templates modeled after the existing RFA closure templates (those are, for those keeping score at home, rfap, rfaf, and rfab). The new templates are named similarly, and are functionally identical (except with language appropriate for closing a request for bureaucratship). These are–


 * rfbp – for a successful/passing RFB
 * rfbf – for an unsuccessful/failing RFB
 * rfbb – this goes at the bottom of the RFB (identical really to rfab)

These can be used with or without subst. I'll leave that up to you Bureaucrats. :P In any event, while RFBs are much more rare, they should (IMHO) have the same closure language to discourage people from editing finalized RFBs. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems you're going to get a chance to test them out soon... :) Tito xd (?!? - help us) 23:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, Cecropia used the RFA templates. :( Maybe next time. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 00:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Any available BCrat?
Can a 'crat please reinstate my sysop privs per Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war? Thanks. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Will do. Behave this time ;) :P &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  02:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try. :-P —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd's RfB
The current percentage appears to be 82.5% in support (not counting neutral). Would you guys say this is a pretty good support? If it ended at this percentage, would you promote? I would, seeing as most of the oppose votes (I think 8, although I didn't count) are cliché things like "not enough time" (which isn't always a good reason), "we don't need more bureaucrats" (why not?), etc. What are your opinions? &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  02:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a 'crat, but I can observe that no crat nomination has ever passed with that much opposition. I also don't think it's at all fair to work your down the list of opposes finding reasons to reject the ones you personally dislike, despite the fact that they are made by well-established, respected editors. Note that I have notvoted 'neutral' on the nom itself. -Splash talk 02:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * *Sigh* If you view the "not enough time" as cliche votes, implying you could simply discount them, you are setting your own personal standard for promotion. You will then have to discount the cliche votes in favor as well as those expressed with no useful information other than, for example, "Oh em Gee Support". -- Cecropia 04:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * double sigh* I'm not discounting them entirely. For example, now that you are pointing out to me the average threshhold for promotion, I won't ignore them. But in a borderline case some thought would be required. And even you, the almighty godking of the bureaucrats (I say that not sarcastically, I think we'd seriously fall apart without you) were only here for a little less than a year at your pomotion. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  23:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is only one almighty godking at Wikipedia, and he gets his picture taken sailing on yachts surrounding by pretty girls. I don't think that's me, but thanks for the fantasy. There are a few points to be made, and they are not directly particularly at you, but at all bureaucrats and bureaucrat-wannabes. We went througha pretty extensive process of determining community sentiment on promotions, and it is incumbent on all bureaucrats to know what they are about. You already understand the 90% plus - no substantive disability/opposition issue, but I will make a few more points:
 * All bureaucrats need to be on the same page. There is a discretionary area in admin promotions of 75%-80% and a strict scrutiny on bcrats. But "discretion" means reasoned discretion, not personal opinion. We can't have bcrat A deciding that 75% is always enough, bcrat B deciding that it's 80% or nothing and bcrat C using a dart board. If a discretionary promotion falls to a bcrat who is willing to tackle it, (s)he must know why (s)he is making or removing the promotion and be able to explain it in neutral terms.
 * Openness means that bcrats are ready to disclose all reasoning behind promotions once they are made. If consultation only with other bcrats is necessary that should be done on the other bcrats talk pages or exceptionally by email, not on IRC or the mailing list. This is not a matter of secrecy, it is a matter of not publicly debating individual promotions.
 * Bureaucrats should only discuss pending promotions or removals with other bureaucrats. There is only one place for the wider community to discuss a promotion and that is at the candidate's RfA where everyone can see and discuss it. Why? Don't double the process. Bureaucrats are "influenced" by the community's opinions as written at RfA. It is the only place.
 * Don't jump the process. Discussing whether or not sentiment is going for or against a candidate while the voting is going on interferes with the neutrality of bcrats and the neutrality of the process. Whether this is the bcrat's intention or not, this is the appearance.
 * If a bcrat votes on (pro or con) or sponsors a nomination (which is best avoided except in extraordinary circumstances) that bcrat should recuse him/herself from acting on the nomination unless the result is beyond dispute. -- Cecropia 17:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivial or not trivial, they're objections, and they must be weighed carefully. I have a slight conflict of interest on this one (duh), so I won't comment anymore on the matter. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 03:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is though, that I haven't seen solid reasons (such as 'Titoxd has engaged in mass page move vandalism' ;P) -- not that I'm saying they're useless objections, but there could be much much worse than only having been here for a year (I myself got promoted to admin after 2 months and bureaucrat at, lo and behold, only 1 year and 1 month of wikipedianship). Of course, I will listen to the community when it comes time to promote or not, but when you're getting to the borderline percentages you really have to think. So I was really asking what people's views are on the weight objections vs. how borderline or not the percentage is. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is good that the bureaucrats discuss this ahead of time so you have consensus among yourselves (although having a race to see who will close would be fun to watch). Bumping an admin to bcrat seems a much smaller step than promoting a user to admin. All bcrat specific actions are reversable either by other bcrats or stewards (and those stewards are underworked anyway ;-) ). Note that at Spanish wiki, most admins are also bcrats (source), and our bcrat/admin ratio is lower than most wikis. I guess I'm saying it should be no big deal, and 80% seems like enough for consensus to me.  NoSeptember   talk  04:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters anyway, but since I'm active in the Spanish Wikipedia, every active admin is granted bureaucrat status. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 04:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding of Bureaucrat privileges is that they can grant admin or bureaucrat status, but cannot revoke either (only Stewards can revoke those, IIRC). So no, their actions are not currently reversible by other bureaucrats. I could've swore I'd seen Rob Church talking about creating a new bureaucrat interface for granting rights though, and I'd think revoking sysop or bureaucrat privileges would be included in that? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right that desysoping can only be done by stewards (and developers in a pinch). The other big bcrat job is name changes and they could be reversed by other bcrats. NoSeptember   talk  04:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You appear to have decided that you want to see this user promoted to bureaucrat and that you are looking for support outside of the process, and while the vote is ongoing, to make this happen. Please don't do this. -- Cecropia 05:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Cecropia please assume good faith, I don't see anything in his comments above to indicate this is his motive. I think he should be encouraged to raise any issues/questions he has before acting (as he has done in this case) in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not an issue of good faith. I think that Ilyanep is acting out of honest motives, but he is acting inappropriately. His posting this here, since this is an open forum, is rather like a judge trying to decide on sentencing after a jury verdict by asking the people in the spectator's gallery and the press how much weight he should give to the juror's various findings. Moreover, it is telegraphing "I know the law requires that 10 out of 12 jurors agree on a verdict, but only 8 out of the 12 thinks this guy is guilty. I don't think that at least 2 of the dissenting jurors really understood the case, so maybe I should throw their votes out. What do you guys think?" The main thing a bureaucrat needs, more than the wisdom of Solomon ("I can't decide. Let's cut the candidate in half. No wait! He can be a bureaucrat on odd days and a regular admin on even days.") and the maturity of Methuselah, is the fact and appearance of impartiality. Once a bureaucrat is seen as looking for justification and support outside the bureaucracy to promote or not promote someone, his credibility and impartiality is open to question, and so is that of other bureaucrats. Making a decision involves not only making difficult decisions, but making decisions that may go against your own feelings, if the standards of the community demand it. -- Cecropia 08:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, this I can agree with (the bit about asking in a public forum being generally bad). Do b-crats have a private mailing list? Maybe you guys should so things like this can be kept internal? I've seen the notes left to new b-crats about keeping the counsel of other b-crats, so an internal list that facilitates this would seem obvious (similar to how the ArbCom has an internal/private mailing list to discuss matters concerning them). Just some random thoughts. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ilyanep, I try not to comment on pending matters, but Titoxd's nomination is clearly failing. The community has expressed its support for a very high standard for bureaucrats. Look at the bureaucrat promotions: the last time I looked we have not had a single bureaucrat in more than a year-and-a-half promoted without 90+ support, and only two with more than two opposes. Whether or not Tito would make a fine bureaucrat, be aware, be very aware, that if you lower the standard for support here it will set a precedent. -- Cecropia 04:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

While I support the idea of having more bureaucrats generally, I continue to believe that candidates should have overwhelming support with no substantive objections before being promoted to bureaucrat. I am rather less fond of statistics and percentage thresholds than some others, but I come to the same conclusion as User:Cecropia does in this partcular matter: that it doesn't exactly look like a solid case for promotion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I echo the sentiments of Cecropia and UC. &mdash; Dan | talk 06:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, perhaps 82.5 is too low if 90+ was where most others were promoted, but what is this now? I thought we were encouraged to discuss testy issues. Especially now with the language in the b-crat questions that imply we can't discuss anywhere but an open forum such as a place on Wikipedia. If you're going to put a double standard on this, I'm not going to play along. Also, maybe it sounded like it, but I was certainly not trying to find a reason to throw out votes, but generally in borderline cases you look to see if there is really a valid concern (hence bureaucrat judgement). Perhaps this case was not borderline. Of course I will listen to the community in the end (and especially if it's backed by the opinions of my former b-crats). Please don't start waving the accusations around at first sign of anything (<-- sorry if this whole paragraph sounded a bit harsh but I'm having a bad day today). &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  23:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well then, perhaps we should then wait until you're having a better day to discuss this. -- Cecropia 23:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps...sorry about my rant. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  23:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, now that I can talk... ;) The bureaucrat position is of extreme importance, and therefore, it requires an extremely high level of consensus for promotion, which is reasonable. In a way, I'm happy that there were more oppose voters, pushing the percentage below 80%, as that made it easy to see that I shouldn't have been promoted. Hypothetically speaking, if the percentage had been higher, but still not 90%, I wouldn't have wanted to be promoted. Any sense of "illegitimacy" in a bureaucrat would taint the admins / promotions done by him or her, which is fundamentally unfair to the nominees who would have not done anything wrong. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 01:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * <90% is too low for a sucessful RFB IMO. A few more months experience can't hurt. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev's RfA
I think some action is needed to keep Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev 2 from spinning out of control. In particular, I want to report the following edit war (in which I also took part):
 * User:Yodo added all the oppose votes from the previous RfA at Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev (diff, summary: let's add also the other votes that are against this supporter of Ghirlandajo).
 * I thought this was wrong, so I removed them (diff) and left a message on Yodo's talk page.
 * Yodo put them back (diff)
 * User:Alexander 007 removed them (diff)
 * Yodo put them back (diff, summary: my edits will remain)
 * I removed them again (diff)
 * Yodo put them back (diff, summary: censorship? I will report this, I need to justify, have you something against me?)
 * Alexander 007 removes them again (diff)
 * User:Ghirlandajo reverts, for reasons I won't speculate on, (diff, summary: please stop deleting Bonny's precious comments),
 * This leads to a personal attack of Yodo (diff).

I don't really want to be further involved, but it seems to me that Yodo is clearly disrupting the RfA process (in fact, I'd seriously consider blocking him if I weren't involved). It looks quite likely at the moment that the RfA will degenerate in a mud slinging fest. As I view the bureaucrats as guardians of the RfA, I hoped that you could bring Alex' RfA back to what it is supposed to be, especially given the mess last time (I hope you agree that it was rather messy with probable sockpuppets on both sides). Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jitse, you probably don't know that bureaucrats were responsible for derailing Alex's previous nomination, so I don't think they will rush to put an end to the sockpuppeting clownshow this time. As User:Bonaparte's latest sock reported on my page:


 * "It was a movie in which a certain russian kid named alex was asked about his duck... Do you know his answer?


 * Adminiship...bye bye" --Ghirla | talk 13:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you play tutti frutii you'll get banned. Don't use my jokes against me, it will turn against you.

Should one also check user:ghirlandajo. he used a bad language against me. should be banned. Yodo 13:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

On striking out a user's vote
Is it appropriate for an admin (Mikkalai) to strike out Yodo's vote from the RfA? Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is. User:Bonaparte is permabanned from editing Wikipedia. User:Yodo is permabanned as his sock too. Neither has the right to edit, let alone to vote in Wikipedia. A newbie bcrat counted Bonny socks' votes last time, thus helping socks to derail his previous nomination. Isn't one time enough? --Ghirla | talk 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Another problem here. User:Ukrained, who was recently accused of sockpuppetry, decided to retaliate by questioning the vote of User:Kazak, although the latter has completely different background, interests, styles of editing, language skills, and level of civility from User:Kuban kazak. It first it made me laugh out just as loud as when User:AndriyK was called a sock of User:Irpen, but on second thoughts I decided to ask bcrats to investigate Ukrained's trolling more closely. His behaviour shouldn't go unpunished. —Ghirla | talk 16:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As per this, I don't see the issue requires any "investigation". A simple case of cheap trolling. --Irpen 17:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Quick notice re wikibreak
Just leaping out of wikibreak to explain something quickly, because I've been receiving emails... the wikibreak has nothing to do with being a bureaucrat, I'm extremely busy in real life just now - our local authority (whom I work for) is looking to make up its deficit in this year's budget and that means job losses - I'm busy making sure I'm not one of them. Will be back on Wikipedia when real life has calmed down a bit. -- Francs2000 21:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Declined RFA nomination
Please see. The nominee has declined and asked for speedy deletion of the RFA subpage (see page history). Please close or delete appropriately. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Checked and its ok. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for bureaucrat
Can a bureaucrat please reinstate my admin privileges per Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war? Ashibaka tock 21:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Checked and done. -- Cecropia 22:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Ashibaka tock 22:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

DuctoMan16
Someone please kill his RFA. 0 to 27 for a newbie vandal is a waste of time at best, an embarrasment to the community at worst. Dragons flight 05:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ricardo Lagos
Vandal who has been here for about 3 hours putting up a RFA. Could a Bureaucrat please take care of it. Thanks -- light darkness (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AzaToth
It has just been pointed out to me that I closed this RfA half an hour early. ... -- Francs2000 23:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussion thread started here by Francs2000 was moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship by Cecropia. I've placed this placeholder for those looking for the discussion that had been here or following a link to this discussion. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Attacks in my RfA
This is regarding my RfA, which appears to me to be one of the ugliest I have seen in awhile. I have only allowed it to remain open because I thought that there was at least some chance I could get a bureaucrat to review the validity of the votes before closing. Although there are most certainly a reasonable number of legitimate oppose reasons, a good number also border on personal attacks. For example, the most obvious unfounded personal attacks include:


 * "a 16 yr old fundamentalist? Sorry, but there is no way I can give my support. Ageism...in this case yes."
 * "Too many conflicts based on religious zeal"
 * "I am sorry but your zealous devotion to 'Islam', while perfectly ok in your personal life, has no place in the Wiki community. Despite your best assurances, I would not trust you, nor ANY religious zealot, with maintaining a NPOV."
 * "Oppose per radicalist concerns"
 * "Strong oppose per above. I don't think Wikipedia should have ugh... radical admins."

A few other oppose votes hinge on these personal attacks although they do not directly state them. Most notably, the twenty-sixth oppose vote says:


 * "Still, it might not be in the project's best interest for him to be made an administrator; it takes little to imagine a number of newbies or vandals blocked or reverted (quite correctly) by him, looking at his userpage and clamoring in the blogosphere that "Wikipedia has been taken over by the Taliban" or the like."

And the fourth oppose voter stated:


 * "However, an user page that is almost in its entirety bend on furthering one religion, and, to my agnostic sensibilities, fringes on the zealot, is outright disturbing. Jimbo spoke against user boxes lately, as he feels that display of bias might be contrary to wikipedic goals. I haven't made up my mind so far, as bias while editing is certainly to be avoided - elsewhere it's... just human. So while I don't mind you to shape your page in a way that's appalling to me, your fellow wikipedian, I'd feel more than uncomfortable to see you as admin.

Even a supporter has joined in on the personal attacks:
 * "I have all the personal anecdotal evidence I need to conclude that not only will his faith "interfere with Wikipedia's NPOV policy", but that it is the primary reason he is here in the first place (as it is the reason for every Islamist editor presently making the place a shambles regards anything resembling accuracy as opposed to neutured pablum)."

And yet, I have attempted on more than one occasion to address these personal attacks and quell them, to no avail (see my comments in the Comments section). I would like to think that adminships are given based on contributions to Wikipedia and not on the religious affiliation of the editor (especially if the degree to which others perceive them are unfounded). I understand that the RfA may have gone too far and that there is a great possibility that even this appeal will do nothing to help my RfA, but I'd thought I'd get some input from a few bureaucrats in deciding whether there is in fact little to no hope for invalidating a few votes and thus I should retract my nomination and end these attacks. Even if I end up retracting the nomination or the nomination fails, I hope this statement opens up some discussion on the rationales given for opposing and what constitutes legitimate rationale. After all, unlike with some of the concerns of other oppose voters (such as length of tenure), I cannot address the concerns of those mentioned above. I am not a radical, fundamentalist, or religious zealot and never will be.

Thanks for taking the time to read this; I trust you all, as bureaucrats, will make a well thought-out decision, no matter what that decision may be. joturner 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Joturner, I will respond on your talk page. -- Cecropia 15:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There were valid reasons to oppose this nomination; there are valid reasons to oppose anyone. Personally, I mistrust any RfA that garners not a single oppose vote; it suggests that the candidate is not suffciently well-known or experienced. But I think it is obvious that a thread of bigotry has corrupted this nomination and I think that speaks poorly for all of us. John Reid 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it does not appear to have been taken into account by the closing bureaucrat. Pegasus1138 Talk 22:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that Islam is a controversial issue. Both of the main English-speaking countries (the UK and the US ) are currently in a war on radical Islam. Many people don't realize that greater than 99.9% of Muslims are opposed to (and even ashamed of) the ideas of Bin Laden. We need people like you who both know about the topics and can confine themselves to a scholarly tone and NPOV. If it makes you feel any better, sysop rights (with the exception of editing protected pages) focus on the inner workings of Wikipedia, not the articles themselves. You still are a great user.--HereToHelp 22:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Essjay's RfB
Given the closeness of the vote on Essjay's RfB and the recent debate about the AzaToth RfA, I've verified the end date and time and it is precise. 13:30 UTC on 31 March 2006. I don't recommend closing it 45 seconds early ;) --Durin 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Turnstep's RfA
Shouldn't this have been closed about 23 hours ago?? Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes; I noticed that too. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to be pushy. But twenty-three hours seems like quite a long time. joturner 00:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I waited a full 25 hours for mine to close back in December, so I guess the precedent is there. NSL E (T+C) at 02:08 UTC (2006-03-31)


 * I apologize for missing Turnstep's RfA. When I came around to it this evening, it was so late that I thought no one (including myself) had promoted because the time wasn't up. Then I looked at the calendar. Therefore, I grant Joturner Turnstep the right to do twice the admin work for the next day to make up for it! :) -- Cecropia 05:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I was never sysoped after a successful RfA
Hi. I passed my recent RfA with flying colors and I was informed that I was now a sysop. However, I am not in the log and do not have sysop abilities. Can someone correct this, please?--HereToHelp 13:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "You're a sysop!"
 * "April Fools!" :] --CBDunkerson 14:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're telling me?--HereToHelp 14:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies, HereToHelp. I guess my brain went on Wikivacation. I have thrown myself to the gerbils, so an active bcrat will have to do it for me. (Consider this a request, active 'crats). This is not an April Fool's joke; Cecropia don't play that. :) -- Cecropia 14:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It happens to the best of us.--HereToHelp 14:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! Essjay  Talk •  Contact 17:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks okay now. Thanks.--HereToHelp 19:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)