Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 117

Noticeboard notice
While I seem to recall in the past that there were no issues with it, for full transparency, I wanted to note here that I posted a note concerning a WikiProject's active member being up for adminship on that WikiProject's noticeboard. - jc37 11:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems perfectly acceptable to me, as it was done by the nominator, and those editors that the candidate has collaborated with heavily should be able to provide the best input to the discussion. Or, to put it another way, those editors that the candidate has collaborated with heavily should be able to provide the best input to the discussion. Pedro : Chat  11:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet another slightly absurd interpretation of the guidelines on canvassing. It wouldn't have been OK if the candidate had done it? So the way to get around the canvassing guidelines is to get someone to do your canvassing for you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It would have been most certainly NOT ok if the candidate had done. I would have immediately opposed for it, regardless of his/her admin abilities. Mentioning you are on RFA anywhere, ever is immediate grounds for blocking and banning (and if it's an RFB, deysyop). WP:CANVASS is the most important policy in the hisory of Wikipedia, and canvassing is NOT to be tolerated!!1!  Majorly  (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you reconcile that with the common practice of candidates sticking on their user/talk pages? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I cry to myself in the corner... it is difficult but I get over it... eventually. Canvassing... hurts so much... ;-0  Majorly  (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted that my throw away comment has resulted in this. Bottom line - it seemed fine to me. Gee. Pedro : Chat  13:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember there being a problem with WikiProjects and RfAs in the past - was that the 'endorsement' fiasco? Avruch talk 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no 'endorsement fiasco', just some trolling from Kelly Martin. 86.149.135.37 (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly with Majorly. That is utterly shameful that they have attempted to bring in voters that have interacted with the candidate. Now the RFA will be tainted with legitimate, thoughtful votes from those who are most knowledgeable with the candidate and their work here. Shameful.  Lara  ❤  Love  17:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I really couldn't agree more. This kind of thing goes entirely against the principle of secrecy that the RfA process is based on. It's disgraceful! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just in case nobody has clue that happens to be reading this. Many of the above responses are in fact, sarcastic. If they are not sarcastic, they should be. Keeper  |   76   |  Disclaimer  18:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mine wasn't sarcastic. I thought it was pretty clear cut, until I got challenged for a throw away line about the nominator posting the note, which was not even vaguely anything to do with the fact that I generally thought it was a good idea (*sigh*) Pedro : Chat  09:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Majorly's, and Lara's comments are extremely obviously sarcastic (it's harder to tell with Malleus), if one takes the time to read them. "Canvassing" can often be a vague term, and blindly labeling good-faith actions as such is silly. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If the members of a Wikiproject show a tendency to go be syncophants whenever directed to a discussion, this might be a problem. But most projects do not have the mindset that all members must support other members in everything. -Amarkov moo! 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed it's an assumption of bad faith to suppose anything else. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, canvassing does have the potential to cause harm, for example, Featured article candidates/Uncyclopedia. In my opinion the costs of allowing canvassing outweigh the benefits; canvassed voters may be more fimiliar with the nominee but it's not unreasonable to doubt their neutrality, especially if they belong to the same Wikiproject and have to maintain a good working relationship. Epbr123 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The flip-side to this (though I agree with you, by the way) is that fellow project members might be able to better illustrate the candidate's positive qualities ("Candidate X really helped out in providing sources to get one of our key articles up to GA status", etc). I do worry about people being sheep, but I think that's the sort of thing that will always be a potential issue, regardless of whether it comes in the form of fellow project-members or newer editors following the lead of the more well-known names (for example, approximately 75% of anything that Jimbo does). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a joke, right?
Water made a "joke oppose" that I took as a support on Requests for adminship/Mind meal. Someone moved it to Oppose. I moved it back. It's back under oppose again. Would anyone else like to boldly move it back? Or was I wrong?? Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  00:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Will contact dhmo to ask if this is right. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  00:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't bother, he put it in support, so it is a support. I am 97.3% sure. Prodego  talk  00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And how did you come to that number? ~  Dreamy  §  00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was .1% less sure then 97.4%, so that makes it 97.3% Prodego  talk  01:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had 1/pi42 per cent doubt.00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

It was a serious comment, guys. I don't want Mind_Meal to ever become an admin, until he can make Pi42 edit summaries per minute. Heck, that applies to everyone. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OMG. LOL. Dloh cierekim  Deleted?  09:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You. You fail my criteria. Resign your mop now. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, And I've < 2 years editing time too. Bad, Mike. BAD! Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This thread is prima facie evidence that dhmo and dloh are a matching pair of socks (Likely tube socks with a large banded orange-red stripe near the knee). They share 75% of the letters of the arbitrary nicknames that they respond to. d, h, and o. The remaining letters, "l" and "m" are right next to each other in the alphabet. Coincidence? I think not. Keeper  |   76   |  Disclaimer  16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I regret to inform you that you are our puppetmaster. And you also fail my admin criteria. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes Wikipedia makes me cry. Emo EVula isn't pleased. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm certainly glad we've cleared that up. Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

COI?
Someone I know in real life is up for admin, and he asked me not to vote. I want to vote. I introduced him to Wikipedia, for crying out loud. It's not like my vote will have any impact on the outcome, but I want to show my support. As long as I state outright that I know the person in real life so the closing admin can feel free to include or discount my vote as he or she sees fit, is that really a problem? Wryspy (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it isn't going to have an impact on the outcome, I would say a simple message on his/her respoective talkpage after the RfA stating exactly what you said here would be appreciated by your RL friend in an equal manner to an RfA !vote. But kudos for bringing it here first.  That being said, there is no reason why you couldn't show your support and I don't really see the need for the RL disclaimers being necessary.  I would hope that your support vote is because you think the person is a good editor who won't abuse the admin tools?  If so, then heck ya, through your lot in with him.  Keeper   |   76   |  Disclaimer  21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Vote already. You are far better placed to judge than 99.99999% of Wikipedia editors. If you believe this editor is a net positive then support them. I trust you to do the right thing. And can someone show me where the "TM" thing is in unicode for my now oft repeated net postivie comment? :) Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no! Did he mention da RfA to you on wikipedia cos that cud b canvassing! if u found out first den it ok. canvassing REALY important policy on wiki, nevr do it!!!1!1!!11! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.218.174 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously a quite night in Dulles, Virginia. Best to use it learning English, I'd have thought. *sigh* Pedro : Chat  21:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty good advice, you know, for a lolcat. And before anyone checkusers me vs that ip, I'm in Minneapolis, not Virginia.     Keeper   |   76   |  Disclaimer  21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct! Next, I'll take "Incivil Response to Joke" for $800, Trebek. --  tariq abjotu  21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm totally mystified as to why you feel my response to an IP, particularly one that made it's very first WP edit here and clearly knows the place, was "incivil". Not in the best of faith, maybe (though with demonstrated reason IMHO), but I would ask you re-read WP:CIVIL before throwing that at me. Pedro : Chat  22:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the part under "Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment" that says "Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice"? Yes, I read that. --  tariq abjotu  01:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * America Online was headquartered in Dulles, Virginia. The IP above is an AOL IP. It is unlikely that the person was posting from Dulles. Mike R (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just vote. Knowing someone doesn't preclude you from voting, there aren't conflict of interest rules governing RfA as far as I know. If there are, a lot of people might be in trouble around ArbCom voting season. Avruch  T 21:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to the strange IP message: I watch his talk page, so of course I'd know about the RfA on my own. I knew he finally accepted the nom from the talk page, but this has been an issue for a long time. For much of the last year, I've been pestering him to accept an offer for nomination because I know he'd be a great admin. Regardless of that, I don't quite see how "(grumble gumble) okay, I accepted the nomination. Stay out of it" can be construed as canvassing. Wryspy (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't !vote, otherwise he'll become an admin and the whole of Wikipedia will collapse because of this fatal error. Wait... he told you he was up??? *goes to oppose per canvassing*  Majorly  (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it that's another jab at me Majorly. Has it ever occured to you I might have actually read User:Majorly/RfA and decided that perhaps you had a good point? Further have you read this thread (and the last one, still above). Further more, have you noticed that I am not complaining here? Pedro : Chat  22:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. It's a jab at people who cry "CANVASS" when someone mentions it to a few people and makes a big thing out of absolutely nothing on an RfA, causing it fail. It is good we agree - when we don't I'll let you know :D  Majorly  (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me you did. I've changed my thoughts on canvassing, largely as a result of your rational as identified above. What is so hard to understand here? Pedro : Chat  22:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC) strike that - on reread you're 'not arguing to me, apologies. Pedro : Chat  22:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP is being sarcastic. I think. Mind you, due to my uncivil response, as identified above, you'd better not take my word for it. Pedro : Chat  22:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I thought he was serious, but has trouble spelling. Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can anyone ever really know the mind of a wild IP? Wryspy (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Although, the course of this conversation kind of makes me wonder if anybody can really know the mind of a logged-in user either. :) Wryspy (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Yep. Reeeeeally wondering. Wryspy (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At any rate, I think the answer to the original question is go for it. Don't know how anyone might have known anyway.  Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A few people know. In fact, one of his nominators knows. Wryspy (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, now if you just !vote on one, everyone will be able to figure it out. < > I don't how this comes close to canvassing. Canvassing is deliberately contacting a bunch of people to build a false consensus. It is not against the rules. It is discouraged because it can cause a lot of disruption. Read WP:CANVASS for more info. I don't see a problem. Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  22:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone, for the feedback -- and the smart alecky fun, but mostly for the feedback. Wryspy (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wryspy, you do not need to recuse yourself for knowing someone here offline. Kingturtle (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I say go ahead and !vote if you want, but don't just add, "Supporting my best friend." but add to the discussion. When I had my third RFA (finally passed), I told my brother not to participate until it was almost over and the outcome was already sure. But to each his own. Useight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Useight, I was so scared to have my boyfriend contribute to my RfA (we commonly use each others' computers) that I simply wouldn't let him do it. Mostly because he has none (if any?) edits outside of user and user talk space. I was so fearful of a tiny slip up like that. I mean, who knows about what people will go crazy on RfA?  нмŵוτн τ  01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, same with my brother, he only has a few edits and I didn't want accusations of a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. He didn't !vote support until he was number 68 or 69 out of the eventual 70 total supports. (And 1 oppose, the infamous Kurt Weber). Useight&#39;s Public Sock (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now would be a good time to reflect on the memory of RfA opposers past, such as Masssiveego. Prodego  talk  04:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall Massive as someone with a 1FA requirement, though I'm not sure. Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  04:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, he did have a 3FA requirement (or 30 edits a day every day), an IQ requirement, an EQ requirement, must never have used swear words, must not use templates to warn users, as well as many other things. Admin link to his criteria. Prodego  talk  17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

On track/off track
The thread above got pretty off track. Does that happen off here? Do we need moderators to keep posts on track? {Don's fish proof armor and ducks.) Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  01:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * *throws fish* I'm going to say no to the idea of moderators; the original question got answered and there's nothing wrong with people branching off into side conversations, unless they're disruptive (and I don't see any of the above being disruptive). --  tariq abjotu  01:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No. We can never have fun under any circumstances. This place is for writing an encyclopedia. It should not be enjoyable in any way, shape, or form. NEVER!!  нмŵוτн τ  02:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where else can us admins set up our secret cabal plots conversations?  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let us have a little fun every once and again :P. You didn't happen to see that lolcat RFA that took place on this very page, did you? Useight&#39;s Public Sock (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, my favorite part about that (besides its cuteness) was how upset people started getting. By the way, I wasn't being serious earlier, if it wasn't apparent.  нмŵוτн τ  17:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The one that was pi41 microseconds ago? Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  03:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's about right. Useight (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, make that pi41 nano seconds. Nah, never heard of it < > Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nanoseconds, who uses time increments that large? I use picoseconds for all my measurements. Useight (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pi42 is now the official motto of RfA, eh? *wins again* dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Except it is pi41 not 42. Prodego  talk  17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, my. We've already had a quid pro quo offer this week @ Requests_for_adminship/Kim_Dent-Brown. Sorry. No. < >04:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Floating RfA
Could someone close/delete Requests for adminship/jaytur1 which is a non-transcluded RfA by a sockpuppet of banned user User:Iamandrewrice per Requests for checkuser/Case/Jay Turner.  MBisanz  talk 07:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Participating in RfA while currently nominated
What are people's opinions on participating in the RfAs of others while you are currently running? John Reaves 20:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. The more the merrier. I've seen RFA candidates !vote support and !vote oppose concurrently with their own RfA.  Why are you asking?   Keeper   |   76   |  Disclaimer  20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just curious what others think. I have no strong opinion either way though I do understand how people could view it as inappropriate (but I also see how it's fine). John Reaves 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally didn't participate in anyone else's during mine, but I don't see a problem with it in theory ... although I would strongly recommend not going above your normal level of participation. - Revolving Bugbear  20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why its a problem either. Especially if people oppose! Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think generally speaking, most candidates to out to support their fellow candidates, but I've actually seen a couple of candidates get opposed based solely on opposing a few people whilst their RfA is running.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's clearly open to quid pro quo abuse, and should at the very least be strongly discouraged. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)I asked this exact question during my first RfA :) (too lazy to find the diff - sorry) . Consensus then (indeed overwhelming agreement) was that it is a good thing to carry on commenting as you would normally. In fact, should a candidate lean to comment oppose or neutral on another RfA (assuming with good reasoning of course!) demonstrates many positive qualities, and helps throw out this rubbish we've seen recently about "tit-for-tat" and the "RfA crowd" Pedro : Chat  20:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It should only be strongly discouraged if someone were to actually have the nads to say: Support because I'm also running for admin at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/User:Foo and I hope this candidate also supports me."  Keeper   |   76   |  <small style="color:#ff0000;">Disclaimer  20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On my first RfA (Oct 2006) I opposed two other users running. In one, I had an argument with them (not like me, I know!) and in the other I accused him (falsely) of socking. Yet, I somehow passed. Hmm.  Majorly  (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well. You are obviously a horrible admin. I'm opening an RfC right now.   Keeper   |   76   |  <small style="color:#ff0000;">Disclaimer  20:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have the distinct impression that things have changed a little since October 2006. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are right. I think we now have a higher proportion of people who are angry and cynical and willing to infer bias, nefarious conspiracies and foul play in any situation on first glance. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 20:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sticks and stones. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean - did you think I was referring to you? <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Were you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

<-- It's not an assumption of bad faith to recognize that people are people. People support their friends. It's also obvious to a casual observer that sure, plenty of tit-for-tat goes on. Assuming good faith does not demand that we turn off our brains or stop making basic observations. We should look for ways to ensure that people are supporting or opposing for the right reasons, because a great many people are not. Friday (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Amen. Thank God for a rational voice. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it's not an assumption of good faith to assume that people vote on a tit-for-tat basis. This really is silly. If a candidate asked someone else to support on a reciprcoal basis that's one thing. We are not vaguely discussing that here, The thread is, in a nut shell;


 * Q. "Can I comment on other RfA's while mine is in progress?"
 * A. "Yes"

Done. Pedro : Chat  21:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And it's not an assumption of bad faith to remove that temptation,


 * So not done, simply ignored. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, would you both just stop? I respect Pedro and Malleus. Both fine contributors. I mean it! But good grief. Take it to talk. Keeper  |   76   |  <small style="color:#ff0000;">Disclaimer
 * Problem solved Pedro : Chat  22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought this was talk. I will simply say that I am deeply unhappy about what has happened here, and the absolution once again given to an administrator that would not have been offered to a regular editor who had conducted a similar campaign of abuse. Still, nobody ever claimed that wikipedia was fair. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Malleus, look we disagree okay. No-one wants the discussion here. If you feel that in some way "absolution" has been given to me then take it to WP:RFC. If I'm hindering not helping, I'll happily get rid of +sysop if that's what you and the community want. Wkipedia is not fair, but we can all try to make it fairer. Starting with good faith. And I admit my good faith with you is low, and that is very wrong of me and unbecoming of a Wikipedian. However let's leave it away from this thread as it's not relevant. Pedro : Chat  22:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just low? Then it's a lot higher than my faith in in your good faith. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Over. User Talk Pages. Not here. Pedro : Chat  23:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the ambiguousness. I meant, take it to user talk.  Keeper   |   76   |  <small style="color:#ff0000;">Disclaimer  22:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Keeper. Pedro : Chat  22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To return to the original question

 * Just to go in and comment anyway, to answer the original question, hasn't been a problem here to fore. Any quid pro quo-ing could-and-may-be-how-would-we-know-anyway be done via email, IRC, whatever. Not allowing people to comment on other noms while there's is running would not stop deal making. Wikipoliticing is not something I'm into. Making a rule would just be one more meaningless instruction that would change nothing. Whether or not political deal making goes on or not, I don't know. I assume there are political managers behind the scenes, though I've not felt like political pressure was being brought to bare on me since before my hiatus. And it was just that one time. There have been complaints about the "IRC cabal" lining up votes in the past. Don't know. I rarely IRC. Hope that helps  Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that made everything clear, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, man. Anytime. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  05:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)