Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 169

Editnotice after closures?
Is there anyway we can add Editnotices to RfA's once they are closed, to hopefully avoid votes being added after the request closes. I've noticed it happening a lot lately. iMatthew : Chat  20:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know on some projects, RfAs are indefinitely full-protected after closure. Perhaps we should do that here? NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 20:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would seem reasonable. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (The protection, rather than the editnotice. Editnoticing that many RFAs would gum up the MediaWiki namespace.) Stifle (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured Articles and RfAs
I have just concluded a study of the success of Featured Article authors at RfA since September 2008, available here. The shocking conclusion of my research is that FAs really aren't very highly valued by the community after all. Only 20.2% of successful candidates over the period had contributed to one or more FA, while 51.6% of FA contributors were unsuccessful. Not quite sure what this means, but it's rather interesting so I thought I'd throw it out there. Cool3 (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to see how many editors with and without a FA had prolific work in typical admin areas.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As well as project space (admin) vs. FA alone.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Great idea, thanks for doing the research! At a glance it looks like candidates who had written FAs are about a third more likely to succeed than those who had not, but it would be interesting to see if that advantage disappears once WP:NOTNOW and joke candidacies are filtered out. It's crossed my mind that FA writers whose experience in traditional admin areas was slight, such as, and , have turned out rather well, while other FA contributors of a combative nature have perhaps rightly crashed and burned at RfA, which if accurate underscores the importance of judging candidates primarily on character rather than experience.  Skomorokh  19:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "while other FA contributors of a combative nature have perhaps rightly crashed and burned at RfA" *cough* Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had 19 FAs promoted in September alone...? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be pretty amazing... The numbers there reflect the total number of FAs from that editor in their whole time editing. I believe that 19 is the correct figure for you, but if I miscounted please forgive me. Cool3 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, that makes more sense. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good research, and sorry if this sounds a little off-hand or short, but what, exactly, has writing high quality content got to do with the three best known sysop "abilities" - deleting, blocking and protecting (let alone the lesser known bits like assigning rollback or editing the interface)? I know there's been a long standing argument that you need to be a superlative writer to understand what content should or should not meet the speedy criteria but I've never bought into that. If memory serves doesn't EVula (one of our most efficent 'crats) have exactly zero DYK's, GA's and FA's? I've got exactly 3 DYK's yet had one deletion of nearly 9,000 ever gone to DRV. I'm not knocking article writers - it is after all both the point of WP and the fun, as I explained only today on my talk, but I really struggle to see how an FA indicates "can use block button" for example. Pedro :  Chat  20:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It can't, but as I pointed out below, it shows teamwork and dispute handling (particularly in a BLP FA). GARDEN  20:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as it isn't considered the only way to showcase teamwork and dispute handling skills, I don't have a problem. But when too much emphasis is placed on pure writing alone, yes, I think both the process and the project suffer. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's even worse than that, Pedro; to date, I've started exactly 0 articles. At best, I once did a substantial rewrite to Zombie Survival Guide (that was later, correctly, deemed to be too in depth), and I rescued Hannah's Gift from AfD. That's about it. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was counted as a failed FA contributor? :) I didn't even bother to mention any of my content work while running (would that have affected things?). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot to note - the above list doesn't count FAs that were saved or that the individual was not directly nom'd. For example, I saved an FA (making 3) and participated in quite a few others (but wont take credit). Some of the people with FA do very little in FA areas, so the raw number may be a little out of proportion. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool3: Your source on feature article authored links to something completely different. Unless authoring now equals posting at WP:FAC. The numbers are unbelievably low (any vandal fighter caring to look at the main page will easily log one FA edited per day). NVO (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Flip Side
ok, we now know how many candidates had FA's when they became an admin. How many admins have been involved in writing an FA AFTER becoming an admin?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the number of FAs represents the total the editor has (number at the time they went to RFA + number since then). So there are really two pieces of data that you want. Karanacs (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be clear about the data I presented, it accounts for the total number of FAs that the editor has written as of right now (it would have been much harder to count how many they had at the time, whereas this was pretty simple). Cool3 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * After I became an admin, I wrote three more FAs, three more GAs, and two more DYKs after I was made an admin as opposed to one FA, one GA, and two DYKs before. Quite frankly, using the tools is a voluntary choice. I am my own master, and I am certainly not obligated to use my tools at all.  bibliomaniac 1 5  The annual review... 20:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still at zero for FAs before and after. However having tools doesn't and shouldn't distract from article writing if you're dedicated enough (unlike me it seems..)  GARDEN  20:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I back doored my way into my second FA... I was the second most active editor on the article, but it was largely pushed through by the most active one. But I have written a LOT more articles/DYK's after becoming an admin than before.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had no GAs, DYKs or FAs before adminship, and mostly an anti-vandal RC patroller experience. I got my first DYK credit ~1 week after I was promoted when "concerns" were raised that I didn't do enough article work (even though I clearly did, simply it wasn't enough for some...)  Majorly  talk  21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a snide comment that I want to make... but decorum prevents me ;-)--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I really wish people would realize how irrelevant this is. There are many different jobs to be done at Wikipedia.  Getting articles up to FA quality is obviously a useful job, but it's just one of many.  Adminship is about getting a few extra buttons to do certain jobs.. and none of those jobs involve things like FAs.  You don't need extra buttons for that.  RFA should focus on the candidate's anticipated competence at the new jobs that those extra buttons allow.  I can think of at least one great article writer who would be a terrible admin, and I strongly suspect there are many more.  When you're looking to hire a janitor at NASA, you don't ask the candidates if they can fly a space shuttle, right?  There are different jobs in the world, with different required skill sets.  This should be obvious to anyone, yet we see this persistent failure to recognize this when it comes to RFAs.  Friday (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure some bloke with a blue signature said something very similar in the above section :) Pedro : Chat  20:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Having said that, as numerous people seem to have half-inched my sig I can't be sure it was me .... Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you hit the nail absolutely on the head there. I particularly like the analogy :) But I do believe that writing an FA shows that you can work with others to produce some kind of end product, as many if not all articles will encounter disputes from time to time. This applies however for all articles, especially BLPs. GARDEN  20:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ecx2)I agree with most of your sentiment, but I also think it imperative that we have a pool of admins who are very, very familiar with content policies. One (not always accurate) way of measuring this is by participation in improving articles (FA/GA). I've seen too many admins who don't have a strong grasp of content policies wade into a content dispute and start using their buttons; they would be much more effective, and some of our disputes might end a little faster, if the admins were intimately familiar with the content policies and better able to dismiss the noise and figure out the crux of the problem. Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While I would agree that FAs, specifically, don't really have much to do with admin tasks, I do think it's important that an admin candidate have significant experience in article writing and contributing content to the encyclopedia. Having an FA or two under ones belt is certainly one way to do that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that FAs/GAs aren't everything, but Wikipedia's administrators should have at least some experience with articles. After all, we're trying to build an encyclopedia here. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think 99% of candidates do have experience with articles. Just some people demand an unreasonable amount. Some people have jobs, lives, families, friends etc and simply don't have the time to spend messing about on the computer all day long, others perhaps do. As long as the user has shown a willingness to improve articles, no matter how large or small, it's the willingness that counts for me.  Majorly  talk  22:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. When I say experience with articles, I mean anything from reverting vandalism to writing featured topics. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have written 2 GAs I believe, and never a FA, but I think there's only a certain few who have the skills to write a FA. A GA is difficult enough - a FA generally requires actual brilliant prose writing skills, which a lot of people simply don't have. To be honest though, FA, GA, whatever is simply a badge stuck onto the article to say it is endorsed either by a) one person or b) a bunch of people who showed up at the FAC. It doesn't tell us an awful lot. Many FAs are not even GA worthy by today's standards. I don't think it is at all worrying that 20% of successful candidates have an FA to their credit. You can get a brilliant article writer who would make a poor admin, and vice versa. FA work absolutely does not = good admin. Of course, when a brilliant FA writer does = good admin, and they fail an RFA, then we might have problems.  Majorly  talk  21:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have neither written an FA, nor ever attempted to shepherd any article I have written beyond the early stages of development. I have, however, spent a great deal of time as an admin trying to repair articles that were once GA status by knocking about nationalist editors. There are different ways to bring an article to FA/GA. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the research a bit, and come to another interesting conclusion (that goes along with some of what is being said here). When RfAs closed per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW are removed from the data set, the average success rate for candidates is 45.9% versus 48.4% for editors who have written an FA. In other words, there is essentially no difference in RfA outcomes based on whether or not a reasonably qualified candidate has written an FA (good news for the FAs are irrelevant crowd I suppose). Cool3 (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, the formerly popular "at least one FA required to pass" maxim has been retired. While it's interesting to see the exact statistics, I think I echo most of the sentiments above when I say that a great deal of article writing isn't and shouldn't be required to become an admin. The collaborative effort required in writing and promoting an FA is a good indicator that the prospective candidate has the team skills and temperament necessary for the job, but the FA is not necessary in and of itself. Glass  Cobra  00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree fully. For example in saving dozens of articles from speedy deletion every week by turning rubbish text into valid stubs and maybe adding 1-2 sources, I think I do a fair share of article work but yet that would not be mentioned in an RFA. Even more, I think a regular FA creator might delete those kind of articles more often than I will because they have a higher standard than people who have no article writing skills have. So I too am glad we stopped using that as a reasoning.  So Why  00:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, Mailer diablo used the 1FA criteria back in mid-2006, and only a handful used it. Most of the FAs that passed back then would be speedy failed at GA today, so in reality, anyone who narrowly fails a GA now would have passed 1FA if their article was transported back in time. In those days, most FA reviews were done in 2 minutes with a one-line support. I know one arbitrator who voted in about 50 FACs in three hours back in the old days.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"How many admins have been involved in writing an FA AFTER becoming an admin?" Well I had 0 FA/GA and only 1FL 15 DYKs when I became an admin and I didn't even use proper refs in those days, just an inline raw URL link or a list of books at the bottom....I became an admin mainly so I could nuke lots of rubbish but felt I was stuck in a rat run (about 8000 deletes in 6 months and still WP was full of junk) and gave up on it.... Writing an FA does show attention to detail though, which can't be demonstrated by doing lots of 1-minute things like speedy deletion etc.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Man haven't things changed! I believe that only a fortunate few can produce top notch Featured Articles. I'd even struggle to write a GA! But then again I'm not an admin and it would be a long time before I became one.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 06:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although if a candidate has a FA to their credit it would obviously be a good indication that the candidate understands how to construct an article and work with other editors. From my own experiences is takes at least 5-6 months before you even half understand the rules and regulations here. Or maybe I'm just a very slow learner ;)  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 06:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have six FA's (three since becoming an admin), and two more that I contributed significantly to but I didn't get a star because I didn't know to ask or it was part of salvaging a derelict FA. I told the community when I was nominated for Admin that I would keep my primary focus on writing, and so it has been.  Yet I'll use the buttons now and then, help out at AIV or delete expired prods.  You can't do everything, but I think the community has benefitted from giving me the buttons.  I've got another at FAC, by the way Franklin Knight Lane (that's my commercial for the day), and two more, Jerry Voorhis and Checkers speech waiting in the wings.  I have only so much time to devote to WP, so forgive me if I don't feel guilty about not using the buttons more.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at it this way
YellowMonkey makes a good point above when he mentions how he tried to delete all the junk in WP but after six months found that WP was still full of junk. The fact is, admin work never ends and, as currently structured, will probably always be nothing much more than helping maintain the status quo. In other words, if you spend most of your time doing admin work, you won't see much progress in spite of all your efforts. At the end of the day there will still be about the same number of editors socking, vandalizing, violating the rules, bullying each other, pushing POV, and playing power games. Therefore, it may be hard to measure the progress that you made.

If you take some time, and it does take some serious time, to write a few FAs, however, you will see progress. The FA you help write will be among the best, if not the best, article on that particular topic on the entire English Internet. Thus, when you look back at the time you've sunk into Wikipedia, you'll be able to see that you left something of quality behind, which did measurably improve the project and helped enrich everyone who read your FA. Cla68 (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not against producing high-quality content, in fact I'd rather edit and I don't want to be an admin. However the problems Cla68 mentions (socking, vandalizing, etc.) will only get worse if no-one wields the mop. Socks, vandals and peristent bullies should be blocked earlier and for longer, so that others can get on with working on articles. --Philcha (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest balancing your time doing both. I'm not an admin, but if I were, I'd probably spend 10-20% of my time doing admin chores and the rest editing. Cla68 (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely concur with Philcha. I don't believe I have the temperment for admin work, but I'm extremely grateful for those that do. Dlabtot (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Cla68's comment about spending 10-20% of your wikitime on admin stuff. I wish we had enough admins for that to be possible. The problem is that when I log on I usually look first at the CSD backlogs and in particular attack pages for deletion, and I'm sure other admins have other backlogs that they focus on. My fear is that our ongoing lack of admins on the English Wikipedia will lead to a divide between admins who do little but admin work and the rest of the community, as the fewer of us there are the greater the proportion of our Wikitime will be spent on admin work  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "... lack of admins on the English Wikipedia will lead to a divide ..." appears already to be happening, showing up in e.g. the declining rates of RfA and declining success rate there. One of the reason for my proposal to be harder on nuisances is the hope that admins will eventually have more time to be and mix with normal editors. --Philcha (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have paper sources on my table that I plan to use in writing content, but looks like I have to eat this chunk of paper for breakfast. 1FA is one particular thing that today I know of which I am forced to eat my own words.
 * Performing admin/functionaries duties (esp those dealing with nasty incidents) and still having the mental energy left to write is difficult. Those who are still able to actively keep up on both aspects (writing on top of admin maintenance work) are really the best of the corps, and I truly salute them. - Mailer Diablo 22:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Flawed premise
Unless I'm missing something, the whole premise here is flawed. Featured Article nominations != Featured Article contributions. Just because editors don't want to plaster their user pages with Boy Scout badges doesn't mean that they don't work on improving articles to high standards. Conversely, there is nothing whatsoever about getting successful FA/DYK noms which better qualifies one to be an admin, as admirably demonstrated by Ecoleetage (who nearly coasted through his last RfA on the basis of his DYK contributions despite being a provably disastrous candidate). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily a perfect match, but especially recently with steps taken to thwart drive-by noms, those who nominate actually did the work (you can also have multiple nominees, so it's not like the one person is taking all credit.) Personally I include FA work in my criteria, not DYK; I've found plenty of people who do DYK that have issues elsewhere (there's a couple diligent DYK chaps up right now with less than stellar percentages). -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 11:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * David, I think references above concern the writing of DYK articles not clerking the DYK board. Pedro : Chat  11:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the premise is flawed. The failures at RFA don't IMHO show that the community doesn't value FA writing. If you look at the oppose sections for candidates who have FAs to their credit, the opposes tend to be for other things but acknowledge that the candidates has done FAs. Whilst if you look at successful candidates who haven't done an FA or GA you sometimes see quite brusque opposes purely for lack of article writing. RFA is a strange process with odd dynamics and fashions that change with the collective mood of the participants, my view is that not having a GA or FA may be less of a bar to adminship than it was a few months back, and perhaps we are now seeing candidates succeed who would not have last Autumn. Conversely it may be that all the uncontentious candidates with FAs to their name are already admins or not currently interested in running. Apart from the small sample size rendering this research statistically not yet sound, I think that monitoring this over a longer period of time might see a different pattern emerge (try subdividing those stats into 2008 v 2009 for a truly vivid contrast).  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with this sub-thread that the conclusions drawn from the data are not fully based on causation. Chillum 14:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

When my RFA started I was told that it was unacceptable canvassing to even mention it on my own talk page. Edison (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy on non-transcluded RfAs
Requests for adminship/Disco Steven Lua is clearly a SNOW/NOTNOW close, but I'm not sure on our policy here. Do we allow all RfAs the chance to be transcluded, then closed, or can we close them if we find them and the user has already been recommended to not run for the bit? Neutralhomer has already discussed with this user the impossibility of passing. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I say close now, why waste editors time?-- Giants27 T/  C  17:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We cannot possibly snow-close an RFA that is not running. After all, it might be possible that it succeeds although very unlikely. So just tell them that it's completely unlikely and that they should not transclude it or request deletion, but if they do not want to listen to that advice, there is no policy to disallow anyone to try it. After all, we can always NOTNOW/SNOW it once they do, so no reason to do it sooner. Regards  So Why  17:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked the user if they would like it deleted. Useight (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently wp:RFA is semi protected which should cut out a few notnows such as this. Though we had one recently where the candidate persuaded another editor to transclude it for them. There have been a series of proposals to require a minimum threshold before submitting an RFA, but none have yet achieved consensus. Sadly in my view not even for a 500 edit threshold for self noms, even though we all know the almost certain fate of such RFAs..  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor should be approached (thank you Useight) and asked - and no, an RfA should never be deleted or closed prior to transclusion, unless the user agrees.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  Jamie ☆ S93  21:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason this particular piece of human decency and common sense had to be mentioned instead of assumed? In all seriousness, there is nothing important enough about RfA that suggests there is any reason not to talk to the requester about it instead of taking action ourselves. We have these little talk page thingies for a reason, don't we?--Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In this particular situation I'm rather wondering if just deleting that RfA might actually have been a fair idea - if you look at the user's contributions, they're almost all borderline vandalism or otherwise unconstructive, and the RfA genuinely reads like some kind of joke blackmail attempt. It very much does not appear to be a serious request by any stretch. ~ mazca  t 00:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm way off base on this, but it occurred to me that his/her statement: "I will stop vandalizing and be constructive and not do funny redirects if you make me an admin." could also be read such that "I will stop other people from vandalizing Wikipedia, and be constructive ..." Not that it's particularly important in this case, as we're not looking at a viable candidate at this time.  As far as the just deleting the RfA ... I not so sure about that one either.  I think it could open a real nasty can of worms if administrators felt the community supported the idea that it was fine to simply delete an RfA if it was thought to be ... how should I say it ... not applicable?  Any administrator comes along and sees an RfA by an editor that's only been here for a couple weeks, and simply deletes it? .. Nope, I can't put any of my support behind that one.  Too many land mines involved with that. — Ched :  ?  00:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Mazca .. I don't mean to imply that that's what your suggesting at all, and I realize you're talking about this particular RfA, I was speaking in general, because I could see a possible trend for the discussion leaning that way. All things considered. — Ched :  ?  00:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the RFA per his request. Useight (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD tagging
Looking at recent RFAs I suspect that errors in CSD tagging are currently competing with incivility and low edit count as ways to sink an RFA. Whilst I'm happy that the first and third of those are currently such high priorities for the RFA crowd, I would hate for this to result in wannabee admins avoiding new page patrol. I admit that I don't always drop a note on the taggers talk page when I decline a speedy or delete a speedy under a different code than it was tagged with for; but I hereby promise to put more effort into that. I'd also suggest that if anyone reading this page happens to be a new page patroller who might just possibly be thinking of submitting an RFA in the future, keep an eye on the pages you tag and if they are declined or deleted under a different tag talk to the admin involved. If you look at your contributions, pages you've tagged but have not been deleted will still be there; if you set the namespace box in your contributions screen to user talk you'll see all the user pages you've templated after tagging their articles for deletion. Those templates should remind you what you tagged the article as, and have a redlink for the deleted article, click on that to see who deleted it and under what code or codes. Also please remember that when new page patrolling you don't just have the choice between CSD tag or mark as patrolled; There are lots of other things you can do such as categorising, typo fixing and prodding.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I always view it as someone understanding how to recognize when something looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, that it is a duck, even if they don't clearly know what kind of duck it is. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gotten invovled in CSD recently to alert people when I do find errors and so far most people have been open to discussion or reasoning. But it is an area where we (as a community) need to improve. There is very little being done to ensure proper CSD and a lot be done to reward poor CSD. Some CSD'ers/admins take the approach that if its tagged its deleted as it was tagged... and if it was declined, then just restore the tag and it will be deleted by the next admin.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it would be possible to create a bot and some reports. A bot to notify taggers if something they tagged has been deleted under a different code. A report for taggers as to their CSD activity and a similar report for admins?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * that would be great---especially if it included declined speedies.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, and ideally speedy tags downgraded to notability tags or prods. Without wanting to necessarily overcomplicate matters it could also say if the author had blanked the speedy and treat it as a correct tag if an admin userfies an A7).  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea of bot reports on the results of a user's speedy-delete and prod taggings seems like it has merit. Since non-sysops can't see deleted articles, currently there's no good way for them to find out how this kind of work is being received (unless someone takes the time to send a note). --Orlady (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The other parameter I would want to see is how many edits/bytes added were made after the article was tagged. The potential problem with a bot is person A tags an article, person b edits the article addressing A's concern, person C declines the CSD.  I would want there to be a way to have a flag saying, "This article was edited significantly since being tagged."--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another advantage of reports over isolated diffs is that they tend to show up patterns rather than isolated incidents. But we also need to remember that where the admin changes a code we aren't always going to be right, and also that things can be truly borderline. I've had some fairly surreal discussions with fellow editors particularly as to the threshold between a non-notable bio and an attack.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi peeps :). Bot sounds like a great idea, question: Where would it display it's results? Also some tags may be okay in some cases even if they get deleted for another reason (e.g. user tags as WP:A3, deleted as WP:A1) - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A bot sounds like a great idea and you know maybe something like CSD Tagging Coaching can be formed. :-)-- Giants27 T/  C  15:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think any "coaching" would be a good idea. If an admin candidate is not able to read what policy actually says, I don't think we should coach them. To take a popular mistake: G1 clearly states that it's not for foreign-language material. If a user tags such material as G1, what's there really to coach? The only thing to "coach" there would be: Go and read what the policy says. But I do really think people should be able to do that for themselves. Regards  So Why  15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned I was kidding.-- Giants27 T/  C  15:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As for where to display it, talk page along with the editing stats sound like an obvious place to me. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 16:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

<_outdent I try to tell taggers why I declined or thought there was a better tag. It's a way to mentor and get to know prospective admin candidates. Dloh cierekim  14:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Kingpin - the Bot would drop a note on the taggers talk page - possibly using the uw-csd template. Reports would be runnable by anyone and might well go on an RFA talk page similar to the way http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=WereSpielChequers&l=all runs  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, the only real problem I can see then is some tags being okay in some cases (but not all). - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging the results of something like this shouldn't really be automatic--it depends on the difficulty. If one tags for only copyvio, one should make extremely few errors. If one tags for promotional, it's much more a matter of judgment, which one needs to develop by experience. I don;t want this to result in patrollers making only the very safest obvious calls, because they'll miss too much. I do not think making a few errors of judgment at tagging is necessarily a negative factor, unless it shows a real lack of knowledge of policy or recklessness. Let me admit that after 2.5 years of it, I still make a few mistakes. But anything that provides feedback to new and experienced patrollers would be a major plus. DGG (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wish patrollers would take the feedback more seriously. I gave up doing CSD work as an admin after the third or fourth person I gave feedback to came back with "I do so much so screw you if there's some mistakes."  A part of me wanted to start warnings about civility but that's just pointless.  I'm glad people are paying attention to that and the fighting vandals only with tools strategy some users take. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am very happy that you brought this up. I realize this is WT:RFA, but I'd still like to point out that incorrect tagging causes many problems that are completely unrelated to, and in my opinion much more important than a potentially ruined adminship candidacy, namely that it's very discouraging to newcomers, and it's also a waste of time for admins and other NPP's to clean up afterwards. Just my 5c. The idea of automatically generated reports is an interesting one, if it's technically feasible. You pretty much summed up what I've been doing manually. As for surreal discussions, I presume you are referring to me :) Your help is much appreciated. decltype (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who does New Page Patrol, I appreciate feedback if I am making a mistake. The other day, WereSpielChequers left a message for me explaining why he declined an A7 tag I put on an article about an Australian rock musician. I am glad that he took the time to point out where I goofed, because this way I will strive to avoid making the same error again. Pastor Theo (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see all the interest in the CSD problem; it's inspired me to make a log of what I've been doing. See User talk:Dank55/Mar and User talk:Dank55/Apr for rationales for all the speedies I declined in March and April (and of course, my deletion log will cover the ones I went along with).  I left talkback notices all along for most of the taggers, but I'm slowing down on talkback notices now because I'm getting a feel for who wants feedback and who doesn't.  Also ... a lot of the people who do want feedback know to find it on my CSD pages already. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi all, just my two cents - perhaps some more examples should be added to Criteria for speedy deletion.  I'm sure there are quite a number of users who use that as a reference when tagging and while the criteria itself is quite detailed, errors could definitely be averted with a basis for comparisson. - Fastily (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted a summary of the CSD bot idea to Wikipedia:Bot requests. Wronkiew (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wronkiew, one tweak to the bot - admins can add a reason so if the tag was for either reason then I don't think the bot should report it as a change. We could use that for some of the instances where the article was correctly tagged but then amended - for example where the author adds abuse. Also it would be nice if the bot had some table where we could post articles where the tag was correct but the article was subsequently salvaged and therefore a message was not needed. PS to Fastily and others, I have collected together some further CSD reading at User:WereSpielChequers.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to give this request a try. I've outlined a possible implementation on the bot request page and would appreciate feedback.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  04:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion
What does this mean, being "transcluded"? I saw an explanation somewhere else but the answer was like something only a Wikipedia-expert would know. Who transcludes, and what exactly are they transcluding and why do they transclude? 98.71.221.22 (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I read this: Transclusion and it starts off saying "Transclusion is generally the inclusion of the content of a document into another document by reference." I'm sorry, but this might as well be a foreign language.  Can someone explain this to someone who did not grow up with computers? 98.71.221.22 (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It means moving it onto WP:RFA when like the candidate accepts the nomination or self-nomination in some cases.-- Giants27 T/  C  14:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Transclusion is a way to include one page into one or more other pages. If you type pagename onto a page then a copy of pagename will appear at that point in the page. The advantages of that for processes like RFA and wp:FAC is that you can have multiple RFAs going on at the same time with no risk of edit conflicts between them, and at the end of an RFA you don't need to rename or move an RFA just untransclude it. There's a better explanation here: Transclusion. For RFA the important thing is that an RFA starts not when the page for that candidates RFA is created (usually by the nominator) but when it is transcluded (usually by the candidate) onto wp:RFA.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  14:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That part when you explained WHY you do this actually was the most helpful part, it actually hepled me to understand WHAT it means. I went back to WP:RFA and hit "edit this page", scanned down, and saw what you were talking about.  Thanks, checkers. 98.71.221.22 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your Welcome.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just can't stand to see "you're" and "your" mixed up. X clamation point  20:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers mate, my first wiki trout, now where's the frying pan?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't have accepted a trouting there! You could easily have bluffed your way out of that one - you were simply describing that this conversation had been his welcome to Wikipedia - hence, your welcome. ;) ~ mazca  t 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe he likes fish; you sure made me hungry, and I don't even like fish! -- 203.171.195.113 (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's an ancient Milton Keynes proverb, to maintain thy dignity in ye stocks, guzzle ye rotten tomatoes as twere the finest capons.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "ancient Milton Keynes proverb"? You'll be claiming next that the cows are Precambrian. --Philcha (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My Geology is a tad rusty, but is this really our best photo of Milton Keynes most famous residents?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)



Proposed discussion on the canvassing issue
In light of the recent discussion concerning inappropriate canvassing, and the apparent lack of clear conventions as to what degree of advertisement of an RfA is permissible or desirable, I think a Request for Comment on the issue might be helpful. I'm posting this to get an idea of what questions need to be asked, but a short list might include:
 * Is it appropriate for the candidate to advertise their RfA
 * ... on their own userpage or user talkpage?
 * ... on the talkpage of a WikiProject or other Wikipedia collaboration they participate in?
 * ... in their signature?
 * ... on an off-wiki forum dedicated to Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia Review, Planet Wikimedia or Wikipedia IRC channels?
 * ... on an off-wiki forum not specifically Wikipedia-related, such as a personal blog or internet forum?


 * Should advertisements always be neutrally phrased?
 * Do the same norms apply to the candidate advertising their RfA and a third party doing so?
 * To what extent is it desirable for the RfA to be judged by editors familiar with the candidate rather than a largely-unfamiliar body of editors such as RfA regulars?

I'm thinking that if editors find this to be a good idea, we could have the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Guide to requests for adminship, and update the guide with a section according to the outcome. The goal would be for candidates to be reasonably sure of the appropriateness of what they are doing, to attract the right kind of participants in RfAs, and to avoid contentious opposes and unnecessary drama.

What do you all think? Please give your comments about the proposed RfC and suggestions for issues to be discussed here (but save your opinions on canvassing for the discussion itself). Mahalo, Skomorokh  19:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD.  Syn  ergy 19:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that the answers to the "where" questions have already been established as 1) yes, 2) no, 3) torpedo-worthy no, 4) likewise and 5) likewise. For the next, I think it's generally understood with 1) that anything other than "please voice your opinion" is considered pretty blatant canvassing, and that 2) and 3) are essentially unenforceable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion surrounding Orlady's RfA above indicate to me that the conventions for canvassing are not clearly established, though if I'm wrong then we should go right ahead and write up the established conventions, no RfC necessary. Enforceability is quite simple, I think: if an editor feels the candidate or someone closely connected with them has inappropriately canvassed, it will factor into their decision to support or oppose the candidacy. I imagine that going against clearly stated guidelines to sway an RfA in your favour would be quite damaging to your prospects. Skomorokh  19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thumperward what? Milhist has been putting notices about member RFAs on the talk page for years. It's certainly widely accepted.-- Patton t / c 19:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia Review will attempt to tank certain RfAs regardless of what happens here. So, I think asking what is appropriate canvassing is a moot point. Instead, we should discuss what the appropriate -reaction- to canvassing is. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, good old Wikipedia Review where we have people who implore you to read "their blog - if you dare" (I dared to Eric [look at me treading on a landmine] - apt title for the domain because it really is shit) and some bloke called Kato with his endless "read my round up" crap. Attention seeking twats. If someone finally had the bollocks to shift the domain to "wikipediafailcausewehateyou.org" I might have some time for it - at least it would be honest. That project has lost its (admitedly good) aim of reviewing Wikipedia in a harsh light; instead it has become a bunch of attention seeking wanabees whose sole interest is trying to get everyone else to look at their posts. I'm not against all WR editors (Malleus, Lara, One, LessHeard, Lar, Sommey etc. provide quality input) but the disenfranchised lot over there really need to understand that most people on this small blue speck don't care Pedro : Chat  19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you chaps wouldn't mind pursuing this digression elsewhere before this derails into everyone's favourite topic, I'd be much obliged. Skomorokh  20:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Skomorokh. You should have taken my suggestion, and posted a notification when you were finished. Digressions happens here, as you should know by now.  Syn  ergy 20:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, but the plan was to steal other people's ideas and/or subliminally suggest they do the work ;) Skomorokh  20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Opportunity to have my first real pop at WR go unmissed? Had to be done. Apologies for derailing the thread. Pedro : Chat  20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that there are divergent views on what is appropriate and what is not appropriate wrt the posting of notices. Skomorokh's suggestion of an RfC is a good idea. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - there are too many different questions here for one simple answer (I don't see the problem with posting notices about RFAs on WikiProjects, for example), and if there is a 'consensus view', I'm not sure what it is. An RFC would be a good idea to find out exactly what people actually think about 'canvassing'. Robofish (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt that it will result in any changes, but it may result in a nice little drama for those so inclined to participate in such things. I can't see how you would begin to police such things, even if it were capable of effecting a change.  But hey, if it gives us a chance to take a shot back at WR - why not. ;) — Ched :  ?  21:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think that notifying a WP is and has been acceptable. I believe the argument brought forward is that the people of the project would have most interacted with the applicant. Either way this will bring out good and bad points about the applicant. Not to mention that there are enough people who have project pages watchlisted even if they are not participants. Agathoclea (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with posting on WikiProjects is that it gives editors who are affiliated with WikiProjects an unfair advantage; editors who don't get such advertising are going to have a significantly harder time attracting support, relying primarily on being seen in the wild and on favuorable impressions from the RfA regulars. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two current bits of advice that we should consider and in my view not penalise candidates for following even if you'd like the guidelines changed.


 * 1) Requests for adminship/nominate
 * "Canvassing for support (asking other editors to vote in your favor) is strongly discouraged. In order to get editors to notice your RfA, you are free to put a on your userpage. Such declarations are most definitely allowed."
 * In my view this leaves grey areas such as putting a neutral note on your talk page or a project page, and to be fair to candidates we should expand this advice to clarify which are or are not OK (I think it would be bizarre to expect candidates not to have discussions about their RFA on their talkpage). Also advertising by the nominee or others is not mentioned - only the candidate is advised not to canvass.
 * 1) Guide to requests for adminship
 * "Advertising" your RfA: Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC. RfA is not a political campaign. The intent is to develop consensus. Impartial evaluation of a candidate, not how popular they are, is the goal. Canvassing is often looked down upon."
 * I appreciate that Wikipedia is an adhocracy rather than a bureaucracy, and a key criteria for adminship is to have picked up on the unwritten rules and de facto interpretation of the written ones. However I think that these two sections could be brought more into sinc, and I think that whatever advice we have on canvassing for or against RFA candidates should be broadened to all, not just the candidate. NB I'm sure I've seen advice somewhere for unsuccessful candidates to wait a suitable time and then seek input from their opposers, but I couldn't find it in this morning's trawl.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Our whole canvassing policy is a farce. I'm sorry, but I joked with Ottava above about how the standard way to "canvass" is to goto a friends talk page and start a new conversation with a lable, "About UserX's RfA?" or "RE: your Vote at UserX's RfA." People routinely canvass for their friends by making "innocent" postings on "friends pages." People routinely use IRC as a means for canvassing---usually, it is benign, but occassionally it is blatant. People routinely use Wikipedia Review or other blogs to campaign for canddiates. It happens and to bury our heads in the sand pretending it doesn't happen is a farce.. If a person is active at a wikiproject, why don't we post a note there (along with a message that such a note was posted at the RfA) similar to what they do at AfD. If the person garners supports from friends, then that indicates a person who is civil and knows how to work well with others. If it garners opposes, who better would know that they wikiproject they claim to work on? I would even support having a link in one's signature! Just like the best way to get people to comment on an editor review is via a signature, a link to your RfA in a signature would make sure that people who like and dislike you would know about your rfa. I sometimes wonder how often people run while secretly hoping that userY doesn't find out because if UserY finds out they will sink my RfA. Without the "canvassing" we have a small enclave of users who routinely !vote at rfa's and somewhat set the criteria for adminship. Is this cabal, which I am part of, so afraid of losing it's power that they can't stomache the thought of getting input from users who actually, gasp, know the candidate best?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If people are going to get the right to post at their WikiProjects about their RfA, I reserve the right to post at any WikiProjects that I belong to when I oppose their RfAs. Fair is fair, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the wikiproject is relevant to the candidate, then I have no problem with supporters or opposers posting neutral messages there. I do have problems with other mediums (such as Wikipedia review and flat out soliciting) but they do happen.  The question becomes how can we govern/moderate the practice and actually improve the process?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was that why should their WikiProjects be contacted and not mine as an opposer? Wouldn't it be good to contact people that know my character and trust my opposition to another? If we are going off of character, I think it is just as important to have the character of the opposition also put forth. But yes, we can just ignore this whole thing - as long as people still vote (Why Not, No Big Deal, blank supports) then it wont really matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets keep this focussed on the candidate, bringing in others who've had interactions with the candidate is fine if done neutrally; having either opposers or supporters canvass their support base would in my view be inappropriate. I would be happy to have a bot that informed all participants in a previous RFA who are still active that "user ***** whose RFA you participated in during (month and year) has submitted a new RFA", I think it would be potentially corrupting if say a reviewer at GAN or FAC told the author that they were strongly supporting or opposing someone at RFA. Even if we took the precaution of introducing a secret ballot, the pressure to vote per your canvasser would in my view be corrosive. Oh and supports per nom are not a problem at RFA.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Supports per nom may not be a problem to you, but I find them a problem, thank you very much. In most of the decisions, there is a good average of 5-10% support per nom or likewise trashy supports. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with the nominator is and has been good enough. I would want to stress the point of a relevant WP. Relevant does not mean he has to be a member, but he would frequent their articles. OTOH to politically rally ones friends to join in an oppose when they don't know the candidate from Adam would show a poor character. Agathoclea (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Logically, if simply agreeing with a nominator was enough, then simply disagreeing withe the nominator is enough. Therefore, all of those closing crats that throw out opposes without strong statements are acting inappropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that editors know the importance of this page/process enough to take their own initiative to come often. It is also because of this diversity of opinions that everyone thinks the process is broken.
 * If we go to the other extreme and make everyone actively canvass their RfA, we are going to have RfA/DHMO3 24/7/365. - Mailer Diablo 21:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Reply to Ottava, No, in a debate that is seeking consensus if you disagree you need to explain why you do so, especially in an RFA where there is a fellow editor being assessed. Nominators very rarely support for one single reason so an oppose per nominator would imply a disagreement with all that the nominator said; much better to say "happy to see the candidate's first block free quarter since registering their account, long may that continue. I accept they have as suggested quadrupled their edit count to 4,000. But 3,000 valentine cards to the talk pages of indef blocked users gives me insufficient evidence of content building or dispute resolution." Simply agreeing with the nominator or indeed anyone else including an opposer isn't trashy at all and it saves us all time by avoiding repetition. Of course the downside of !voting per someone else is that you have to keep a beady eye on that RFA, otherwise you could wind up voting one way per someone who has now abstained or even reversed their position.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a debate. RfA is not a debate. It is a conversation. There are no "winners" or "losers". Your language is completely opposite of what Wikipedia is about and the reason why things are so problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Ottava, Interesting that our views can at times seem so far apart and other times so close. My experience of RFA is that it is useful to know why your opposers oppose. When I analysed my first RFA I reckoned there were 7 reasons why it failed to get consensus, some of which were things I could not have predicted before the RFA or learned about if my opposers had simply voted instead of !voted. That's why I disagree with you when you said "simply disagreeing with the nominator is enough" above, but strongly agree with you when you say "actual discussion that puts out pros and cons in each and determines if the person meets it" later on this page. In my second RFA three of the ten opposers struck their  oppose during the RFA and a fourth tried to just after the RFA closed - all as a result of debate within the RFA.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  12:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Meta discussion
I think it is time to discuss what an admin actually is. Is an admin supposed to be someone popular? Someone vetted by the elite and chosen? Someone who merely jumps through hoops? Or simply someone who can use the tools effectively? By allowing canvassing, we would be saying that it is a popularity contest, and those who have the most friends/enemies would win/lose. However, isn't that what RfA already is now? Perhaps its because of all the backchannel canvassing. Few are surprised when people who never participate at RfA and have little contact with it suddenly appear to vote. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Or maybe many users who don't participate on every RfA decide to chime in when they see a name they recognize. Kingturtle (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kingturtle, although I tend to vote on every RfA, most users probably only vote when they see a name of someone who they've worked with in the past or present.-- Giants27 T/  C  17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am an admin. That said, my abilities were not known to the wider voting community when I ran for election the first time, so I got out on the Wikiroad and kissed some babies to earn the vote of my fellow Wikipedian, and when I ran for election again, won. It is an election, dressed up as a conversation, but regardless of what you think or want RfA to be, it will never be anything other than a popularity contest. Make no mistake about that. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, if it is going to stay as a popularity contest, wouldn't it be best to advertise it in the same way ArbCom elections were advertised? That way, everyone gets a chance to see it going on? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A good idea, if you ask me. I think that the vast majority of people who ever encounter any kind of authority on Wikipedia encounter someone who is simply an admin, rather than a member of arbcom. I bet the casual user has no idea arbcom even exists, so it only reasons that the admin selection process should be as open and widely advertised as possible. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I keep a pretty constant eye on it, but rarely vote, because I'm aware that there are a subset of editors that will oppose anyone I support, and support anyone I oppose.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverse psychology, maybe?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One further thought. I remember that some years back I was in an edit war over at Micronation and Empire of Atlantium, and wanted to find someone in a position of authority to help settle the dispute. It was far harder to do this than I think we often allow ourselves to admit, as anyone who posts here, or on any admin board, or IRC or WR is a considerably more sophisticated user of Wikipedia than the average bloke who is just trying to make a one off change to the article on their company or home town. The casual user is completely unaware of the existence of admins, or the hierarchy into which we fit. Just making our existence, and how to find us more generally known would be a net positive. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) IMO, viewing posting a message on a project noticeboard as making RfA into a popularity contest is looking at the issue the wrong way. Being a productive and respected denizen of a wikiproject means that the editor has successfully managed to control the POV warriors while keeping the useful content editors happy. Trust me, this is not easy because content editors often get mad at perceived slights to their usefulness and the POV warriors are, well, relentless. Anyone who can do this successfully is almost guaranteed to be a good admin. Conversely, not posting a notice will result in !votes from the usual RfA suspects and the voice of the people who know the editor the best won't be heard. Some of our best editors focus almost exclusively on one or two wikiprojects, making many useful editing and clerical decisions without ever coming to the attention of RfA regulars. IMO, the entire argument above is framed incorrectly. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 22:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know many WikiProjects that are dominated by POV pushers. So, your claims would only allow the POV pushers to get in their candidate more easily. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of opinion, but I don't agree with you. It is my experience that most editors are rational and eager to see articles neutrally edited. The POV pushers just happen to be more vocal and more aggressive. Posting a notice on a wikiproject will bring all editors to the table and the support/oppose will reasonably accurately reflect the worth of the editor. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 23:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is my experience that most editors are rational and eager to see articles neutrally edited" That made me choke. I take it that you don't watchlist the Request for ArbCom page? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. I don't watchlist the Request for ArbCom page. And, my guess is that most editors don't. Like I said, it is a matter of opinion. However, if the POV warriors were more numerous and getting the upper hand, the project would be worthless and I don't think it is (and given the effort you put into articles, I suspect you don't think it worthless either.)--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You fail to consider that there are counter POV warriors that force things to stale. I would suggest you look at how intense Scientology, Intelligent Design, Global Warming, Obama/Palin, etc, pages are. If you really want to get into it, look at various Eastern European countries, India/Pakistan territories, or Israel related pages. Jimbo even made a statement about creating a new group to deal with the content issues. I've also seen major POV warring happening in pages that you've involved yourself in. I know you've seen it, and there is proof that it has been going on for a long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that there are no problem areas like scientology, ID, etc. But rather that, in general, there are enough editors who will, in most wikiprojects, go with well sourced information over unsourced or poorly sourced points of view. (Naturally, we all have our own points of view and the only way to keep that in check is through reliable sourcing.) Over time, it becomes fairly clear who is willing to suspend his or her own pov for a well-sourced edit and who is not. It also becomes clear which editors are willing to do the hard work of maintaining proper sourcing (most editors get frustrated by the relentlessness of the POV warriors and just give up) and have the temperament to do it without pissing off a lot of people. But, like I said, it is a matter of opinion and, Rashoman like, the two of us could be looking at the same thing but seeing different things. An unfortunate side-effect of being human! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 03:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that is why I believe we should channel the spirit of the dead and have them testify about the true character of the admin wannabes in a Kurasawan manner. Why would a ghost lie? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Even ghosts want to further their POV (or, a dead samurai is still a samurai, I think!). :-) (But, seriously, I think you underestimate the number of 'encyclopedia building' editors out there.) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, though, who is a member of the project is less relevant than who has the talk page watchlisted. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(←) I cannot help but wonder about whether we are talking about something that is actually unimportant for the RFA process as such. Consensus is not defined as "the majority who supports X is right", so even if RFA were a popularity contest, it would not change the fact that it's not a vote but a consensus seeking discussion. If suddenly 50 editors appear at an RFA because they were told to support/oppose the candidate then that does not mean that they will turn the RFA in that direction. Because if they do not bring new arguments with them, then consensus can still be against them, allowing popular people to fail or unpopular people to pass. And if they do have new arguments, then it's actually beneficial for the RFA because new arguments may help the consensus finding process. Either way, I fail to see why any sort of canvassing, which actually just possibly increases the number of !votes, means that RFA becomes a popularity contest. The worst that really can happen is that the closing crat needs to read through a dozen more "per XXX" and "nice guy!" !votes. Regards  So Why  01:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You appear to have missed the point that RfA is already a popularity contest, and always has been. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My question was also since when popularity replaced arguments in judging the promotion of a candidate. Or rather: If that were already the case, which I do not think is really true (but that's another question), then the problem would lie with the closing crats not with RFA or canvassing. After all, if numbers and popularity really replace arguments in judging consensus, then the judgment of consensus needs to be addressed as the problem, not whether a candidate's popularity attracts more !voters. Regards  So Why  11:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple solution - Break RfA down into 3 sections (something like - Experience, Personality, Policy understanding). Then have discussions based on both. Consensus needs to come to an overwhelming support in all three. Not a straw poll, but actual discussion that puts out pros and cons in each and determines if the person meets it. The crats then parse it and multiple crats join together to decide. If the crats screw up on it, they are instantly decrated and not allowed near RfA. That would sure fix things appropriately. Also, all old Admin would have to retake it. Completely simple and would work. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds great in theory : )
 * Meanwhile, while you're waiting for that to happen, here's an eyedropper. Please move the Atlantic to the Pacific. After you somehow manage that, you'll likely have some time left, so at that point, move the Atlantic back : ) - jc37 02:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst I'm keen to increase the discussion aspect of RFA's I see several problems in Ottava's suggestion and suspect that it would make a lot of extra work, exacerbate our admin shortage and create a severe crat shortage. Overwhelming support in all three sections sounds like it would make RFA more difficult to pass and thereby exacerbate our admin shortage. Re RFAing all old admins would bury us in RFAs and probably increase our admin shortage because there would be bound to be admins who simply wouldn't be willing to put themselves through the ordeal of another RFA. Even optimistically assuming that two thirds of our active admins were willing to continue under this system, where do you find the RFA !voters and multiple crats per RFA to run 600 or so extra RFAs under a more complex process? Decrating crats who screw up - well who decides if a crat has screwed up? Plus RFA is already a complex process, what would be the benefit of making it more complex?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "If the crats screw up on it, they are instantly decrated and not allowed near RfA" Could you be a bit more specific as to what a "screw up" would be? You basically made it sound that if we don't give the result that someone wants, we're removed and then can't so much as participate in RfAs as editors, which is ludicrous. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't get a confirmation on "screwups" until a year or after passes. - Mailer Diablo 21:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In my fantasy, there is only one person needed to confirm a screw up, and it wouldn't take a year. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Closing comment
There does not seem to be a terrible amount of interest in an RfC at this point, so I'll let this archive in peace (unless of course others with to proceed). Thank you all for your comments, Skomorokh  23:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA template
I just want to show everybody a template that allows users to view an any admin's RFA. will show. will show.

I created this because I often like looking at past RFA's to see how and why he was nominated or whether or not he or she made the request. It's a great way to look at past nominations. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it but the name is kind of confusing with admin though.  So Why  11:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we simply expand Admin-full to include the RfA(s)? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do we need to do anything? There's already code in the base RfX that show all previous requests. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oy vey. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think BCD means the template to be used like user or admin when talking about previous RFAs by a person, to refer to the RFA they passed for example.  So Why  14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I still fail to see how we need such a template; if we need to refer to a single RfA, we can just link to it. Adding a slew of links via a template is confusing and not necessarily helpful. For example:


 * Ha, that's the longest user template ever.  hmwith  τ   17:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That template has got more features than the car I drive. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm so tempted to replace my signature file with that template. :D ~ mazca  t 18:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The template doesn't have seat warmers or a sunroof, otherwise I'd be in the same boat you're in. Er, car. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is kind of a boat. No life-raft, though. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * lol, but steering (har har) the conversation back on course, why don't we just have one template which provides links to all RfAs?, so would have the 1st RfA and 2nd, rather then having to use two different templates, and thus removing 8 links which are already provided by the first template ? - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, why is this template needed? RfA already has code that automagically links to all relevant RfAs (and can be overridden when it doesn't grab non-similarly-named pages). You can see it in action at Requests for bureaucratship/EVula 3. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus F. Christ, why not just link to one page on the toolserver that has all that malarkey. Or add it all to MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer if you must. — CharlotteWebb 18:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Charlotte: Please, watch the language, it's unnecessary. EVula: Hmm... okays, but it's not exactly small is it? ;). But to tell the truth, I see the most sense in Juliancolton's suggestion, this would seem to be the sensible thing to do - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should take a step back: what is the purpose of the template? It's being inquired about here on the RfA talk page, so I assumed it was in conjunction with RfAs. As we already have a section of the RfA process that has that covered, I don't see a point. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yes, the template could be used on the RfA page. But a lot of users use the Admin template on their talk pages etc. And this page uses the Admin-full one - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so if this is just talking about creating another type of user template (admin-rfas would be a good name for an RfA-subpage-specific variant), I'm just confused as to why it's being brought here... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * *shrug*, I guess just because it links to RfAs, it's not really related to the process methinks. This was probably the wrong page, but never mind, it's a bit late to move it now, and no harm done. That looks like a good name, it should deal with getting it muddled with admin. How 'bout renaming this, adding all RfAs in one template, rather then spread across many, give it a link from user, and leave it at that? :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, care to comment on the suggestions I made or should I expect more personal jabs? — CharlotteWebb 02:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I offended you, I certainly wasn't trying to. Could you give a link to the page you're talking about? - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

User:ChildofMidnight RfA
This RfA was not transcluded, but had existed for a few weeks, including no less than 22 unanswered questions and a talk page that was rapidly declining into an argument. As such, given that the editor in question would have no chance of passing an RfA at this time, I have deleted the RfA as a complete waste of everyone's time. Speedy deletion criteria? - WP:IAR. If anyone wants to restore it, no problem, you don't need to discuss it with me, I just hope you have a good rationale for doing so. Black Kite 23:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, just one week duration, not few weeks. I bet this thread will be a magnet for another "new" drama. I may see the regular starring members' appearance. --Caspian blue 23:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. And I'll spare us a long thread by referring anyone who wants to argue up to this thread, and just replace the names and direct objects with those appropriate to this line of discussion. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly wasn't going anywhere productive, was occupying lots of editor time, and was never going to pass if it was transcluded. Seems prudent to me. ~ mazca  t 12:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good deletion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed.-- Giants27 T/  C  13:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Chillum  14:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|18px]] — Ched : ?  16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletion. The page might have served both as a source for advice for ChildofMidnight and other editors. Noone forces anyone to participate and waste their time but if they decide to do it, it should not be someone else's decision that they cannot do it. There is no reason at all that you couldn't have followed process and listed it at WP:MFD instead of deleting outside policy and thus setting a bad precedent. No admin should decide whether an RFA may or may not pass if transcluded because until people actually !vote on it, there is just discussion, no hard facts to judge that from. Many RFAs are drama-fests, we see that far too often anyway but that does not allow people to delete them because they are. Similarly, many RFAs are NOTNOW/SNOW candidates but whether they really are is something that can only really be determined once they are transcluded. Regards  So Why  17:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What we have here is a conflict of IAR and WP:COMMON - in a manner of speaking. My opinion is similar to SoWhy's. I'm not entirely sure why it was deleted in this manner. Can somebody tell me if discussion was ongoing on the subpage and what the potential candidate's intention ultimately was?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the potential candidates intention's were other than that they'd originally requested the nomination. There were 62 edits to the talk page of that RFA, 10 of them in the last ten hours before it was deleted, so yes I'd say there was ongoing discussion on the talkpage (though neither the potential candidate nor the nominator seemed to be taking much part). I think we have good precedent to delete if an RFA is created without the agreement of the potential candidate, or if a complete newbie creates their RFA but is talked out of transcluding it. But neither applies in this case.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Undelete and userify. Or undelete and ignore it because it shouldn't bother you unless you have it watchlisted.--Tznkai (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there was active discussion ongoing, it should not have been deleted. IAR doesn't apply since the action doesn't improve or help anybody or the project. It should be restored.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

←I apologize for not being able to stay quiet; but, shouldn't this decision ultimately fall to CoM? — Ched : ?  18:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Essentially, yes. I think that's the general (albeit small) consensus here.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to undelete (and userfy, if people will freak out otherwise). Anyone whose time was being wasted by it has precisely one person to thank for that. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a good compromise. I know of at least one other user who's contemplating a run for admin and only has it userfied for the time being. If and when CoM decides to actually take the plunge, he'll have it ready to roll. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (In my statement above, the universal quantifier precedes the existential one. And all that that implies. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Rogereeny. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It should not have been deleted without the consent of CoM. — R  2  02:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps s/he never gave explicit consent, but perhaps silence implies consent. S/he was made aware of the deletion, as well as this thread, and I've seen no evidence that S/he is contesting the deletion.  To be honest? ... I suspect that there's really nothing left to see here, we may be in the "let's just move along" zone.  Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  06:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the deletion. I think it was clearly inappropriate and an abuse of process. Blackite was welcome to discuss his concerns with me and ask me if I was okay with his deleting (or userfying) the (potential) RfA nom. Instead, without any discussion, he deleted it on his own going so far as to make the implication that somehow it was my fault that certain Wikipedians have nothing better to do with their time than hound me and make irrelevant and unconstructive comments on an inactive RfA discussion page. Needless to say, his poor judgement I think we can all understand where he was coming from in good faith, but the deletion too has resulted in a time wasting drama.(refactored slightly. I was frustrated) These actions contrast with mine: I discussed my intentions and asked an Admin about the timing issues and was told it was okay to leave it open. I also explained my intentions on the RfA talk page including my reasoning and understanding that no one was required to post there or involve themselves with any foolishness on the part of disruptive characters. But don't worry, I accept full responsibility for being the charming, wonderful and fascinating person that I am, and clearly I should have realized that it's my job to make sure I don't provide any openings for those who are easily distracted by shiny baubles. Apparently when editors on Wikipedia choose to make a big drama and you take no part in it, it's still your fault if they invoke your name. I understand that now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi COM as you are the candidate and have objected to the deletion of your RFA I have now restored Requests for adminship/ChildofMidnight  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Spiel. I almost got to your spelling you're mistake yesterday in time to save you the trouting. :) Of course even spell checking has become a dangerous and controversial business on Wikipedia, so I think I would have needed your advance permission and a signed consent form. I did think it was an amusing thread give your username. Take care. Thanks for restoring my RfA. Now I can go read the latest attacks on me. Hey I like shiny baubles too you know! Who needs the soaps when there's this much fun on Wikipedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies. — Ched : ?  17:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM says Black Kite's deletion has resulted in a "time wasting drama"? No, that would be the RfA itself. The fact is, when things become disruptive to the project, they are blocked/banned (except CoM) or deleted. The RfA has no doubt become disruptive as mudslinging regarding it has occurred on no less than 10 user talk pages and the RfA talk page itself. Black Kite made a good faith call to end it. Also, a simple "please restore it" by CoM would have sufficed instead of the diatribe filled with sarcasm and smartassness above. - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 18:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly you don't need my RfA nom to engage in time wasting dramas. Just look at your recent ANI reports regarding a single edit of spelling corrections on an article talk page and another about your outrage over an article being moved as the result of suggestions made during an AfD. Maybe the next time you're confused on policy you can just ask someone? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "single edit of spelling corrections". You changed LadyofShallot's whole comment. Stop lieing about that one. - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I question the wisdom of going through with this process, particularly when it exhibits such opportunity to enumerate another editor's faults. I have stated so on ChildofMidnight's RfA talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to this comment as it seems to suggest I have faults. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You do. Many. We all do. You're not perfect. - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "I object to this comment as it seems to suggest I have faults." Thank god I didn't have liquid in my mouth when I read that as I would have blasted it all over my computer screen. I have no idea whether that was written in seriousness or in jest, but either way that's a truly remarkable sentence for a human being to write.


 * Not nearly as remarkable though as the amount of time being wasted over this nonsensical affair which has gone something like this from what I can tell (I'm sure I'm leaving something out): 1) User asks another user who always votes "too many admins" at RFAs to nominate her/him for RFA (I think that's how it started) 2) That happens, briefly I think 3) Then it's undone, not ready yet or something 4) Talk page threads at RfA page started 5) Various questions asked 6) Recriminations and snarkiness, rehashing old disputes on untranscluded (is that the right word?) RfA talk page - this goes on for days 7) More questions, and is this even still happening we wonder? Should we just delete the RfA?) 8) Discussion, no reply from would-be RfA candidate, what's going on?!?! 9) Oh hell, says an admin, this is going nowhere, let's just delete it! 10) Good idea! worth deleting, say some...something, something 11) Bad idea! say others...something, something, WP:COMMON 12) Candidate objects! Why did you do this? Bad judgment, unlike me, who has good judgment 13) Our bad, says some of the community, okay the thing is back now 14) Hey, so are you doing this? 14) Maybe, when I feel like it 15) Bickering begins again on this page 16) Someone writes this stupid seventeen-point list. 17) ?!?!?!?!?!


 * Did I miss anything that was actually edifying? Something that in any way helps us do the encyclopedia thing? If so I'm afraid it eluded me. I've been keeping an eye on some of the Obama article goings on for awhile which I why I'm (unfortunately) aware of this slow-moving catastraphuck, and in all honesty I think the entire proceeding is easily one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen on this project. In saying that I do not mean to denigrate in the slightest any editors who have been involved in whatever the hell this is, rather I mean merely to severely denigrate the entire collective endeavor. Maybe I'm being too cynical here and not respecting WP:RFA or something, but I'm going to WP:IAR and call this what it undoubtedly is&mdash;WP:FRIVOLOUSBALLYHOO. I defy anyone to prove otherwise.


 * My point is we should probably stop talking about this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You could have gone on... 17) somebody posts assinine comment about the list 18) somebody else posts another comment. 19) New thread developes talking about the appropriateness of said thread.  20) repeat steps 17-20.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A side comment; I'm glad to know that my speculation proves right. :-)--Caspian blue 00:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for undeleting this
Even it perpetuated the drama, it was the right thing to do. Those of us not emotionally engaged here can read/not read as we choose and make up our own minds. Dloh cierekim  15:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The drama is of the nominee's own making. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)