Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1

''This is an archive of discussion around June-August 2003. Any new comments should be posted on the actual talk page. Quote from here if necessary.''

you can't third a motion
Look I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but you can't third a motion. Nor can you fourth or fifth it. :) It goes discussion &rarr; motion &rarr; second &rarr; those in favour &rarr; those against. -- Party pooper 08:49 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Who says we can't? The comittee police? I move that the expressions "thirded" fourthed" etc be made legit on wikipedia. Will someone second the motion? Party lover 09:11, 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm going to skip a step and third it, it seems appropriate enough. And now, if you'll excuse me, I'll take a fifth. -- Party animal 19:14 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * A fifth sounds good, make mine a scotch. -- Party party!


 * I don't know if we have any scotch around here, I'm pretty sure we can find some Irish, though. But five of them? I dunno about that. -- Party animal 19:25 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * ROFL -- Third party 23:15, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I will now perform a legal motion which I will second, third, fourth, fifth, and be for :) *starts dancing around* ilyanep 15:18 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

--

Two sections
Shouldn't there be two sections for nominations? We have two types of nominations; self nominations and nominations made by others (both are followed by "seconds"). The reason I think it is a good idea to separate the two is that nominations made by others need to be accepted by the nominee before anything happens. No big deal though. --mav 00:35, 23 Jun 2003


 * That makes sense; having spent a lot of time on talkers and MUDs and the like, I know quite a few people who, having been nominated for adminnery, wished to not become one. Phil Bordelon 00:40 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Is seconding a nomination for admins only, or can anyone do it? -- Jim Regan 00:44 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * That's actually a question worth answering and putting on the 'real' page of this. Phil Bordelon 00:45 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * It has now been answered on the main page; anyone may agree or disagree with a nomination or request. Thanks, Eloquence. Phil Bordelon 00:57 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sysop no. 100
We have 99 sysops. Does #100 get a prize? Or at least a mention in Announcements? -- Tim Starling 08:02 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * A prize, yes... Daily inspection of Votes for Deletion twice and RecentChanges ten times for two months. --Menchi 14:56 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Where is the archive
Hi, I can't find the nominations before 15:17, 14 Jun 2003. Where are they moved to, or are they deleted? Fantasy 10:02, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Removed - check the version history.&mdash;Eloquence


 * OK, it's me who has a problem with deleting things. I think it is part of Wikipedia so this things should not be removed. But if that is the current policy, I will at least save my part on my User-page... schade... Fantasy 13:00, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify - as is suggested below, we didn't have this page until June 14, 2003. Before that, virtually all sysop requests were made via the WikiEN-L Mailing list (or the Wikipedia-L list before the WikiEN-L list was established). --Camembert 23:06, 15 Aug 2003

I was looking for the Adminship of User:172, to understand the discussion better. Is it somewhere, I can not find it in the history... Fantasy 20:40, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * He got it before this system was established. His nomination or self-nomination (I don't know which) occurred on the Mailing list or some obscure place on Wikipedia. He received some but not much opposition (only Mav if I'm correct). --Menchi 20:45, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * No, it was more than one person to oppose him being a sysop. Read http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003150.html, and the e-mails around that time.  &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; (MB) 20:54, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Jimbo Wales decided to overrule these concerns. --&mdash;Eloquence 23:09, 15 Aug 2003

Discussion of 172 moved to Adminship of 172 -- Stevertigo 20:54, 15 Aug 2003

Democracy vs. Reprisal
So I was looking at all of these:

Oppose. Someone who thinks a neo-Nazi apologist who collaborates with Emil Kirkegaard (User:Deleet) should ever be unblocked does not show the judgment I want to see in an admin. I did think hard about this, considering the possibility that CaptainEek wasn't aware of the full background to the Captain Occam case (and perhaps unaware of Captain Occam's skills as a liar). But it was CaptainEek's own comment, the first in the unblock request discussion, that highlighted the AE case leading to Captain Occam's block. And in that case, Captain Occam's links with neo-Nazi racism were made abundantly clear. So CaptainEek clearly did understand who and what Captain Occam is. I wanted to find a way to support this RfA, but I really can't, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

[Alfie's vote was here but was requested to have been removed from this section. To read that vote, please see the main article] []

Oppose: the vote in support of Captain Occam's unblock request [3] was a deal-breaker for me. The related case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive229#Captain_Occam, was linked in the first comment on the thread and should have guided the response. Other issues brought up above are also a concern. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Unfortunately I do not think they have the judgement to be an administrator, and am afraid they would rush into sensitive situations they are not familiar with based on first impressions. I'm also not impressed at all with their answer to question three: that is an opportunity to be introspective and think about how past conflict on Wikipedia would form the way one becomes an administrator, in addition to showing the community that you know how to take feedback. Instead we get a pirate joke, a statement that they think themselves to have a laid back demeanor, and generally good advice but nothing that shows us how they would actually interact in a conflict, or shows us the have the ability to be self-reflective.

As an example of something that I find particularly concerning for someone who states that they want to work at AN and ANI is their comment in support of Captain Occam's unblock request a few months ago. While I'm normally not one to hold votes against people in an RfA, I think this one is particularly concerning. Captain Occcam had been canvassing support by playing "pick a functionary" via email, lying to people saying that his block was due to oversighted information about another user, and by trying to be sympathetic on the Wikimedia Discord and talking about his situation there. CaptainEek self-discloses as being a participant on that Discord channel, and was the first person to support unblocking one of the single most disruptive users in the history of the English Wikipedia, whose entire history on this project has been one drama after another based on pseudoscientific POV issues. Now, most of these issues were before CaptainEek was active, but I'm still concerned with what this reveals: this is a pretty quick rush to judgement probably based on hearing about it from Captain Occam (not their fault) given how CO'd been talking about it off-wiki for a while, where they rushed to support someone anyone who has dealt with in the past can tell you isn't suited for this project (see entire thread). That rush to judgement over something like this type of unblock request is an issue for someone who wants to work on noticeboards, and combined with the lack of answer to question three, I'm winding up here. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC) '''

I would like to see someone explain to me how this is relevant or acceptable to oppose nomination based on participation in a normal voting process? Is it really the way Wikipedia works now that if someone votes a different way on a topic than you do that you will follow their progression through the site and try to block them where you can for being part of the democratic process? (And for having the AUDACITY to have a different opinion than you). I'd love to see how this is justifiable or relevant.

Very respectfully, BasicsOnly (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * People are entitled to support or oppose RFAs for pretty well whatever reason they want - they're not votes, it's a discussion, and if they are of that opinion, they are absolutely within their rights to share it. Acceptability doesn't come into it - the amount of weight their argument holds may vary, but that's not a reason for them not sharing their argument.
 * It is, however, unusual and noteworthy - although, again, not by any means prohibited - for a two-day-old user with at the time of writing under 40 edits total, just 5 of which are in mainspace, to become involved in RfA in this way - especially given another newly-created user has also participated, asking questions about legitimate uses of sock-puppetry. Please don't take this as me accusing you of anything, because I'm absolutely not trying to - 'tis but a mere observation, and if this is your first account, it may go some way as to explaining why people might be a bit sceptical. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 14:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that whilst I was writing this response, the user was blocked. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 14:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)