Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Friday/bcrat

Closing instructions 
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was keep. It seems that most editors find this page to be, if not inoffensive, than at least not rising to the level of a personal attack. Most of those arguing for deletion seemed to mostly be focusing on the "Examples" section, which could simply be removed without the deletion of the page.--Aervanath (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Friday/bcrat
Basically a hit-list of "bad" RFAs (including my sixth, of all things) that Friday disagreed with. Other users have called Friday out on this but he doesn't seem to be responding positively (see talk page). Clearly this is WP:SOAPBOX, borderline WP:ATTACK (accusing many voters of being "Chatroom buddies" and "great candidate, hooray" voters, among many other things), most certainly WP:POINT. I won't comment on Friday's other contributions, but I have every reason to believe that this is unacceptable, and not even an admin should get away with such a (s)hit list. I can see his point to an extent, actually, but the highly negative tone of the article, and the name-calling, are both uncalled for. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - drama-stirring page with no good intentions other than to belittle people the user disagrees with. And of course let's not forget the tired old "chatroom buddies" meme. Baseless and offensive accusations, totally against our mission - encyclopedia. There are other soapbox-type pages like this in Friday's userspace too.  Majorly  talk  17:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've checked the others and none of them seem quite as offensive as this one. User:Friday/cowbell could probably be deleted as it's a stupid outdated joke. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On "soapboxing".. soapboxing about Wikipedia is certainly appropriate, in project space or user space. It's soapboxing about real-life issues unrelated to Wikipedia that is discouraged, for good reason.  Friday (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the "toned-down version, and while it is a slight improvement, the whole page still reeks of someone with a massive chip on their shoulder. It is full of anger, bitterness, and is clear that somebody doesn't like it when they don't get their own way. Some examples of unnecessary text decoration: "Some unknown quantity of chat room buddies number among the supporters" (baseless comment, Friday knows nothing about what goes on in IRC), "ongoing maturity concerns, even among supporters. yet, a big crowd of "great candidate, hooray!" voters turned up." (This is a completely inaccurate description of the RFA to start with - and Friday's massive generalisation of the supporters is offensive to many people. So what if people like to be positive and support fellow editors?), there's still a link to Juliancolton's RFA and you've failed to demonstrate any problems whatsoever with his RFA, or his tenure as an admin, "maybe not controversial, but a good example of how all you have to do is keep running, and people will give up on opposing" - why are you so unbelievably negative, about everything? Perhaps the opposers first time round didn't see the need to oppose anymore, they saw he improved? But no, think of the worst possible scenario, "no evidence of anything except trying again and making chat room friends" did you even bother looking on this one? Do you know if this candidate has "chat room friends" or are you just guessing? "which, along with a bunch of drama-mongering from the usual suspects" you calling people drama mongering is rich, considering drama is what you seem to live off on Wikipedia, "yet the "he's my buddy, I support" votes keep rolling in" No they don't - what about the "I don't like him" opposes? Why not complain about them? "all you need to do is keep trying?" or perhaps, they listened to the opposing comments and improved? No, silly me, they must have been gaming it.
 * It's still full of hate, anger, bitterness, and false, unfounded and vague accusations about numerous people. What benefit is this to our encyclopedia? None whatsoever. This is just typical Friday behaviour - spending all his time on wiki complaining about this that and the other. It's totally unproductive, and needs to stop.  Majorly  talk  17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you just need to take a break from RFA? It seems to be consuming you. Personally, I think friday is pointing out a lot of valid things. The most important being that until bad admins can be easily desysoped then it is probably not a good thing to think that being an admin is no big deal. I see no reason to take opposes personally, the doug tech fiasco being a particularly recent example. But kurt webber being another. Your frustration causes more drama than the original opposes. David D. (Talk) 18:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone needs a break, it's Friday, not me. I don't start the trouble by making ridiculous comments about people I know nothing about. I'm not the only one who find his participation on RFA problematic either. If I was Friday now, I'd be sure to make some ridiculous remark how the other people saying keep in this MFD must be all a bunch of kids in a chatroom, how they're all stupid and immature, and how I am the only reasonable person around here. As I'm not Friday, I wouldn't dream of doing that. But I hope you see my point. If not, there's nothing else I can say to you.  Majorly  talk  18:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do see your point, the problem is that while you may not start trouble, you do finish it. We've been down this road before, it is so easy to ignore opinions you do not agree with, or debate them calmly. You often overreact and I'm sure that wrecks any fun you might have editing wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 18:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are very correct when you say he points out a lot of valid things. I actually happen to agree with most of what he says. But it is the manner in which it is presented that is bothersome to me. It's snarky, rude, insulting, full of unfounded allegations, bitterness, anger etc. If this essay was turned into something that criticised RFA in a fair, polite and reasonable manner, I honestly wouldn't have any issue with it. It's the fact it is so personal and insulting to so many people, and written in such an angry fashion that makes me strongly think we'd be much better with out it. We don't need someone going round bashing people they don't like in this manner - it's an encyclopedia, not a schoolyard. Friday needs to stop treating this place like a battleground.  Majorly  talk  18:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this is the gist of what i wrote below. So I guess we agree to some extent. David D. (Talk) 18:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's my main point to, I think this could be a stronger essay without the examples, or by presenting the examples in a different more defined manner. Right now it looks like a shit list.  Thus, looses the impact Friday might garner.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a collection of notes and mostly unfinished thoughts. It wasn't intended to be useful to anyone but me. But, I suppose if people really feel strongly about it, I can move it off the wiki. Not sure I see the point, though. Friday (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. Sometimes when I opine at RFA, people say things like "What?  You can't make general statements about unsuitable candidates without examples."  Then, if I try collecting examples, people say "You can't do that!  You're saying negative things about other editors!"  I've been trying to make a case that certain types of behavior are poor indicators for adminship, because people with such behaviors very often turn out to be bad admins.  People don't want to believe me without examples, yet people don't want examples either?  I don't get it.  Are editors allowed to think about how to solve the RFA problem, or not?  Friday (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They do nothing of the sort. You go "Oppose - sounds like a chatroom kid. I don't need to bother providing any evidence that they are either of these things, or that they will make a bad admin." People then ask you to provide evidence that that user will abuse/misuse adminship. You can't do that by providing other examples of admins who "went wrong". And besides, some of the RFAs you listed are of admins who have been fine.  Majorly  talk  18:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We use heuristics and indirect indications to decide whether we think someone will be suitable as an admin. It's human nature to identify recurring patterns, so it's asking a lot for someone to turn a blind eye to some of those manifested at RfA. How can the selection process improve unless we feed long-term outcomes data back into the predictive model? Every time I consider supporting a borderline candidate because they promise to be open to recall, I remember a certain case in which I was badly burned. I see that as learning from a previous mistake, which I'm sure we all aspire to do. Whether it serves any purpose to maintain this sort of list on Wikipedia is debatable, I suppose, but if Friday is willing to move it off-wiki, then shouldn't we be done here? MastCell Talk 23:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete "examples" etc. as being violative of userspace rules. The rest is not that horrid as opinion only. Collect (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Potentially divisive list of examples, but keep whatever is worth retaining. (Disclaimer: I'm listed as an "example" RfA) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Partial remove - I think if the examples were removed, it would be fine. The rest is just general opinionating that we see all the time on many other users' subpages. I would prefer it if Friday simply removed that part, because while I disagree with much of the rest, it would be perfectly admissible if it didn't label any particulars. NW ( Talk ) ( How am I doing? ) 18:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Seeing as Friday has stated that it isn't intended to be useful to anyone but him, it may just be a good idea to move it off-wiki. While I could care less if the page is deleted or kept, I think the anti-drama route would be to just move it somewhere a bit more private. Tiptoety  talk 18:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a page detailing criticism of the current RfA process. That is not WP:SOAPBOXing, I don't see any attacks there (how can "chatroom buddy" be interpreted as one?), and it isn't at all disruptive (I don't even know how people found it short of going through Special:PrefixIndex/User:Friday, it isn't linked anywhere noticeable). The RfAs listed there are used as examples that popularity is a big factor in RfAs. I don't see how any of the candidates can take this as an affront? It appears to be valid criticism (since popularity shouldn't be a factor). I see no reason to delete this, and I don't think I would feel different if I were listed there. Amalthea  18:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was linked from his talk page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Only when Majorly linked it from there I think. That doesn't make it POINTy. Amalthea  18:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Chatroom buddy is a baseless insult to people who happen to use off-wiki places to talk to other editors. Just because we might use a chatroom, doesn't make us anymore friends than on the wiki. It's a ridiculous thing to say. The RFAs aren't necessarily popularity-based - it could, perhaps be that the candidate was a particularly good one. Can no one accept this possibility? Always look on the dark side - getting a lot of supports, it must be because there's a cabal behind it, in an evil chat room somewhere. It's so ridiculous.  Majorly  talk  18:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe my skin is thicker than yours, but I really don't see the insult. The implication that one only supported an RfA due to IRC contact with the candidate is less pleasant, but still far from WP:ATTACK. And whether the criticism has merit or not isn't really relevant for deleting it either. Amalthea  18:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you want your name to be listed as an example of a canddiate who was so unfit for the position that people who supported you had to be IRC buddies? The problem with the list, as it was (and I understand Friday has 'toned down' the rhetoric some) is that it makes the assumption that others agee that the person in question is a bad choice.  It also makes the assumption that others should see and look upon the same issues identically.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On what basis would you argue that it's making the assumption that "others agree"? It's clearly a userspace essay.  Stop and think here for a moment: of course people wish that others agreed with their opinion (surely we are allowed to wish others agree with us), but the mere fact they're opining about the subject means they obviously are aware that not everyone does agree. --JayHenry (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Point conceeded, but if others don't agree, then listing the names becomes aggressive and offensive, which is where the problem lies. The by listing examples in this manner it becomes offensive to any person listed.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Selective delete The "examples" aren't that bad, except for the "Repeat RFAs" section, which seems to assume bad faith on the part of the candidates who are trying RfA again. Generally, though, I don't see a need to have examples; the only use I see for them is if they were being used to gather evidence for an RfC and such on a particular 'crat's RfA closures. This doesn't seem to be the purpose of them though. Everything else looks fine, so remove the inappropriate content and slap an essay tag on there. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As a tool for explaining a complex opinion I see no harm. Maybe making it more anonymous and having more examples linked is the better approach? Obviously the users highlighted feel singled out. But, I don't honestly see this as any different to a long comment in the oppose section of an RfA, which is far more public. David D. (Talk) 19:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Assumes bad faith on the part of many candidates.--Res2216firestar 19:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It does? I don't see how.  Friday (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Requests for adminship/ST47 5 - maybe not controversial, but a good example of how all you have to do is keep running, and people will give up on opposing." - This is a good example, did ST47 ever say he was running again so that people would give up opposing? Most repeat RfAs are to see if the community opinion has changed, so I see it as assuming bad faith to say that a candidate is running to get the opposers to "give up".--Res2216firestar 19:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation assumes the assumption of bad faith. Friday did not assert that ST47 was running repeatedly to wear down opposition to his candidacy.  He simply speculated that voter fatigue could have contributed to the success of that particular RfA: a subjective point, but a legitimate concern &mdash; and one requiring no bad faith on the part of anyone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but the rationale does ABF on the people who supported, "They simply grew tired of opposing?"--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You're reading something into Friday's page that isn't in the text he wrote, and thereby assuming an assumption of bad faith.  Out of curiosity, I just looked through ST47_4 and ST47_5.  Of the 36 oppose votes in the earlier RfA, 3 remained opposed in the final RfA.  2 moved to support, with one supporter explicitly noting that his concerns from the previous RfA still remained.  The remaining 30 or so voters just disappeared.  Were they happy with the candidate's performance this time around?  Had they stopped participating in RfA or Wikipedia altogether?  Had they developed voter fatigue?  Did they just have better things to be doing at that point?  Is this a normal amount of turnover (in five months) for RfA or Wikipedia as a whole?  There's no need for any assumption of bad faith anywhere; the possibility of voter fatigue is a legitimate concern, and one which our present system makes no attempt to address.  Four RfAs for one editor is pretty exceptional, and a legitimate case for study for anyone interested in the nuts and bolts of our adminship procedures. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That assumes that if the those voters were present, they would have opposed. An examination of the possibility of voter fatigue would have been fine, but creating a list of successful RfAs and contesting their results years after they passed is not acceptable in my opinion.--Res2216firestar 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see him contesting them but rather using them as examples that might lead to lessons for the future. David D. (Talk) 16:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe not directly, but it's difficult to use RfAs as "examples" for lessons to be learned without looking like you don't agree with the result.--Res2216firestar 22:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Page is an ongoing examination of a Wikipedia process, conducted by an editor in good standing.  It strikes me that it would be impossible for Friday to examine a Wikipedia process – in particular, perceived flaws or errors therein – without retaining examples.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If he kept examples without the snarky rude remarks beside them, it would not be so bad. As it is, it is bad. It's fine to disagree with the result of an RFA, but to label the supporters as "lunatics" and "chatroom buddies" is insulting and unnecessary.  Majorly  talk  19:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete with option to recreate without offensive content/links to specific examples.  But in reality, Friday has already indicated that he is the only one to use this and that he could just take this offline.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Changing to weak keep the revisions are enough of an improvement that while I think there could be more improvement, it dulls most of my concerns.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ten. Majorly may have a point regarding "snarky rude remarks" but at some level the nature of criticism is, well, critical.  An expectation of meaningful criticism in the absence of specific examples is naive. &mdash; Lomn 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can give many examples without mentioning names. When I wrote my surveys on CSD, I explicitly did not include the names of the deleting admins as I didn't want to make attacks against specific admin.  This is not the first time that Friday has chosen to explicitly list names when writing a critical essay.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As Friday has mentioned, though, other users question his opinions when he fails to name names; how would you address those concerns? – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two issues I think. One, where he could respond to specifics---but those specifics have to be uncontroversial.  We can mention Ecoleetage and Anarchist and EssJay without fear because there is no doubt in people's minds that those users blew it.  But asking for specific names is also bad form.  Second, he can use examples (without names) when talking about "types" of people. 	A person at a recent RfA said, "Support, I've seen him on IRC all the time!"  The problem is that he includes a number of admins who are controversial---but not everybody agrees with Friday's assessment of them.  By listing names, you just stir the pot for controversy. I have no problem with an essay of this nature, but I do have a problem when he blanketly calls people out.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable enough. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Spartacus, from how I'm reading the page in question, Friday finds fault with some editors who supported, not with the candidates (or at least not beyond what he may have said at the respective RfAs). In this respect, I think he only hints at the editors, quite similar to how you do it with the CSD essays. The admins you hinted at as having "no clue" are just as easy to figure out through the deletion log. Amalthea  22:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I didn't say any of them had "no clue." In fact, I went out of my way not to criticize individual admins in their deletions---my criticism was of individual decisions, not condemnations of individual admins.  While you can figure out who the deleting admin was, you have to look. The comments here are infamatory and belligerent.  They are not challenging individual decisions, except on the part of the people who support, but being disrepectful to everybody listed and the !voters who supported them.  If a person had an RfC/ArbCOM ruling against them, then frankly I'm not that worried about his listing their names---they had a chance to defend themselves.  Personally, the essay would be stronger and less controversial if he cited specific opposes and then linked them to specific cases at various RfC's.  For example, he cites admins who have been desysopped for the same reason they were opposed... that would be a powerful comparison to draw directly.  As for people who failed their RfA or passed their RfA, citing them in this manner is just rude and unnecessary.  If he finds a support rationale lacking, he could quote the rationale and explain why it is faulty, but he doesn't have to list people whom he thinks are poor candidates as if his judgment is the correct one.  This is poor judgement on his part.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see why users mentioned on the page might be offended, but I also see some utility in keeping the page. If there are specific bits of text that are particularly objectionable, I'd prefer we addressed those rather than simply deleting the entire page. Is there some reason we shouldn't allow Friday to document his thoughts regarding community processes? – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Surely we can allow commentary on some of our most controversial processes. --GRuban (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Friday isn't the only person to find fault with current RFA's attraction of supports by the candidates' friends. (Not colleagues who support based on collaborative experience, but friends who support based on liking the candidate). In the miscellany under discussion, Friday lists certain concrete examples of RFAs. The RFAs are attached to names, but the criticism isn't directed at these names, it's directed at the behaviour of those unnamed editors who (in Friday's perception) supported these names for the wrong reasons and, more generally, criticism is directed at the process of RFA. If Friday wishes to move this stuff off-wiki, as not to upset people, then I commend him for this gesture, but this kind of criticism should explicitly be allowed. I do not see how itt violates any of the three policies brought up by the nominator. (WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ATTACK, and WP:POINT) ---Sluzzelin talk  22:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; an examination in depth of one of Wikipedia's most serious problems. It's hard, if not impossible, to do this without specific examples.  This is insightful criticism.  Antandrus  (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as possible preparation for proposal for changes in how we do things. I don't think all of the wording is quite as discreet as is might be, but it is not outrageous.  DGG (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly reasonable use of userspace.   Hi DrNick ! 12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've toned down the language in a few places. Some of this was just off-the-cuff reaction to things I was seeing or thinking about at the time, so I didn't adequately consider how it might look to other people.  If this enables me to continue collecting thoughts and examples while being less likely to upset people, hopefully it's a good solution.  Friday (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If not moving the list of examples off-wiki, why not just – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The changes are enough that my main concern is alleviated---not completely, but enough that I've switched my !vote to weak keep.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Using userspace to gather evidence of problems on Wikipedia is not a violation of WP:SOAPBOX (please read soapbox, as it explicitly permits statements on internal Wikipedia guidelines), not WP:ATTACK, and most certainly not WP:POINT (what on earth is being disrupted?  WP:POINT needs to stop being interpreted to mean someone has a point).  Friday's own "Criticism is allowed" essay is quite informative.  This is a very disappointing nomination of a completely valid use of someone's userspace.  Friday is attempting to change something about Wikipedia.  It is acceptable to disagree with Friday.  It is unacceptable to use MFD to attempt to invalidate his opinion.  --JayHenry (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To some extent the nomination is a bit ironic. David D. (Talk) 15:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I realize it's very difficult to judge someone's emotional state just from words written on a computer.  But, for what it's worth, I'm not at all angry or bitter about RFA.  This is just Wikipedia.  It's not life or death.  Yeah, it's a project that I think is worthwhile and I want it to succeed, but in the grand scheme of things it's small beer.  Also, problems are usually best solved with a clear head free of emotional entanglements.  Some of the cronyism I've described is a manifestation of people putting emotion ahead of reason.  More of that cannot solve this problem.  Friday (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said, I still think your essay can use improvement and a shift away from some of the blanket statements... but you're working on it... I encourage you to try to boil it down even more and get to the crux of your argument. I think you have a case to be made, I just think that by using the examples in the manner you have, your message gets lost.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Proper use of userspace, essays/thoughts on wikipedia behind the scenes (not mainspace) processes, especially for a longstanding active wikipedia, active behind the scenes.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly move to project space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely terrible idea.  Majorly  talk  14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this shouldn't be in the project space. As I understand it, essays in that namespace should, to a degree, represent the opinions of many editors, not one. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is some serious and/or outrageous content there. Moving to project space (where specifically, I don't know) would be to bring resolution to open questions.  In userspace, it can be ignored as someones aimless rants.  In project space, there is imperative to get the facts right, and to answer allegations.  I'd prefer to see to see the allegations/provocative questions thrashed out, as they are important for the continued development of the project.  If ignored, the page remains an open, unattended sore.  However, deletion, the suppression of the questions themselves, is definitely a bad way to go.  If it is not moved, then I'd urged interested/offended parties to edit the page directly to correct actual or implied errors.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I didn't check the older versions, but the newest version seems reasonable for a user-space essay. Hobit (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that he's changed. It's still just as attack-y as ever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems fine to me as a reasonable criticism (with examples) of a process many think is broken. How could such a page be made without examples and still have the same strength? Are we saying that criticism of the RfA process needs to occur without examples? Hobit (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's a vicious, angry, misleading, and opinionated commentary. It has no strength at all. Criticism is fine, without attacking and belittling people in the process.  Majorly  talk  12:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, too many thoughts unrelated to the portion being objected to to ever delete outright. I believe that this essay is within the permissible bounds of userpage opining, particularly now that some of the language has been toned down. I can understand that for those with failed RFAs, reading this can feel like rubbing salt in the wound, and it is a little odd to argue that RFA promotes too many unsuitable admins, then point to RFAs that ultimately did fail. -- Groggy Dice T | C 01:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I see open transparency and reflection. Appropriate for the userspace. -- Ned Scott 04:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This reads like the diary of a sour person with endless axes to grind. The sentiments expressed here are an embarrassment. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep some of the opinion could be toned down, but it is an interesting essay and potential proposal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.