Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 170

neutral
I have to admit I'm having a hard time figuring out what the "Neutral" vote is all about. In most cases you either "Support" or "oppose" a candidate, no such thing as neutral. The soxbot doesn't even count the neutral votes anyway.  South Bay    (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This has crept up a bunch of times - I too struggle to ascertain the purpose behind the neutral section. Especially when people write "Neutral, just can't decide". Just don't !vote then.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The neutral section is useful if you have some insightful comments; otherwise, as you said, "Neutral, can't decide" votes are fairly useless. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a common response to the question of "why do we have the neutral section" - but, usually people shoot back with "well, we already have a discussion section". I guess that's where I stand on the matter.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point, though I think AnonDiss put it well. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)If RfA is strictly an !vote, then no, it doesn't have any value. If it is a discussion as we pretend it is, then it does have value. It allows people to point out what they think are the strengths/weaknesses of the oppose/support rationales.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * RFA is a place to discussion. Even is they're votes don't count, something they might mention in their !vote could influence other votes. They don't want to support nor oppose and are telling why.-- Gears  of War 2  (NGG) 01:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And again, we already have a section for that. All the neutral section does is perpetuate the notion that RfA is a numbers game.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your missing the point. Everyone can !vote how they want. No matter what they're reason, they're vote counts. All that RFA is, is a big discussion on promoting a editor and neutral adds to the discussion.-- Gears  of War 2  (NGG) 01:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I assure you, I'm not missing the point. The fact remains that the neutral section is just extraneous and unnecessary. If you take it away, you haven't affected RfA one iota.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How would you do such a thing?-- Gears  of War 2  (NGG) 01:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what would happen if we removed the neutral section? I imagine, though it's just an opinion, more people would lean towards the oppose section rather than the support section. — R  2  04:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. In almost all the cases in which I was neutral in a candidate's RfA, I was being lenient towards him/her and would otherwise lean towards the oppose section.   -  down  load  |   sign!  05:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bad practice (my opinion; no offense meant). If you're voting neutral, guidelines really sway you to vote support per WP:WTHN. If you're voting neutral to not vote oppose, don't vote; just make your thoughts known. I make it clear that I never vote neutral, and for good reason. Replacing the neutral section with the discussion section (which I don't like on top of the !voting sections) would make life better in just that little way. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 05:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe so but common sense and WP:BSTS would contra-indicate this. — CharlotteWebb 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that makes the section seem like a waste is the aforementioned "Neutral, can't decide" !votes, which I have to admit to scratching my head over. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Long story short: I don't see anything wrong with the existing setup. I'd like to see it not change, both as a bureaucrat and as an editor. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a bureaucrat, I think removing the neutral section would be a Bad Thing; in close RfAs, they can become much more important (in comparison to your standard-fare 92%/61% RfA). They can still provide worthwhile feedback about where the editor can focus their attentions now that they're an administrator.
 * Right, but if you replaced every Neutral with Comment, what difference would be made? Comments make up a discussion, neutral votes do not. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 05:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Neutral" would be better described as "Abstain". I may wish to point out that a candidate was not agreeable to me, but that I might have a COI, and feel it would be unfair to vote oppose. — Ched :  ?  06:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You could replace every Neutral with Balding Aardvark With Indigestion and it won't matter one bit (other than causing massive confusion); the post itself is more important than the bold term preface. I fail to see how discussion cannot come from neutral !votes. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's crazy; everyone knows aardvarks don't get indigestion! Excellent discussion still comes from the section, I'm just saying it has an inappropriate label IMO. Note that in most RfAs, the actually discussion section is rarely used because most discussion already occurs in the oppose and neutral sections. Why not make the neutral section the discussion section? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the existing "Discussion" section as being more akin to meta-discussion; that is to say, it's discussion about the RfA itself, whereas the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections all discuss the candidate (I admit that the talk page could be used for the same purpose, but let's be honest: most people don't check the talk page of the RfA, just the RfA itself). Also, it should be noted that, as it's the parent heading of the Support/Oppose/Neutral sections, to try to edit it directly in a heavily edited RfA would result in a slew of edit conflicts. I don't think the Neutral section is poorly labeled (if nothing else, it's a much more concise label than the more accurate "Miscellaneous discussion of the candidate, people who are still on the fence, random musings about the candidate, and people who have reservations that aren't strong enough to warrant a stronger !vote". Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue...), and is still in the same "family" as the Support and Oppose sections; people who have opposed tend to move to Neutral when their minds have been changed (if they don't support outright), and supporters make similar changes sometimes when new, somewhat damning evidence is presented.
 * "Miscellaneous discussion of the candidate, people who are still on the fence, random musings about the candidate, and people who have reservations that aren't strong enough to warrant a stronger !vote" = Comments, but I see your point. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 17:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent points EV... I agree, the discussion section has typically been used more for high level stuff, not about the candidate per se, unless there is a general point needing to be made. For example, when Baseball Bugs was being slammed in the opposes for his joke on his main page about his age.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a compelling reason to alter this section or remove it. Things are working fine with it, and it seems to be a venue people like to use to present evidence or information when they are ambivalent. The Discussion section has a different functionality in that it is used less often and mostly for noting developments in the RfA, making general comments about support/oppose trends, and various other maintenance particular to the RfA. Whether that wholly makes sense or whether there is a semantic redundancy in these two sections is, I would suggest, largely immaterial because things seem to run smoothly with the current configuration and both sections are used enough anyway. As an aside, "I'm not sure" neutrals with nothing else appended serve no purpose at all. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I've ever heard RfA as being described as "running smoothly" before. Not that I mind in the least, and no offense intended, just that it wasn't a phrase I expected to see here. ;) — Ched :  ?  07:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL ... if you think that Neutral !votes and their comments make no difference, checkout my current RFA. Read the neutral comments first, and THEN the Opposes, and THEN the Supports ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Both sides make good points. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)  indented and struck !vote of obvious troll ;-) --- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral, in the pure concept of neutrality, is an unwillingness to take sides. On too many occasions, however, Neutral comes across as an extension of Oppose. This is especially the case when the Neutral section is filled with diffs that can only serve to denigrate or embarrass the RfA candidate.  If it was true Neutral, there would be no attempt to sway consensus with unflattering and unpleasant comments. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral is often used as an "I don't want to pile on, but agree with the opposes so I'll pretend that my !vote in this discussion isn't really and oppose by putting my oppose in the neutral section and soothe my conscious that I just opposed"--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "conscience," Spartacus. However, I have to wonder whether the people who abuse the Neutral section are even conscious of their conscience. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's harsh, coming from a Pastor. I tend to think that everyone is conscious of their own sense of right and wrong, we might just not recognize it as such. (This comment is totally off-topic, of course.) -GTBacchus(talk) 15:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the "neutral" section were useless, it wouldn't get used. Since the section does get used regularly, I think we should assume that it's useful. When I enter a "neutral" it means I have an opinion on the matter which I want to want to state, but that I don't want it to directly affect the result. A "comment" doesn't need to describe a stance on the candidate. A comment can be for, against, or neutral towards a candidate, but it doesn't need to do any of that. It could for example be an answer or rebuttal to someone else, or a comment on how the RFA is being handled. A "neutral" however is a definite statement, it represents a conscientious decision to neither support nor oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking a sample of the 33 times I have been neutral, it appears that I use it either for: 1) "Don't want to pile-on but have something to say"; 2) "I will finishing looking at the candidate's merits later but need to write something down for now" (apparently I didn't get a chance to finish and never moved to support/oppose); or 3) "You've done nothing to warrant my opposing, but I'm not impressed enough by some action/characteristic to support." So the neutral section has a few uses, in my case. Useight (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing I don't get about this "not piling on" or "will vote late" etc. is that it can be achieved by simply not voting. If you're worried about piling on, the RfA will fail anyway and you have nothing constructive to contribute (usually, but not always I suppose). If you are still reviewing a candidate, then why bother voting at all until you have conducted your review? That's a bit of a rhetorical question, I suppose, it wasn't directly aimed at you, Useight. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 06:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that I've used the Neutral section to save my thougths on a candidate where I haven't finished my review of said candidate... eg couldn't decide where I was, but wanted to preserve something so that I would remember what I was thinking. I also suspect that people make comments in anticipation of round 2.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The notion that the neutral section is "useful" simply because it gets "used" is naive to say the least. The reason people post their opinions or fence sitting stances in said section is because 1.) it exists and 2.) its title. Eliminate it altogether and just leave the wishy washiness to dissipate : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 15:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That appears to me to be a conclusion that statements in the neutral section are unable to offer any thoughtful insight. No offense, but, that would be "naive" in my estimation. :) — Ched :  ?  17:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The statements by themselves absolutely can be of value, but they don't necessarily belong there. A general comment/discussion area is already designated. Also, to be realistic for a moment, most neutral !votes are in the vein of "very weak opposes" or "indecision votes". Then there's the infamous "waiting until candidate answers Q7" neutrals, which I just find bemusing. All of these can easily be done away with by not voting at all.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does seem to beg the question. Some people use the useless quite frequently, but this rarely creates a problem. — CharlotteWebb 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break
I can understand your point of view, and in some respects even agree with a few of the details. I guess my biggest thought on it would be the discussion page. I think the individual RfA talk pages, are simply not used to the full extent that they could be. (One outstanding* RfA excluded). I view the beginning discussion section as a place to make notes of things that people may be unaware of: This candidate works a lot in AfD, or DYK, or ... whatever. This candidate edited years ago under the name "XYZ". This candidate has an entry on their block log, but it was done accidentally when admin ABC was fighting vandalism at a hectic time. Things like that. The neutral section however, I see as a place to note personal thoughts. I may want to point out that candidate ABC was mean to me when I first started (link here) - but understand that they have contributed well to the community. It's for that reason that I believe it would be unfair to oppose a candidate, even though I'm not willing to support them. Maybe if the talk page were actually used a bit more, I could agree with you on some of it, but as it stands at present - I just think we need a neutral/abstain/recuse section.

*meaning that the RfA is not currently in the system, rather than it is a "very good" RfA — Ched : ?  18:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ched that the neutral section is a natural place to put a personal thought about the candidate. There is a natural tendency to think in terms of supporting or opposing the candidature and the neutral section is a parking place for people who feel the need to point out certain issues they may have with the candidature but feel that those issues are not strong enough to oppose. Of course, a comment section will do the same job but it will not be as clear to editors that they can make their own nebulous feelings known there and will only result in decreased participation in the RfA process. IMO, that is. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected
editsemiprotected

Please transclude this Requests for adminship/PirateSmackK --PirateSmackK (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTNOW. If your account is so new that you can't edit a semi-protected page, you're not going to be ready for adminship. Sorry. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can prove that you're an IP editor with the editing statistics you claim (though the fact that you don't reference the IP at all doesn't help), I'd consider doing it myself. Until then, though... no, sorry. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "I have mediocre knowledge of the image use policies so I'll be working in that area too". You might want to reconsider that line in your Q1 my friend.... Pedro : Chat  19:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given some advice on your talk page.  Dloh  cierekim  20:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Empty RFA?
In about 4 hours, RFA will be empty (i.e. no candidates for Admin or Crat). I'm just curious: has this ever happened before? MuZemike 17:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodness yes.  Majorly  talk  17:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then nominate candidates. :-) (belatedly added smiley emoticon for some readers) --Caspian blue 17:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be nominating candidates just for the sake of filling up RfA... – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I implied a lack of candidates was a problem? :)  Majorly  talk  17:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Juliancolton is always too sincere about my comment. Majorly, no, you did not imply it. I just joked. --Caspian blue 17:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So I'm not allowed to engage in conversation? Fair enough. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has happened before. So has this thread. Every time RFA is empty there's a new thread about it. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 17:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because of the turnover of new people discovering RFA and seeing it empty for the first time. It doesn't happen often, but here's one. Useight (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least this looks better than the stock market is doing... X clamation point  18:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so I'm not the only one that noticed eh? I thought the sky was going to fall.-- Gears  of War 2  (NGG) 18:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * X!, that graph is b0rked, in that it says 2008 instead of 2009. Hah!  GARDEN  20:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who lost last week by a close margin would be smart to run again right now. Seriously. I'm honestly not kidding or being a smart ass. The only thing people get more alarmed about than an empty RfA is an RfA filled only with losing candidates. I predict at least one mercy pass would make it through. Gentlepersons... START YOUR ENGINES!!!!! Hiberniantears (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmmmm ... thinking here.. ..naaa. Maybe someone could just hand him the tools, but not de-non-un-transclude it so the RfA didn't look empty. >:-) ...(well, it was a thought, come on - tell me nobody else thought about saying that) — Ched : ?  19:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG!!!
Well, it is about to happen again... everytime there are zero RfA's active, panic seems to ensue... OMG What is wrong with RfA that nobody is running... so let me start the thread... it doesn't matter htat we just had a nice run of passing RfA's. It's time to panic.... there aren't any RfA's active... how long has it been since that happened a good month or two?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe all of the potential nominees agreed that there really are too many admin so they aren't going to bother? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, there's still one hour for TheDJ's RfA. :)   -  down  load  |   sign!  20:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the last time there were no RfAs was only about a month ago. We had a weird perk in Easter which is odd because usually nothing happens then.  So... this is probably expected :)  GARDEN  20:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we nominate some admins for crats instead? It would be fun if there were no RFAs but RFBs. I think I never saw such a situation, it would be something new ;-)  So Why  20:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's all do it. Then there wouldn't be too many admins any longer! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Err...sure...you start, we will be right behind you...maybe...some day... ;-)  So Why  20:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just ask Ironholds to run again, he's an obliging chap about these sorts of things. Alternatively, we could all disperse and, you know, do something useful. Skomorokh  21:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is this "useful" of which you talk about?  So  Why  21:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just put letters on this talk page. Does that count? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 21:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And to think you call yourself a Wikipedian with that edit summary. ;) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

* notices a sudden quiet at the RfA stand* There's no candidates asking for votes at the booth. It's so tranquil and peaceful. ;) Jamie ☆S93  22:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like April will end with 14 admins promoted, the highest monthly total since last October. That sounds good but its still less than half the normal monthly level from Jan 2008 and earlier. So the drought continues.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * give me time, I'll throw my hat in the ring before too long. ;) — Ched : ?  22:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's CoM when you need him??? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Drought or welcome relief? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, fine... so be it. If you wish to declare me your emperor in these trying times, I will, for the good of the Wikirepublic, accept the title of Jimbonus Imperatus Hibernianatii. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"All this has happened before, and all this will happen again." EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

All hail the "Jimbonus Imperatus Hibernianatii" :-). EVula's got it right, just a natural ebb and flow.  or, And this too shall pass. ;)— Ched :  ?  05:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether we have 1 or 7 RFAs on the go at one time and whether we 6 or 16 pass in one month is the Ebb and flow of the last 12 months; Jan 2008 and the previous couple of years had a different ebb and flow with typically 30 or so successful RFAs a month. Zero RFAs on the board is possible under the current drought conditions, it has now happened twice and may happen again if the drought continues. If instead the pattern of 2006 to early 2008 had continued we would have hundreds more admins, and almost certainly we'd still be increasing our number of "active" admins. Instead we have a declining number of active admins, and even the total of actives and inactives is now fairly stable. This is not a healthy or sustainable situation for the English Wikipedia to be in, and we have a problem ahead unless someone comes up with an alternative either for the way we choose admins, or to reduce the things that we only want admins to do.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I say that the admin bit, just like already done with the CheckUser bit, should be removed if the tools haven't been used (or editor otherwise inactive) for a year or longer, but should be easily restored afterwards by pinging a Bureaucrat or Arbitrator, provided the removal was not due to abuse, of course. If we say that adminship is no big deal, then it shouldn't be a big deal to remove the bit, especially if the user has been inactive for over a year, and also considering the security risk taken if an admin account was be compromised for instance. Anyways, that my $.02. MuZemike 01:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators can't change sysop rights. :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, can ;-)  So  Why  19:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They could, but IMHO, if they are operating in the role of Arb, then they should not operate in the same case as 'crat. Eg, if you wear different hats, you need to keep the activities of the two separate---let somebody else do the work.  That way people can't accuse you of abusing or overreaching your authority.  Even if you technically have the authority to do so, it is (IMO) better not to mix responsibilities.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "arb bit" though sitting arbs can easily get CU and OS rights. I agree with Sparatcus that those with dual hats need to be careful. This is why I have not voted in an RFA/B since I became a crat (at least not that I recall), if I did do so, I would not close the RFA/B. While I can, with my crat hat, grant sysop and crat rights, and have done so, if an arb case arose from that closing I would definitely recuse from the case. If arbcom votes to remove sysop/crat/cu/os rights a sitting arb has to post the request to meta;permissions as only stewards can remove those rights. If there are more questions along this line, I'd be happy to answer them. Because of the "too many hats" issue, it's rather hard for a crat to become an arb though there is no set rule against it. IIRC, only four crats have become arbs: Essjay, Raul654, Deskana, and Rlevse (myself). And just for the record, I became a CU before I became an arb.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Question-mania
Is it really necessary for an RFA to have 21 questions before it is even accepted? I would encourage people to exercise a little restraint in asking questions. Dragons flight (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some simply cannot help themselves though...  Majorly  talk  10:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's excessive, yes, but COM's answers are verbose enough to suggest that he doesn't mind. Nevertheless, I'd hate to see the result of a candidate complaining about the number of questions during their own RfA.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If a candidate complains about too many questions, we know he is not right for the job. After all, an admin needs much patience to answer questions every day, not only at RFA  So  Why  16:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Think of it as a 21-gun salute. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was Rodney Dangerfield who said that Los Angeles was "the only place you could get a 21-gun salute – in the back!" MuZemike 18:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, the user in question appears to be an Angelino. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be delighted to see the result of a candidate dismissing hairsplitting and boring (etc) questions as hairsplitting and boring (etc); or perhaps better, responding that [name of earlier candidate] had already answered that question well enough ([link]) so let's not expend more bytes on it. I'm sure it would lead to much indignation and unintended hilarity. -- Hoary (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Though a rediculous number of questions is becoming more and more the norm, I think the only reason so many questions piled up before the acceptance has more to do with the candidate than anything (as evidenced by how badly the RfA went down in flames). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The right way to do it would be to build a potential RfA in a sub-page, as User:BQZip01 is doing, and then present it when ready - as opposed to the way CoM did this one, by nominating himself and then stalling, which of course helped to sink it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the questions were good. Probably my answers were too long, but I tried to be thorough. It was not a self-nom. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You asked someone to nominate you. That's a self-nomination. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No it's not. A lot of people ask others to nominate them, asking somebody to nominate you does not make it a self nom if that other party does so.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless he can provide a diff to show that someone offered first, then it's a self-nomination by way of another user, but it's still something he himself sought, so it's de facto the same thing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I hear another Latin term on RfA, so help me... :) GARDEN  20:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, IMHO. Whether it is a self-nom or by someone else, it is a priori an RFA nomination *slap* MuZemike 00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you are one of the few people to think that way, because self nom has ALWAYS been defined as self-nom... there are plenty of cases where people routinely seek out a nom. Heck, there are probably scores of them that are done via email and IRA, so unless you can show which nominations were solicited there, then the easiest thing is to realize that a self nom is only a self nom if the individual nomianted themselves... and not denegrate nominations made by people who sought input and had another person go, "of course I'll nom ya."--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think MuZemike is arguing with you, just finding a way to work another latin phrase, in this case "a priori". Fac fortia et patere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking to MuZemike, but rather telling baseball bugs that he is wrong.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I say I'm right. And my Japanese wrestler pal agrees: Cogito ergo Sumo. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling that a self-nom would be stretch. I'm with Spartacus. Useight (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He went to another user and asked him to nominate him. If he had not done so, he would not have been nominated. He initiated the nomination. Therefore, he nominated himself, via another user. Quote Era Demonstration. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with what he did. My point is that regardless of whether he asked another editor to nominate him, another editor did nominate him. Therefore, it is not technically a self-nom. I'd call it a "seeked-nom". Useight (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Or maybe a "sought-nom". The difference is that the user tried to pretend he didn't seek it. He said he "fell into it". You don't "fall into" asking someone to nominate you. If someone can find me a diff that indicates someone sought him out first, I'll stand corrected. But if you seek it and someone posts it for you, there is no practical difference from directly nominating yourself. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Sought-nom", yes, that was what I was going for. I have no idea what happened to my grammar there. Useight (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * She was out to lunch. Or maybe in grade school they done teached you wrong. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I initiate sex, should my girlfriend oblige, am I still 'nomming' myself? :P It seems to me that we should keep it very simple and take 'self-nom' to be just what the word denotes. Lawshoot! 02:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if she says no, and assuming you're a gentleman, then there ain't no sex. Unless you slip and then "fall into it". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly consider myself a gentleman, and have never been a victim of a slip and fall. Lawshoot! 02:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. Yet that is what the nominee here was claiming. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Re-indenting) I agree with Spartacus and Useight - ChildofMidnight's RFA wasn't a self-nom. If somebody else nominates you for adminship, then by definition you have not self-nommed, regardless of whether you asked that person or the other way around; either way, you were able to demonstrate to at least one other person that you deserve to be an admin. (Personally, I don't see what's so bad about self-noms anyway, but that's an argument for another time.) Robofish (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the same thing. Although I wonder if he expected to get turned down, being that he asked a user who had just recently said there were too many admins already; and then, to his possibly great surprise, his self-nomination was accepted by the other user. Oops! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Moar questions! Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the WP:NOTNOW essay
I was just reading through RfA page (especially the oppose section) and I wanted to start a discussion here regarding this essay.

I'm sure at this point, it's fairly obvious what this essay is for; it's intended as a polite, non-bitey way of telling a particularly new editor that they don't quite meet the standards of the Wikipedia community to pass RfA yet. Yet lately I have seen this essay referenced to editors who are arguably already familiar with the processes of Wikipedia and, quite possibly, the RfA page and the standards the community holds. Yet I am not starting this discussion simply to remind everybody that WP:NOTNOW should not be used on the RfA's of candidates who can be considered "experienced". My concern is actually more to do with what one's definition of "inexperience" is. It varies greatly from person to person; one editor could say that 2000 edits and 4+ months of experience in their area of interest are the most basic prerequisites, and anything less warrants a NOTNOW oppose rationale (an oppose referencing the essay); another editor could say that anything less than 9+ months and 6000 or so edits with significant involvement in article creation and administrator-related work is grounds for referencing NOTNOW. Regardless, an editor who considers themselves experienced enough to apply an RfA and who has been around enough to at least be familiar with Wikipedia basics may construe NOTNOW as "you're too new to be an administrator", even if other participants support, and the candidate may be offended by the linking of an essay to suffice as an oppose rationale instead of treating them as an established and experienced user.

I am not sure what you may think of this proposal, but I have to be honest regarding my intentions however they may be interpreted: I was considering nominating the page for deletion. The reasoning behind that is twofold: the first reason being outlined above, it could patronize editors who consider themselves established contributors. The second reason, and the one I feel could be slightly less disputable, is because it seems redundant; if a contributor is obviously not up to the standards of the Wikipedia community as a whole yet, then it can be speedily closed without having to cite an essay to do so. A simple note on the user's talk page seems more than enough of an explanation. I just don't see a point to having a full essay outline why an RfA has been closed early.

I wanted to bring it up for discussion here prior to opening a nomination. The imput of RfA regulars specifically is desirable, so I can get an idea what sort of consensus the MfD may attract before I list it.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 07:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's nearly impossible to get deletion just based on a thing being a bad idea. Your best bet is to make this point, each and every time someone misuses the guideline.  (Yes, doing this sucks.)  Friday (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe that might work. Though hopefully they won't simply accuse me of nitpicking and badgering, like I'm worried they will.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 07:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem is, the essay itself is not a bad thing. Using it in the wrong context is. I admit, I made that mistake myself once, so I will not fear any trout-slapping for that but that's the only and correct way to deal with people using it in the wrong context: Trout, trout and more trout. Point is: Don't blame the tools for someone misusing them, blame those who misuse them. NOTNOW is a valuable tools for explaining new editors why their RFA was closed early and nothing else. Regards  So Why  07:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As one of the main creators of NOTNOW I do agree that seeing it used against candidates with thousands of edits is indeed not the intention. However as SoWhy points out, the fact that it's misquoted is not a reason to delete it. We have a fairly regular issue on WP were people cite essays inapropriately - often by a reading of their shortcut title and not the intention behind it e.g.;
 * WP:LEGAL when someone mentions that something might be illegal (the essay refers to treats)
 * WP:IAR to justify anything, when the essay specifically says that we ignore rules only if they improve the enyclopedia.
 * If the essay itself is not doing a good job either SOFIXIT or yes, take it to MFD. But I can't see the argument that it's misuse is a good reason (and I even saw NOTNOW cited at AFD on the basis that the subject of the article wasn't yet notable .... sheesh!). I'm also not clear (although I admit my bias) on why it is redundant to a talk page comment - for example we have WP:YFA as a handy short cut rather than explaining every single time to newbies what standards to follow in the mainspace for creating new articles. We don't need YFA or NOTNOW but they're handy "nice to haves". Pedro : Chat  08:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a general symptom of the overall rather low level of discourse here. Yeah, this happens all the time.. people want to use the English words "not now" and they decide that it's even cooler to say WP:NOTNOW instead, because, hey, they both contain the words "not now".  It's similar people saying "assume good faith" when they really mean "don't say ever say anything negative".  Too many editors pay no attention to the actual meanings of written things.  But, as long as 1) "anyone can edit" and 2) "we won't  ban you just for being an obvious idiot", I don't see a solution to this problem.  It's possible #2 could change, but this would represent a huge shift in Wikipedia culture, and it would lead to endless debates over who the obvious idiots are.  Friday (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody, not naming names, recently told the creator of a dubiously notable article that "This article might be worthy of inclusion at some point, but WP:NOTNOW". It's the usual problem - someone who is making a point might not be making a WP:POINT, and someone who you'd support in future but not now does not not necessarily warrant WP:NOTNOW. If you notice someone making one of these all-too-easy essay-linking mistakes, just tell them. If someone waves it at a person with 2,000 edits and several months experience, they're most likely making the simple and good-faith mistake of just not reading what they're linking to. It is, indeed, not a problem with the essay - at worst, it's a problem with its shortcut but it's mostly a problem with editors! ~ mazca  t 17:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The simple response to misuse of any essay or guideline is to simple point out the misuse. And any rule anywhere will take o a lie of it's own. The solution is not deletion but rather allowing consensus about its meaning and use to evolve.  Dloh  cierekim  15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with everybody above that indicates that the essay isn't the problem.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

...when has NOTNOW been used against experienced RfA candidates? I agree with M&E that it shouldn't be used in such a manner, but I also don't think it has been used that way. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * <<ec>>I invoked not now here in hopes we would spare the candidate the inevitable bloodletting. (Candidate is now embittered and discouraged.) Notnow was created as a gentler way to bring about an early close for an RFA that did not stand a snow ball's chance in Hell. Certainly, that is not the case for a candidate with over 2,000 edits. It almost feels like it's being used as a club with which to bludgeon a candidate who has sufficient support for a no consensus, but who would not go down with a consensus to not promote. The purpose of sparing the unwary who has entered the Lion's den has been lost entirely in two current RFA's.  Dloh  cierekim  15:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * EVula: Oppose 22 If I count as experienced :), and I can distinctly recall it being used in others. &lowast; \ / (⁂) 21:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ]Oppose 3, 4, 9, 15, Oppose 36, Oppose 12 - Few More. &lowast; \ / (⁂) 21:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Dlohcierekim: That's the candidate withdrawing, not an admin- or crat-closed RfA per WP:NOTNOW. However, due to his already sporadic editing, I think it may be a bit premature to say he's entirely discouraged (he just saw the RfA as a waste of time after a certain point).
 * @\ /: Fair enough; though I was specifically thinking of RfA closure rationales, some of those are indeed poor uses of the essay. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

When should I run again?
I have a question to ask. I am a user who has ran for adminship twice, first in February 2009 and second in March 2009. Both times, I failed in a landslide, so much failed, that they closed early. My first RfA was based mainly on my civility, interactions with other editors, etc, and my second RfA was about me showing improvement, which failed mainly because not enough time went by between the improvement and the RfA. I have not given up running for adminship yet, but feel that I still need to wait quite some time, and if I ran now, it would probably be the worst possible time I could ever possibly run due to some very serious stuff I am currently involved in and need to work on. I feel that I have improved greatly on civility since my first RfA. What would be the suggested time I should run, although I may likely run at a different time than suggested by others? — Mythdon  t / c  06:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The best response i can think of is, when people are poking you to run for RFA, asking to nominate you for rfa, thats the time you know you're ready. No earlier generally. Hope this helps, <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 06:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Steve. Once you have run and failed at RFA, people know you are interested in being an administrator.  There are many users who look out for people to nominate for RFA and when they see a person who has shown an interest in the past and is now ready, they will approach them.  Also, you might seek editor review as a way to gain impartial feedback on your edits.   MBisanz  talk 06:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply put, the second RFA a month later was a mistake. There is slim chance of passing a month after a failed RFA.  Now a third RFA will look "power-hungry" unless you let a decent period of time pass.  IMO, 6 months would be a lower bound.  Even then, having someone nominate you is key as a self-nom will suggest power-hungriness.  Good luck.  --Richard (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally three months is the customary minimum between runs, but I agree that after two runs so close together a longer gap would be advisable, otherwise RFA being the perverse place it is you'll get some opposes simply for running three times in six months. I would suggest starting an editor review after at least three months and inviting your opposers to comment in it. In the meantime I'd suggest you concentrate your wiki time on the activities you enjoy most, but try a few different areas and if you are still a student or were recently, read the articles that are relevant to your studies as you may well be able to make some well sourced contributions there.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above that six months would be very sensible, and even more sensible would be to wait for someone to offer to nominate. It's also very important that you let Requests for arbitration/Ryulong finish up and blow over - the final decision on that might well involve you in some way; and active arbitration cases or remedies against someone is an excellent recipe for a failed RfA. I've not paid enough attention to the case to make a reasonable prediction as to its outcome; but certainly any future adminship plans should be made after the final decision is posted. ~  mazca  t 10:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good point, Mazca. Running while an RFAR is open in which you are involved might look quite hasty, in addition to the fact that both RFAs are quite recent. 6 months should be a a minimum, unless people are lining up to nominate you that is. Regards  So Why  13:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. Six months is safer. Showing solid article building and experience in the admin related areas is important. If you tag for CSD, strictly interpret the criteria. Some of us delete articles under IAR or SNOW that don't meet strict criteria, so a good deletion rate might not help you if someone reviews your deleted articles and finds you've stretched the criteria to fit the articles. Safer to PROD when in doubt. In AFD, be sure to use sound, thorough, solidly based arguments. Avoid "per nom." People want to see you understand the polices & guidelines. In AIV, only report vandals with a full set of recent warnings unless it is a high speed vandal operating at bot like speed faster than warnings can be applied. Certain other thorns in the flesh get blocked on sight. Study the admin reading list thoroughly. Hope this helps Dloh  cierekim  14:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see dispute resolution has been a problem. You need to work on that. In your answer to question 3, it looked like you argue others into submission or simply outlast them in edit wars. You will need to show that conflicts and edit warring are fully in the past-- by at least 6 months. Even when you are technically correct, your behavior or approach can be wrong. There are resources and methods one can enlist to minimize drama and conflict. It may also be helpful to indicate growth in that area with a "before and after" piece.  Dloh  cierekim  14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My humble opinion: When you have overcome the concerns of your original RfA.  I agree with the above timelines as a rule of thumb.  Any editors such as myself are going to look at the 'oppose comments' with RfA 1 and make sure you have clearly overcome any past relevant issues to becoming a sysop.  --Preceding unsigned comment  19:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Socky Anybody?
Umm, this user just made a comment at downloads RFA? Socky? Or am I overreacting. Read the comment and tell me what you guys think.--( NGG ) 01:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with you, I'm smelling some feet.--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 T/  C  01:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Smells like a filet o' fish to me.(lol)--( NGG ) 01:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's anybody I know. <font face="Papyrus"> -  down  load  <font color=#7B68EE>׀  sign!  01:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry no accusations against you but rather DougsTech.--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 T/  C  01:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I doubt it's DougsTech. Maybe a troll.  <font face="Papyrus"> -  down  load  <font color=#7B68EE>׀  sign!  01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)I don't think it is our friend from above. I do however think its somebody being intentionally disruptive, who has been following this talk page, and is trying to be an asshole. I think the account may deserve some investigation, and quite possibly a straight-up block. Even if we cannot tie it directly to someone, this is not a new user, and they are just trying to be obnoxious. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 01:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Download. It's a common enough meme if you hang around the RFAs, after all. tedder (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed something else odd and said as much at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, as 8 copy and paste "votes" in AfDs in the same minute (1:42, 5 May 2009) has to be a near record of AfD votes, no? The editor did post an explanation on my talk page, but the same "vote" just doesn't seem right as these are not the same articles after all.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit is suspicious. I think it's DougsTech socking in order to prevent being caught. It seems fishy to me. I think a checkuser would be necessary. I will file a checkuser shortly, and DougsTech will be notified. — Mythdon  t / c  01:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt DougsTech would be that transparent. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 02:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I saw DougsTech's vote that there are too many admins, and i felt that indeed 1600+ is a very large number. I apologize if i am mistaken. Myownusername (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But you are trolling. All your edits have been reverted, and I'm sure a checkuser will examine your account to look for misuse. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 02:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How am I trolling??? Your attacks against me are in violation of WP:AGF Myownusername (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. - from WP:AGF. I think most would agree that your contributions is strong enough evidence to show your contributions to Wikipedia are not in good faith. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 02:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am busy taking the time to file the checkuser, and will notify both users after filing. The evidence is too striking not to take a look. — Mythdon  t / c  02:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have the most bot like edits I have ever seen. Yet here you are leaving comments. Maybe he's a super bot from the future trying to kill us all....or maybe I am really going crazy.--( NGG ) 02:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This whole thread is counterproductive. When you see a transparently obvious troll, just block it and move on. Don't post about it on this talk page and draw attention to it. And if we need a CheckUser, go somewhere to actually request it and be done with it, instead of carrying on a pointless discussion about it. I have blocked. Dominic·t 02:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - A good policy. Grab a checkuser or file an SPI case if you must, but there really was no need for this discussion, as it did not help anything. Also, good block by Dominic; we really ought to be blocking obvious trolls like this with greater discretion. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) (How am I doing?) 02:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic-ban of Dougstech from !voting or commenting in RfA
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Description of problem
Between March 18 and May 2 of 2009, user has opposed 42 editors for adminship with the reasoning, "too many administrators currently". I feel that this has been inordinately disruptive to the RfA process.

List of RfA votes
Besides those noted below, all votes are opposes with comment, "too many administrators currently".
 * 1) Mentifisto
 * 2) Someguy1221
 * 3) Vivio Testarossa
 * 4) Al Ameer son
 * 5) Ironholds
 * 6) Ged UK
 * 7) OverlordQ
 * 8) LinguistAtLarge
 * 9) Smith609
 * 10) Teratornis
 * 11) Cool3_3
 * 12) TreasuryTag
 * 13) Paxse
 * 14) AlexiusHoratius
 * 15) Ottava Rima1
 * 16) Tassedethe
 * 17) Toon05
 * 18) Yuvmil1
 * 19) AdjustShift
 * 20) Kww
 * 21) ZooFari
 * 22) BOZ
 * 23) Drilnoth
 * 24) Bazj
 * 25) Neurolysis2
 * 26) MZMcBride
 * 27) Closedmouth
 * 28) Spinningspark
 * 29) Orlady
 * 30) Law
 * 31) Foxy Loxy
 * 32) Cyclonenim
 * 33) Synergy
 * 34) Vianello
 * 35) Bwilkins
 * 36) Markhurd
 * 37) ImperatorExercitus
 * 38) TheDJ
 * 39) Graeme Bartlett
 * 40) Renaissancee
 * 41) Raza0007
 * 42) Rjanag
 * 43) Dinoguy1000

1. Additional comment made. 2. Vote was Neutral, not Oppose.

Why this is a problem
I see two possible reasons for Dougstech's !voting habits: he honestly thinks Wikipedia has too many administrators, or he is "trolling" - misusing Wikipedia's RfA process in a deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the system. It is possible it is a combination of these two. The premise that Dougstech thinks there is a surplus of administrators is contradicted by his RfA nomination of ChildofMidnight, whose RfA ended with a final tally of 3-39-9, and was closed per WP:SNOW by EVula. It is disingenuous at best to claim that there are too many administrators on the project while simultaneously nominating a controversial one for adminship, and leads one to consider the second possible reason for the blanket-voting - a willful disruption. He is welcome to his opinion; however, his method of expressing it is harmful to the Wikipedia community. In a similar way that the First Amendment is commonly misinterpreted to mean that people can say anything they want, anywhere they want, some editors have the fallacious assumption that all opinions may be expressed at any time, anywhere on the project. This is not the case. There are proper ways and forums to present opinions. RfA is not for soapboxing. Whether his intent is to prove a point or to disrupt, this behavior needs to stop.

Editor opinion
There has been copious discussion on this subject in various areas of the project; the most comprehensive was at RfA talk. Many smaller discussions can be found on Dougstech's talk page (and archives), and in the various RfAs themselves. While there is a small minority of editors who defend Dougstech's right to !vote in this manner, there is an overwhelming opinion that his behavior in RfA is disruptive. Many editors have stated directly that a topic ban would be prudent:

Past support of topic ban
Note: I have taken care to accurately represent each editor's opinion based on actual quotes. If I have misrepresented anyone's thoughts or stance (for example, took a quote out of context); please let me know or change it directly. Sifting through diffs proved to be a monumental task; I decided that quoting directly was easier and equally effective.

Note: The proposer has failed to mention the many opposers of the previous topic ban, and has chosen to only include quotes from those who supported. --DougsTech (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) "When someone is unwilling to communicate then the option of going to his talk page is rendered moot. A RFC on this users conduct will likely be more productive. As for reverting his "vote" as trolling, I stand by that. I revert inappropriate behavior all the time, as any good Wikipedian should do." - Chillum
 * 2) "Ignoring him won't be possible. There will still be editor's commenting and asking questions on every oppose !vote he makes. Why would a topic ban not be the answer? It would solve the troll and pointy templated oppose problem." - Timmeh
 * 3) "I absolutely agree. Awfully ignorant and arrogant is how he's coming off at the moment. Unless he can explain himself more fully than a cryptic backlink then I see no choice but to prevent him disrupting RfA further." - Garden
 * 4) "If you want a support of a ban, just take this matter to AN/I, I doubt there will many objections. He doesn't contribute at all to articles, and it seems like a recreated troll only sent to disrupt RFA. I agree with Majorly, Kmwebber was a pest but he at least contributed to articles. I'll support a ban there." - Secret
 * 5) "I pointed this out already, but thought it worth bringing up again. What kind of editor starts off their wikilife playing on Huggle? DougsTech has started a massive 0 articles in his time here, and his most edited article, Ohio, has 10 edits from him. People, why the hell are we putting up with this obvious troll? At least Kurt didn't oppose every single RFA. Blanket opposing every RFA needs to be stopped, and soon." - Majorly
 * 6) "He does this for the drama. It is a loop-hole in the system, and he is exploiting it. I can see that Dougs is intelligent. He knows that no Crat will ever pay attention to his negative "vote" because of the carte blanche disapproval of anyone becoming an admin. Therefore a reasonable and prudent person could only surmise it is solely for his own amusement. However, it has now become a me against the world fight for him so the only solution (save him !voting negative on every RfA from now until Kingdom Come) is a policy change which will never happen. The whole situation is sickening. That's my opinion." - Sallicio

Bureaucrat statements that vote will not be counted
"Votes based on too many admins were immediately thrown out, of course." "DougsTech, I threw out your vote because it had nothing to do with the actual conduct or ability of the user. You have not managed to show why the users in question would be bad admins in the multiple RFAs I have closed in which you have blanket opposed. Quite frankly, that's disrespectful to the people who have submitted themselves for fair consideration by the community. I also disagree heavily with your oppose in that one, you have contradicted yourself as Reyk pointed out, and two, Category:Administrative backlog. From someone who does have the ability to judge your oppose and judge consensus, let me make it clear that your opinion will be discounted until you find a better, individualized reason to oppose." - Bibliomaniac15


 * Then it appears that there is no problem requiring a solution. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If DougsTech is going to nominate ChildOfMidnight for adminship, then therefore, a solution is necessary to ensure resolution. — Mythdon  t / c  21:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at it this way: DougsTech claims to believe there are too many administrators, but then again nominated ChildOfMidnight for adminship. That is hypocritical and contradicting to the opinion expressed in RfA's. DougsTech opposed many RfA's after that one was made. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to go against your own word is much different. The ChildOfMidnight thing is not the only reason I support the topic ban though. — Mythdon  t / c  21:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice the hypocrisy in DT's statements. After CoM asked DT to nominate him, DT accepted (possibly to CoM's surprise), and CoM immediately asked DT, what about the "too many admins" issue. DT's answer is the fairly astonishing response, "That is done case by case." Meaning he doesn't always think there are too many admins, only when he doesn't want a particular admin - which appears to be most but not all of them. He clarifies that point in this comment:  "I oppose those that would add to the current negative population of the admins. We dont need more bad admins, I oppose those that might be that way." I see that as meaning he opposes any potential admin who might do his job properly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I think rather than trying to impose a topic ban on a specific user, it would be better to instruct the deciders that any comments by any user (not just DT) that don't have to do with the nominee specifically, should be ignored. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear; so you would propose that support votes like "Why not?" also be ignored? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While a vague comment, it could be interpreted to mean that the voter sees no reason not to oppose the particular nominee. And if DT were consistent in his views, he would be off the hook. But his statement "too many admins" is a falsehood. If he opposes a specific nominee, he needs to give a specific reason, even if it's, "I think he's too negative." The "too many admins" stuff is bogus. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, you prefer to avoid the question because the honest answer would be inconvenient. Ah well. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I answered it. OK, more straightforwardly: No, I don't see any problem with a support vote that says, "Why not?" But as with the bogus "too many admins", the deciders are free to ignore it as being too vague, if they choose to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me be clearer then. What about a hypothetical oppose vote that simply said "Why?" --Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How come I knew that was going to be your next question? :) If someone says "Why?" or "Why not?" then they are at least expressing some oblique opinion about the specific candidate. "Too many admins" does not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're obviously much cleverer than I am, able to read so much into a single word. Wouldn't you agree that "Why?" might equally be interpreted as "Why, when we already have too many administrators?" Why do you favour one interpretation over the other? --Malleus Fatuorum
 * If hypocrisy was bannable, then there would be very few people left around here. Not to say that it wouldn't be nicer, but I'm sure that there are a lot of prominent people that would be the first to go. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If he were consistent, he would be on much firmer and higher ground, and I would probably be inclined to oppose such a ban in that case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems rather ridiculous. We have admin who edit war, break rules, and everything else. They are supposed to be enforcing them. Thus, they are hypocrites. Why aren't you trying to get those hypocrites off the encyclopedia? They can obviously harm people and the pedia. Doug cannot. Lack of appropriate effort is a type of hypocrisy, you know. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot call anyone a "hypocrite" here. That is a direct violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Please consider this in the future. Although, I also need to admit that I was a bit uncivil too with some of my comments today. Now, for my reply to your comment. If I were to become an admin, and block editors for incivility, but acted more uncivil, would you call me a "hypocrite"? — Mythdon  t / c  01:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite. Hypocrite and hypocrisy are a reflection on -actions-, and thus fails NPA. A bare reading of NPA would have shown this to obviously be the case. Everyone's actions are up for grabs, and everyone's actions can be discussed. AGF only means that we should not assume that people are out to get you. It does not mean that when people show a double standard in actions/responding to actions that they are not to be discussed. If that was the case, we would not have Wikiquette, AN, ANI, ArbCom, or your case against Ryulong. The fact that you are at ArbCom and had RfCs against Ryulong shows that you are acting in this very manner. Thus, to attack someone for using the terms hypocrisy, you are being a hypocrite. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I did not file the ArbCom case or the RfC on Ryulong. The ArbCom case was requested by Synergy, and the RfC was filed by Tiptoety. Just because I am at ArbCom about Ryulong in no way means I am assuming bad faith. Calling someone a "hypocrite" is an insult, and thus violates WP:NPA, and you are thus warned by me against such. — Mythdon  t / c  05:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Solution
My proposed solution is a topic-ban from all actual RfA pages. Dougstech will still be welcome to present any opinions on this page, participate in any RfA meta-discussions, or pitch new ideas on Village pump (policy). He will simply be prohibited from !voting or commenting in any RfAs.

Editors in support of topic ban
Please give your support to this ban here, with brief reasoning.
 * 1) Support, as proposer. Tan   &#124;   39  19:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) The ChildOfMidnight nomination made it obvious that he was trolling. I supported this earlier, at the AN thread, with the comment, "At some point, AGF stops becoming what we have to listen to, and common sense becomes it instead. DougsTech is free to express his opinion on WT:RFA. "RfA/X User" is meant to be a discussion, not a vote, and if DougsTech is unwilling to agree with this, there is no point in continuing to allow this." I still stand by that comment. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) (How am I doing?) 19:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I am of the strong opinion that blanket opposing RfA's is an amazingly childish way of behaving, and incredibly disrespectful to the individuals under consideration. I know that I took my own RfA's very seriously, and the last thing I would have wanted is someone using it to make a political statement... especially when that "political statement" is in regards to the power structures within an on-line encyclopedia. For me, and I hope for most others here, Wikipedia is a cherished intellectual exercise, hobby, and social experience. In real life, I also enjoy as a hobby playing soccer. The games don't count, and we're not the athletes we once were, but if someone shows up and decides to only kick own-goals, or if they just stomp around commenting on how the team has too many players, then we remove them from the field. The same logic applies here. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support although I know this will end with no consensus to topic ban DougsTech just like the last extremely lengthy discussion. There are too many participants that don't read through the evidence or think this through. It should also be noted that Kurt (remember him?) was topic-banned for doing something much less trollish and disruptive. Tim  meh  !  20:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With you in spirit, even if I don't agree that this is the solution. Dloh  cierekim  20:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The number of opposes shows how successful this guy is at trolling us. Ah well.  Majorly  talk  20:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Originally I didn't care, until I saw the recent nomination of dubious intentions. It's a complete and total contradiction to claim an abundance of admins, and then to nominate a candidate. His neutral votes don't make sense either given his purported stance.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) — Jake   Wartenberg  20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely. DougsTech is not voicing his/her opinion on whether or not the candidate would abuse the tools, but voicing an opinion held which is completely out of nowhere. How can you discuss the candidate by simply saying "too many administrators currently"? - I don't see how. I think that if we had too many administrators, we would be assigning admins to 2 year terms, only allow a limited number of seats for admins, make them run for RfA every time their time expired, and only allow them to have 2 terms. DougsTech makes this argument and then nominates ChildOfMidnight for adminship? That is a contradiction of the expressed opinion. This behavior must stop, and I will not stand for it. Users wishing to be an administrator (a desire I have myself) shouldn't have to put up with this disruption. We shall by all means stop this behavior no matter what needs to be done. — Mythdon  t / c  20:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support He showed his true motivation with the CoM nom. Looie496 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support This is still not appropriate. Come on folks, don't be so open minded your brains fall on the floor. AGF is not a suicide pact. Chillum  21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... "AGF is not a suicide pact" is a sensible thing to say, if there's actually some harm that results from our actions. What harm is caused by someone saying "too many admins" over and over again? Where is this "suicide"? What's the problem that needs fixing, in terms of actual harm, anywhere? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Better than being so tight-arsed you're constipated. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on Chillum's rationale, we can assume that people who support without rationals, or for fake ones like "no big deal" and the rest are here only to destroy the encyclopedia and should probably be banned. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While I may not share Chillum's rationale, I fail to see the correlation between the two. However, I also consider the RfA process a "default to promote" process, where the burden of evidence is on the opposer, not the supporter; hence, we shouldn't crack down on no-rationale !votes. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that position quite makes sense. I imagine it's rooted in the assumption that an editor who lodges a support vote without rationale is implicitly agreeing with the nominator's statement. But equally an oppose vote without rationale could be taken as implicit disagreement with the nomionator's statement. Why ignore one but not the other? Perhaps the real answer is to simply vote yes or no without comment. At least that way the more delicate flowers wouldn't be forced to read opinions they find distressing. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Burden of evidence is on the opposer? That is an utterly ridiculous statement that makes me have 100% -no- confidence in your ability to judge RFAs at all. The burden of evidence needs to be on the supporter, as this is a position of power and responsibility, and admin must be shown to be trusted. Anything else is a disgrace. Your comment is shameful in every respect and I hope you strike it immediately. If not, it will be used in any future closing of RfAs performed by you in order to see if you are really cut out to be a Crat. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Out and out troll.  GARDEN  21:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Troll's shouldn't get a vote.--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 T/  C  21:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Dougstech has absolutely nothing to contribute to RfA at all. All he does is blanket oppose every candidate for his false accusation of there being too many administrators. Unfairly, these candidates get opposed not based illogical fallacy; their contributions to Wikipedia mean nothing to Doug and he sees all candidates as net negatives. He provides no evidence that there are too many administrators, and I remember him once saying that there are already too many "abusive" admins; again, with no evidence of that. Then he turns around a nominates a user for adminship. Obviously, he doesn't think there are too many admins when he nominates someone else to be one and is here only to disrupt every other RfA. His opposes only bring unnecessary drama to already stressful RfAs and his arguments with others runs around in circles. Not a single bureaucrat counts his opposes, and I don't see how this topic ban can have a negative effect on the process. —  Σ  xplicit  22:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support We get it, enough is enough. BJ Talk 22:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support Not the ideal solution, but the editor clearly does not believe his own statement about "too many admins", thus he adds nothing useful to an RfA discussion. However, if a nomination is so close that his one opinion could make the difference, then maybe the nomination ought not go through anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Per all above. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 23:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Like Julian said, nomming CoM for adminship proves that he is simply trolling. Trolls should not be allowed. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  23:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it a problem unless people decide to react to it? What if we were to try ignoring it? Would that be harmful? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's not "just a throwaway oppose", it's that every time he posts it there's at least 1 editor who hasn't seen him before saying "why", and 2 saying "just ignore it". Then a whole discussion begina and gets moved to the talk page. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  23:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Expanding on X!'s reply: It's going to be almost impossible to prevent the thousands of editors unfamiliar with DougsTech that are seeing these oppose !votes from asking for an explanation or starting a discussion on it. No matter what we do, there will continue to be drama created over this issue. Just look at almost every RfA in which DougsTech !votes. Disruption is being caused, and to stop it, either: 1. The community has to be prevented from responding to DougsTech and starting discussions on his !votes or; 2. DougsTech has to be prevented from making his !votes. I don't know about you, but the second option seems more logical to me. Tim  meh  !  23:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a proposed edit to the main RfA page to help educate users about this uncommon but perennial behavior. I'm confident that our ability to educate ourselves as a community is up to the challenge of learning to ignore silly oppose votes. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I initially assumed he was simply making his point in a crude and irritating manner - fairly silly, but far from bannable. Good faith contributors are welcome to their opinion even if it's unpopular. But I have to say that the point when he nominated ChildOfMidnight strongly implied to me that he is just trolling and had found a new way to goad reactions from the RfA crowd. While a reasonable argument can be made that the problem would go away if people stopped responding to him, I have to ask this: If the two solutions to a problem are (a) one person is forced to stop doing something or (b) the whole community is forced to stop doing something, surely the first option should be the logical one. People responding exacerbates the problem, Dougstech's opposes cause the problem. ~ mazca  t 00:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You set up a false dichotomy; When you're offered two choices, always take the third." There is no problem unless you turn it into a problem as has been done here once again. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that lots of people treat it as a problem, and react as such, makes it a persistent disruption - a problem. I don't personally respond to his opposes anymore, and neither do most of the people commenting here: but on nearly every RfA he does it on a new person who hasn't noticed it before responds in good faith. It is an astonishing time-sink for no profit, that is easily rectified by stopping him doing it. It is in no way a false dichotomy - I do not see any likelihood that everyone who ever views an RfA and be persuaded in advance not to comment. The third option is indeed what we seem to have chosen: to repeatedly dismiss the fact that its a problem, thereby preventing those that do consider it a problem from solving said problem. ~ mazca  t 00:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The best way to stop trolls is not to identify and shoot them. It's to stop leaving troll-food lying around. As long as we refuse to use our common sense in ignoring would be trolls, there will always be more. The day we learn not to feed them, problem solved. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And the solution is the let trolls roam freely? That's a horrible solution. —  Σ xplicit  00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No. If you don't leave troll-food lying around, you don't have troll problems. It's kind of like with bugs, in one's kitchen. What harm can a troll do if nobody feeds him. Remember that feeding a troll means letting them get a rise out of you. Is the idea that we go ahead and learn smarter ways to deal with trolls really so awful? That's precisely what I'm suggesting. This is Web 2.0; let's get with the program, already. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignoring trolls only makes them try harder. They don't go away. Not everyone is "with the program", and as long as Doug continues the blanket oppose, problems will repeatedly be created with unsuspecting users. —  Σ xplicit  00:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I question that assertion, that ignoring only makes them try harder. I believe that my experience contradicts that. I would at least have to see some evidence, to believe what is to me extremely counter-intuitive, and opposed to my own observations. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Asserting that ignoring trolls makes them go away also contradicts what I've seen. Matter of view, I suppose. Regardless, if you want to extinguish a fire, you point at the base, not hope that all flammable objects around it don't catch fire. —  Σ xplicit  00:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, rather than trade metaphors, let's test it! Let's see if we can get a bunch of people to try it for... a week? Two days? I'm quite confident that a response of "Your opinion is noted; thank you," will not draw increased input from the editor. If it does cause him to escalate, then whatever he escalates to will be easy to come down on like a ton of bricks, right? Unless we try it, we'll never know... When you show that I'm wrong, I'll be a good sport about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support In no way is this user assuming good faith.-- Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 00:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, how? The comment "too many administrators" has nothing to do with the personality/mindset of another, so it cannot be deemed to be not assuming good faith. However, your claims about him not assuming good faith is clearly a violation of the principle. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its like me saying No due to the fact of to many trolls.-- Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 00:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a troll... feeds a troll. This should be elementary. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course and i learned that but above that was only a example. -- Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 00:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've learned it, and I hope you'll help us teach others. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also not to call anyone out not you ^ but other people i feel like that other users should put there noses in other peoples business not just in this situation but others as well.--  Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 00:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @GTBacchus: Saying that calling someone a troll feeds the troll is accurate, but your implied conclusion is patently ridiculous. What are your proposing, that we just allow any troll to continue trolling without any discussion about whether to ban them, simply because we are too afraid of feeding him? J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  01:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking this. I disagree that the "implied conclusion" is implied in what I said. Anyone who is trolling is either doing it by causing actual harm to the project, or else by leaving comments that get a rise out of people. In the former case, we simply deal with them in terms of harm to the project, which is much more clear-cut than questions of "trolling" which require determining another person's motives. Trolls who stop short of vandalism are more sophisticated, because we can't simply block them for vandalism. The implied strategy is to kill them with boredom. I've seen it work. You simply apply ordinary encyclopedia policies, very boringly and unemotionally. Their response is either to decide you're boring and go away, or else to escalate to something more directly harmful, which we then deal with on those terms. If you'd like, I can provide specific examples — I've been paying attention to this dynamic for a while. What trolls really want is a fight. Declining to fight is incredibly powerful. We could get better at this, as a community. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do i am personaly cariouse about this however if you look this user has been trolling rfa's for sometime now this is nothing new.-- Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 01:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and years before he ever "trolled an RfA", someone else was doing it. I know that. Someone "trolled" my RfA, years ago, and only one person was foolish enough to respond to them. If we could (almost) do it then, we can do it now. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Unconvinced by the 30 something opposers. WP:DENY, bah. Ignoring a problem, as this user clearly is, and allowing trolls to vote, yet again, as this user clearly is, does nothing but waste time. If we're not topic banning because of his opinion at RFA, then ban him for wasting other Wikipedian's time. I have no patience for time wasters. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 04:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How is he wasting anyone's time? We're volunteers.  No one is forced to comment here or reply to him or even read his opposes in their entirety.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but this thread has been started because he has been disruptive at RFA. While some may disagree, this thread is occupying valuable time that could be used on better things. Now, Kurt Weber retired, and I have no idea what got into Doug's mind that convinced him to be the new Kurt of RFA, but past history has shown that trolls like this must be smooshed as soon as possible. Can't we learn from our mistakes? By the number of opposers, I guess we're pretty stupid and unable to learn. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 05:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doug did not start this thread and as far as I can tell, he didn't request that such a thread be started. And there's a difference as well from what the previous editor opposed for versus Doug, i.e. calling someone as "power hungry" is a comment or assumption about that specific individual.  Just saying "too many admins", by contrast, is not saying anything personal about the ability of the individual candidate; certainly not saying the candidate is "power hungry", but rather just saying we have enough admins already.  I whole-heartedly am NOT convinced by such a claim, but why are threads discussing it necessary?  How is that better than just ignoring him if anyone disagrees?  If he were saying "oppose all admins of this race" or "oppose all admins of this sex", then, yeah, okay, that might require discussion and consideration, but simply "too many admins"?  I just don't see why/how this bothers anyone?  I've read through these discussions as internet discourse is somewhat fascinating in its own right to me, but I'm just not seeing what we're accomplishing here, and if anything, it seems we getting worked up about something trivial in a manner that should be reserved for much more serious actual imflammatory comments.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. I've weighed in on my opinion here. I hate time wasters. I'd rather be in the minority on this issue than be a sheep. But I have better things to do. Good day to you. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 05:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, take care. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself, but the reason I support the topic-ban is I feel he is trolling. If I felt he was writing "Too many admins currently" in good faith I would be in the oppose section below. That specific !vote alone isn't really a problem, the problem arises when you put the rest of the pieces together. Anyways, have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I'm amazed by the fact that some view a topic-ban of this editor as "banning opinions we disagree with." Dougs is trolling, the ban would do nothing but prevent him from trolling RFA. This isn't someone with an unpopular opinion, it's obvious trolling. The logic in the oppose section is so absurd I don't even know where to begin. I agree that editors can and should be able to express their opinion (regardless how absurd that opinion may be) all throughout the RFA process, but when it has became obvious their sole intent is to disrupt the process it is a different story. Landon1980 (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Do it and be done with the disruption. Does everyone here remember how banning Kurt's obvious trolling at RfA managed to actually resolve the issue?  I do.  This needs to remain a functioning community.  In order to do that we have the duty to restrain people who are unwilling or unable to control themselves.  Confusing this (or worse, deliberately and deceitfully conflating) with some hypothetical ban on opinions is not a sufficient reason to ignore our duty to the community. Protonk (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - From what I can see he is just stirring for a reaction. In the few RfA's i've followed, he's never justified his stance (although he may have somewhere else) and is just looking to be disruptive. Their should not be a policy against this as I don't believe any constructive editor should be silenced in the RfA process, but I believe in this case it has been proven that he has nothing constructive to add and simply wants to annoy people. More than enough justification for a topic ban in this case in my opinion. Matty (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Editors opposed to topic ban
Please give your opposition to this ban here, with brief reasoning.
 * 1) Weak Oppose Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If he believes we have no need for more admins, that's fine.  He's also been adding this message selectively, as in a few RfA's he's been neutral or supported.   -  down  load  |   sign!  19:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If he truly holds this opinion, then why did he nominate CoM for adminship? If he doesn't hold it, I see no reason to allow him to continue. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) (How am I doing?) 19:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * His nomination of CoM shows that he doesn't put this statement on every single RfA he encounters, but adds it selectively. Therefore, he's not opposing for no reason.   -  down  load  |   sign!  19:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blanket opposing every candidate because he thinks there are too many admins and then nominating someone he knows would not get promoted and would misuse the tools if promoted shows a big contradiction and seems to make it more obvious DougsTech is just trying to cause disruption. Tim  meh  !  19:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not remember which candidate it was that DougsTech actually remained neutral for, but it was quite recent. It was a well-qualified candidate, so it was certainly a break from his usual oppose !vote.   -  down  load  |   sign!  20:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which undermines his original position as well.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, he only !voted neutral because the previous topic ban discussion was closed prematurely as support and he used neutral to circumvent the alleged ban from !voting oppose. Regards  So Why  20:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) While I applaud your tries to stop this behavior, I doubt this is the correct approach. Per WP:DENY, topic-banning Dougtech will just make us waste time on this behavior with nothing really gained. At best, he is really a troll and will find other ways to disrupt. At worst, his !votes are good faith and we will scare away a good editor with this. Just ignoring his !votes is probably the best way to deal with it. Regards  So Why  19:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) If he's a troll, then deny him this attention. If he's adding legitimate opinions, let the 'crat sort them out. Either way, the solution is to stop caring so much and move on. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) some people need to get a life. Spartaz Humbug! 19:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) He cant find any actual policy that I violated, so he proposes this. He wants to silence the (within policy) opinion of an editor, rather than accepting that I am well within policy and have violated no rules. Simply disagreeing with me is grounds for a topic ban? I think not. --DougsTech (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Deny. per David. per SoWhy I share the frustration and consternation of the suppporters, but this is counterproductive. This sort of drama only exacerbates the problem. As one sees from above, it merely sets up another soapbox and rewards behavior we do not want to encourage.   Dloh  cierekim  20:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indented !vote. While sentiment remains unchanged, I'll not stand in the way of progress.  Dloh  cierekim  20:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unindeneted and reinstated per Nobody and what I already wrote. As this looks to not pass anyway, might as well. Dloh  cierekim  23:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DougsTech, we are not wanting you topic banned because we disagree with you. We want you topic banned because there's no way you're possibly discussing the candidate, no matter how much you elaborate the view. Like I said above, this behavior needs to stop by all means no matter what needs to be done. If you can't discuss the candidate, what use are you to RfA? — Mythdon  t / c  20:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether you agree with it or not, whether you like it or not, anyone honestly holding the view that there are too many administrators ought to be perfectly entitled to oppose candidates on that basis. To do otherwise would be inconsistent, not to say perhaps even hypocritical. I note with some alarm your excessively bellicose language—"this behavior needs to stop by all means no matter what needs to be done". How far are you prepared to take such ill-considered nonsense? Demanding the death penalty? Or is hanging too good for DougsTech? Get real, it simply doesn't matter. Who cares if you're opposed on your next RfA by someone who believes that there are too many admins or not? Life's too short to be bothered with trivia like that. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DougsTech is perfectly entitled to the opinion held, but expressing it by participating in RfA is disruptive as it doesn't discuss the candidate. If DougsTech feels there are too many admins, he/she could make a proposal that would totally reformat RfA. DougsTech's nomination of ChildOfMidnight for adminship is hypocritical to the opinion expressed which could lead someone to believe DougsTech does not actually hold the opinion. Please consider everything I said. — Mythdon  t / c  21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only "disruptive" if someone chooses to be disrupted by it. Lone oppose votes that are ignored by everyone present are absolutely harmless. What's the point in opposing the guy? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I already have, I just don't agree with it. Any of it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Bloody ridiculous idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. His statements don't make a slightest difference, why bother? NVO (talk)
 * 3) Doug's Tech has on more than one occasion explained his reasoning. I don't agree with his concern, or that his RfA comments will remedy it. I respect his ability, under current policy, to express his opinion in this venue.  I think that the reasonable compromise to prevent disruption has been realized:  Leave the recurring comment and move the off topic controversy to the discussion page.  This allows Doug's Tech to make his RfA comment, and allows the community to continue the focus of effort on a candidates sysop potential.  --Preceding unsigned comment  21:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) 100% oppose as long as there are supports without rationals or rationals saying "no big deal", "why not", or something as equally frivolous. I find the utter hypocrisy troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose The 'Crats obviously disregard the vote anyway, so we waste more time arguing over it than it impinges upon the process. Other commentators should ignore it too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) (ec) Nobody seems to care about his comments; bureaucrats just skip right over them, everyone else either (smartly) ignores them or (typically) makes a big fuss about it, like this proposal. He's not trolling at all; it's not disruptive in any way. The only thing that's (lightly) disruptive about his comments is this sort of crap that it starts. If somebody can support every RfA because "There aren't enough administrators currently" (which no doubt would go unopposed), then why can't this guy do, in principle, the same thing? Perhaps flaminglawyer 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Definite overkill, the crats don't count his comments. This is a step in the wrong direction for Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Malinaccier (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, free encyclopedia, not free to soapbox.  Majorly  talk  21:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not really soapboxing. This is not disrupting Wikipedia, and the only issue is that most people disagree with his comments.  In his point of view, less administrators will benefit Wikipedia.  In most others' points of view, more administrators will benefit Wikipedia.  This is his way of trying to make the encyclopedia better, and I think he should be free to continue this as long as he is not disruptive--and he is not. Malinaccier (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Per most of those above me. LHvU and Malinaccier put it best. –  iride scent  21:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) (comment removed by Wikidemon - didn't come here to argue)
 * That's the spirit! Get the big blockhammer out if all else fails to shut up a dissenting voice. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (comment removed by Wikidemon - didn't come here to argue)
 * You might want to consider the possibility that I already know the difference between dissent and disruption a good deal better than you appear to do. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (note - below response was made before I inserted notes about having deleted my own comments) - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Er – what? Seriously, what? Have I ever blocked, or threatened to block, someone for being "a dissenting voice", or ever supported a proposal of that type? – <span style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Segoe Script;"> iride scent  19:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Let him voice his opinion; the community should reframe from turning this into a tempest. Majoreditor (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Crats are smart enough to ignore DT. AdjustShift (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't agree with Dougstech, of course, but that doesn't mean he should be banned. There have been many unpopular opinions expressed at RfA over the years, and I don't think topic bans are the way to sort them. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T (formerly Avruch) 21:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I find all of the opposes convincing, actually, but will note OR, Nathan, and MF especially.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose In fact I would go much further than this. Dougstech is, as far as I can see, polite but firm. He does not badger, does not try to force other editors over to his point of view. In fact I find it difficult to think of a way in which he could more widely make his point of view clear without some nastiness. It is an interesting point to note on wikipedia that so many people find someone expressing a different point of view to their own to be rude or nasty, when in fact just the opposite is the case. Normally we try to weed out the type of editor who goes ballistic when faced with calm but determined opposition, and I should think that an unreasoning spewing of vitriol when faced with dougstech is actually a pretty good personality test for the type of person who we don't want as admins, thank you very much. More to the point: if you can't handle a minor crank like dougstech, how will you cope with the GNAA and various 4chan brainfarts? AKAF (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - Is it really that hard to just ignore someone who isn't making sense? Do the Bcrats need to have their hands held so they can tell the difference between reasonable votes and the other kind? Solitary "oppose" votes on otherwise successful RFAs are not a problem. They've always been around, and they've never actually been harmful. Let's not invent problems to solve. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Ignore it if you don't like it. Apparently that's what the bureaucrats do.  DougTech's !votes are only perceived as disruptive because people throw massive hissy fits over them.  Skinwalker (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) I'm amazed at the lack of self-restraint and inability to simply ignore him shown by some people. His !votes have no weight at all, no bearing on the process, so just let it go. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose It's only disruptive if one allows the vote to simply disrupt their day. This proposal is, in my opinion, much more disruptive because we can't ban an editor for expressing a perfectly legitimate view. I don't understand exactly how this is ruining anyone's day. I often vote 'no' on tax-related Propositions and the rationale behind that would be that we don't need any more taxes. I don't see how that is disruptive. Law type!  snype? 22:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Too many failed discussions currently --Russavia Dialogue 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, how wonderful? That's just like DougsTech saying "too many administrators currently". Russavia, please give an actual reason for your opposition of this topic ban. Thanks. — Mythdon  t / c  22:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow me to hypothesise that one need not give a long explanation to fully transmit intentions, and that your not understanding the reason given is a poor basis for an aggressive demand. Allow me further to posit that there is a large group of editors who do not accept that the selection of editors into the exclusive club of administrators is made on the basis of any particular qualities, but rather on the grounds of a set of rather arbitrary definitions of those who conform to "wikipedia norms"; never minding that these norms are defined by a bunch of teenagers typing in the glow of their screens, in the treasured belief that their cultivated ignorance is somehow of some lasting value to someone outside their restricted social circle. We're talking here about people who have carefully nurtured a whole ecology of trolls and cranks. Looking back, I think of the writings of Archimedes Plutonium as a golden age of the internet where crankery was treated with its proper respect. The future of wikipedia requires asking editors to grow up and just deal with the fact that the world is full of people with different ways of approaching the most basic of social situations. Correctness does not require conformity with what you want. Deal with it. AKAF (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have striked out "Oh, how wonderful?" - Is that what you wanted? — Mythdon  t / c  23:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my point. I haven't checked them all, but most of the RFAs in the list above contain supports consisting of nothing more than a signature, with not even the vaguest hint that those persons have even read the submission. There is a culture which says that this is at least borderline acceptable behaviour, but I do find it more than a little sad that support !votes 3 and 8 above have attracted no comments of the type which you have left here. Why should you immediately assume that Blueviolet's response is in bad faith just because you do not understand it? In the end, maybe Blueviolet is a crank. Maybe I am a crank. Either way, worrying about it is unproductive. The eccentric, zen, and just plain barking deserve our acceptance, within limits. I see no reason to argue with you as you are all figments of my hyperactive imagination. Begone! AKAF (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ↑↑↑ I'm with stupid. --Russavia Dialogue 00:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, too many failed discussions already --> Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive189. Instead of rehashing the same ol' same ol' as has been done less than a month ago, they need to learn a new song, and sing that song where it will be heard, rather than in the basement where few will get to hear it, and get to judge whether it is a smash hit, a one-hit wonder, or a monumental flop. --Russavia Dialogue 00:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the only reason you oppose this topic ban because there are too many failed discussions, that is not relevant to this proposal nor is it relevant to the solution of the problem. It is in no way different from DougsTech saying in RfA's "too many administrators currently". — Mythdon  t / c  01:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it irrelevant? The only people I can think of with that type of mindset are those were involved in the 2000 US presidential election, and demanded recount after recount after recount in an attempt to have the result changed in their favour. What you are arguing is that my chad doesn't indicate whom I meant to vote for, when it is perfectly clear whom I meant. Now, as was pointed out, why don't you go and challenge support !votes 3 and 8 as pointed out above by User:AFAK? --Russavia Dialogue 03:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A support vote with just a signature is meant to be shorthand of "I agree with the nomination/proposal". An oppose vote on the other hand usually requires some kind of explanation to be taken seriously. Tim  meh  !  03:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The powers-that-be will take the explanation, however unsatisfactory it may be to the applicant or his/her supporters, into balanced consideration, as I assume they do with all votes. There is no disrupton in a single line of polite text; there is considerable disruption in continuous commentary upon it. (And, no, I don't agree with DT, but that is neither here nor there.) As for Wikidemon's proposal to delete the vote and then block, it would take us to a whole new level of "I don't like it". Even the talk of deleting a vote that is only disruptive because others make it so is untenable. That really will cause drama. // BL \\ (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I view discussions like this as prima facie evidence of wasting everyone's time ... oh wait, we're not still discussing Kurt? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose on principle. What happened to WP:RFC/U? This type of polling is not helping anything. MuZemike 23:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose as simply silencing those we disagree with or who hold an unpopular opinion is simply not right. In such a scenario as this, if anyone really is bothered by the opposes made by this user, just ignore them.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose with the current wording. I don't think he should lose his right to vote in RfA's... but anyone who sees "Too many admins" added by him (or any close synonym he may adopt in the future to circumvent this) should be permitted to delete it on sight. I consider his current comment to amount to vandalism on multiple RfAs, thus it should be treated as vandalism--revert and warn. I remember the first time I read his comment; it made me snort and think "that's a ridiculous reason to vote against someone--obviously there aren't too many admins, or we wouldn't have huge backlogs in so many areas of WP". If the guy actually adds a thoughtful (even marginally so) vote, then that's his right and it should be considered. The current wording does not allow that, so I cannot support it as-written. &mdash; Will scrlt ( “Talk” ) 01:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since his vote is obviously silly, why not leave it there, and let others snort? I mean, I fail to see what problem would be caused by letting the thing stand, for all to see how silly it is. Removing it would likely lead to increased static. Shouldn't we at least try the drama-negative approach? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I see no harm in his oppose but plenty of harm in a ban. Why draw a line where no line is necessary?--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) As annoying these opposes are, we should all be able to !vote as established and trustworthy editors. It's our civil right.--( NGG ) 01:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. We should all be allowed to comment. Everyone knows these aren't taken into account, so why bother with going through the motions of a topic ban? I don't want a sanitised RfA where only "certain" votes are acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are we allowing him the pleasure of commenting if it's not counted? What's the point? Allowing him to continue is a sure way of giving him the attention he craves. Someone will almost always respond to his vote, therefore feeding him. We don't allow IPs to vote. Why should DougsTech be allowed? What's he done to deserve a vote here?  Majorly  talk  02:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the point? The point is that not allowing it sets a worse precedent than learning to deal with it better would set. I may just be hopelessly idealistic, but I believe that, on the page where we hand out the keys to the mop closet, we might also set an example of the proper way to deal with would-be trolls. "Someone will always" do lots of things, but we still continue to oppose a lot of them. I suggest that feeding the inevitable RFA trolls should be in that category. This is a good place to teach an important lesson about the Wiki. DougsTech will help us teach that lesson, if we rise to the occasion. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Bureaucrats are free to discount votes like this. So, there is no harm.  He's become the Boy Who Cries Wolf here, and has effectively set up a situation where his vote will always be ignored.  Why not just let the Bureaucrats ignore his votes, and let it be at that.  He gets to make his little WP:POINT and we get to live with the knowledge that he is entirely impotent at affecting any RFA at all, regardless of how many times he votes with his meaningless opposes.  Its a win-win situation.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a question for you. Did you know that DougsTech nominated ChildOfMidnight for adminship? Since DougsTech nominated ChildOfMidnight for adminship, it is obvious that the "too many administrators currently" expression is hypocritical. The RfA on ChildOfMidnight is a contradiction of that view expressed. That's not the only reason we should topic ban DougsTech. Other reasons are becuase DougsTech is not discussing the candidate, but expressing a personal point of view irrelevant to the discussion. Therefore, a topic ban is necessary, and indefinitely timed. Editors shouldn't be allowed to express an opinion they don't hold. Please consider everything I just said to you. Thanks. — Mythdon  t / c  05:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't really give a shit. Maybe he's changed his mind.  Maybe he thinks that in general there are too many admins, but that in specific cases there are people he thinks exceptions could be made for people who he feels would do a particularly good job.  Its not hypocritical to say "I oppose people who I am unfamiliar with because I think that in general there are too many admins, however in a few cases I think that it is worthwhile to support candidates who I am familiar with if I really think they are going to do a good job".  For the record, I dispise his cookie-cutter opposes and would rather that he say nothing at all.  However, I don't think that a topic ban is the proper way to handle this.  The proper way is to ignore him, and let him have his little fun being "the guy who always opposes for being too many admins" and know that he is entirely impotent in that regard.  However, the conclusion that we should kick him out of RFA, or that we should call his actions hypocricy because he occasionally supports a candidate is meanspirited and excessive.  We don't have to like the "oppose because there are too many admins" bullshit, but we don't have to get our panties in a wad because he all of a sudden has found a candidate he thinks will make a good admin.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is no indication that DougsTech has changed his/her mind. This RfA nomination happened in April, and the most recent opinion expression happened this month. Therefore, there is no indication that DougsTech has thought about whether to change the opinion expressed. That is my belief. — Mythdon  t / c  05:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose really, why do we care so much? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Because, sadly, there are many here on wikipedia who believe that the proper way to deal with disagreeable opinions is to proscribe them. Just look at Newyorkbrad's anodyne comments below for instance; the most important thing is not to upset the horses. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Proposing to topic-ban an editor from RFA is prima facie evidence of a desire for power. Seriously though, why is this still being discussed? Crats are chosen for their ability to properly weight !votes. And CoM chose to walk into a WP:SNOWstorm. The disruption here is not coming from DT. Franamax (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for exactly the reasons outlined above by User:Jayron32. Dougstech is entitled to his view, bureaucrats are entitled to give it whatever weight they think it deserves, and a single editor adding an irrelevant oppose to RfA's is of such little consequcne that that itself cannot be described as disruptive. What is mildly disruptive is this mammoth debate over the issue, which has several times descended into incivility and drama. I also agree with Jayron re the nomination of ChildofMidnight - who cares? We can't on the one hand criticise Dougstech for alleged insincerity and trolling and on the other hand complain when he does something allegedly insincere and trollish. His edits aren't vandalism, they surely don't cause undue stress to candidates given they're essentially ignored - I struggle to see who is harmed here. Euryalus (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose Just read AN/I and the shameless snipes at users engaged in on a daily basis by admins--that there is so little to do on Wikipedia that admins have time and make the effort to take potshots at encyclopedia editors, to engage in edit wars with editors, to get in spats with editors, is proof enough that Doug is correct.  If there were an insufficient number of admins, or only enough, admins would be too busy to take running jabs for fun at editors.  As long as this is an active area of participation for administrators on en.wiki:engaging in battles with editors for the sheer fun of it, Doug is correct: there are too many admins.  That his vote is not counted is outrageous.  Or fear and acknowledgment.  --KP Botany (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

General discussion area

 * Comment There was a previous topic ban proposal here which ended with no consensus. Tim  meh  !  19:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Several editors have cited WP:DENY as reasons for opposing the topic ban. My question to them is thus, "Won't topic banning him stop him from being able to troll in the first place, and this stop the unnecessary drama?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs)
 * See my comment above. If he is really set on trolling, he will find another way to do so, thus wasting a huge amount of time here to accomplish absolutely nothing. Regards  So Why  20:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, if he is topic banned from RFA, and tries something similar somewhere else, I don't think anyone could possibly deny that he is actively trying to troll. Hence, he would be quickly banned from that area as well, and possibly blocked outright. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  21:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @NuclearWarfare. Good point. Only if it's successful will it be effective, maybe. If it isn't, we've just suffered needless drama to no avail. In any event, the die is cast, and we are in for months of it as discussion 'gets discussion and drama 'gets drama. Oh Well.
 * I've posted notice at WP:AN/I to seek broader community input.  Dloh  cierekim  21:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with NW. Also, if Dougstech is actively trolling, (As opposed to just being an idiot for the sake of being an idiot) he has been wildly successful, far more than Kurt ever was. (Assuming Kurt was trying to troll, which I doubt, since he did occasionally support people, unlike Doug).  J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  21:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It was worth a try, but alas, the RFA crowd are too stuck with the tired old "entitled to opinion" rubbish. You've all been successfully trolled - so successful, you're demanding he's allowed to continue trolling you! Well done all.  Majorly  talk  21:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are only being trolled if you respond to it; in a vacuum nobody can hear you even if you scream... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're responding to it by opposing his removal.  Majorly  talk  21:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This whole repeated discussion, among others, shows we need a better way of doing these things, comments at WP:RFBAN would be appreciated.  MBisanz  talk 21:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, you say above, "cookie-cutter opposes that convey no information regarding the candidates but merely cause hurt feelings, bitterness, and disruption". Why on Earth should a cookie-cutter oppose vote cause hurt feelings, bitterness, and disruption? Anyone who wishes to be an admin here should be, at the very, very least, capable of ignoring a senseless "oppose" vote without incurring any psychological trauma, don't you think? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The tension here is between deterring bona fide contributions of opinions, analysis, and !votes to the RfA pages, on the one hand, and putting up with cookie-cutter opposes that convey no information regarding the candidates but merely cause hurt feelings, bitterness, and disruption. DougsTech's conduct, I fear, has crossed the line into the latter category: although Wikipedia may be overregulated in some respects and many existing administrators (including this one) are not perfect, there are chronic backlogs for many administrator tasks, there constant turnover and the very serious problem of chronic burnout requiring the corps of administrators to constantly be replenished, and overall the suggestion that there are "too many administrators" of the English Wikipedia is rightly regarded as inane. An interesting datapoint is that few of those commenting, even to oppose the topic-ban, seem concerned by the bureaucrats' observation that votes such as DougsTech's are routinely discarded. Under the circumstances, all that DougsTech's votes are accomplishing is to irritate other editors and to worsen the already contentious and sometimes demoralizing RfA process. Editing in such a manner as to irritate people without accomplishing anything is conduct to be avoided. Meanwhile, it cannot be overlooked that apart from opposing substantially every RfA candidate with a cookie-cutter rationale, DougsTech is not doing very much else on the project. Historically, those who trawl (I don't say troll) RfA to oppose all or most of the candidates with a rote line and without analyzing the candidates' individual contributions&mdash;Boothy4433, Massiveeego, Kmweber&mdash;have had unhappy and truncated wiki-careers. I will not cast a support !vote for a topic-ban at this time, but in the strongest possible terms I urge DougsTech to immediately discontinue his objectionable behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically you're saying that there needs to be a stop to it, but this method won't be a good way? — Mythdon  t / c  22:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well ... I know that if I were contributing in a given area, and dozens of editors posted all over the wiki that my editing in that area was disruptive and bothersome, and someone started a petition to ban me from the area ... I would reevaluate whether my continuing the same behavior is a positive or negative contribution, very, very, very carefully. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's part of why we like you, Brad. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 23:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well brad, that shows that you don't have confidence in your ability to judge what you find is personally right or wrong. I cannot accept the framing of this debate as so many people treat the support section as a frivolous vote. The only thing that Doug has done is flip that farce around. If people get their feelings hurt, too bad. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ottava, because hubris will get you so far in life. The Greeks taught us that stolen from Sam Seaborn  Keegan talk 01:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between Hubris and conviction. Someone who is unwilling to stand up to what they believe in didn't actually believe in it to begin with. I have no respect for individuals without convictions. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how NYB's comment demonstrates a lack of conviction or a refusal to stand up for what he believes in. All it means is that he is willing to look at various issues objectively, even things he personally finds to be very obviously (possibly even unquestionably) right or wrong. Since when is it a bad thing for someone to be willing to entertain the possibility that they could be wrong? If everyone did that, I'd imagine that Earth would be very different. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  01:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In fighting for what is right, there will be many people that will try to destroy you in any way they can. I am not saying that the above is about Doug. I am talking about the general idea. If Newyorkbrad would ever consider dropping his stance on anything simply because there was a mob that didn't like it, then I really don't feel that he would be capable of having his own views. Convictions are only convictions when they are tested. Objectivity means nothing when it comes to morality. Objectivity leads one down the dark path of hypocrisy, double standards, and a lack of morality. One must trust their own intuition before they can effectively measure what others say. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, okay, wow, well... I think in the future I shall have to remember that you and I fundamentally disagree (which I know, I just have to remember before I hit "save this page"), and I hope that you do the same. That is about the only possible reply I can give.   Keegan talk 05:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Echoing what GTBacchus said. Brad, do you honestly think someone who would get "hurt feelings, bitterness, and disruption" from "too many admins curently" would deserve to pass RFA? Or would be well placed to deal with the barrage of abuse, whining and pointless complaints that comes with the job? –  iride scent  22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I recall my RFA, back in the dark ages when we used small rocks that we would cast into piles. There was a lone, senseless oppose vote. If anything, far from causing disruption, the senselessness of it served as a sort of seal of authenticity for the supporting comments. If "too many admins" is the only reason to oppose, then obviously we've got the right guy or gal for the job. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not necessarily referring to the effect on the candidate himself or herself only. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, why is it disruptive except to people who choose to be bothered by it? Why not just adopt a culture of ignoring lone, senseless oppose votes, and teaching others to do the same? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would support adding text to the main RfA page to the effect that bizarre oppose votes do occur regularly, and that we all know they're bizarre, and we've agreed to let them sit, unmolested and quiet. It's really the sensible solution, because you can't stop the occasional editor from taking up this cross, and it's pointless to topic-ban them when we could easily ignore them. They're few, far between, and precisely as harmful as we let them be. We could even make a little template to tag silly oppose votes with: undefined or something. Then we would all know to pass them over in peace. Guidelines for applying the template shouldn't be mysterious, because we know what it looks like. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case we need one that says "Chronic supporter" as well, there are some people who support 90-95% of the candidates that come through here...--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange that you rarely see anyone complaining about that, don't you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec. reply is to Spartacus) The weight of the word "need" in that sentence gets to the crux of a serious problem on Wikipedia. We don't "need" any of this formalism. We need for people to apply common sense, and to learn and teach each other that rules are not weapons, but simply notes from those who've come before. The template is a terrible suggestion, because it will lead to more templates. The sensible solution is for people to behave sensibly, not because it's written somewhere, but because it's sensible. There is nothing sensible about the amount of disruption that people have allowed this person to create. We should stop allowing it, and stop empowering him, by starting to ignore him. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this user has created negligible disruption. This person makes a single, predictable comment and then watches the drama unfold.  The people who create the disruption are all of the people who predictably respond to him and create endless debates/disputes.  All we need is for one person to state the obvious, "This position is in the minority and has been discussed ad nasium, please don't respond."  As it is, we have a million people commenting on his short sentence... and thus creating the drama.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Is there any "Neutral section"? :) Why do we bother ourselves over just one editor's vote for over months? (his vote sometimes bother me very much when I support somebody though) Everyone knows that Doug's votes are not counted by 'crats. (if they do....I must respect it though...)--Caspian blue 23:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggested edit - How's this? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I see for most of the opposes, the reason given is "why not just ignore him" or "it's the people creating all this drama that are causing the disruption". No matter what anyone says, there is disruption, and there wouldn't be disruption if DougsTech did not oppose every RfA he comes across. Sure, you could argue that the real disruption is coming from those who are bothered enough by DougsTech's !votes to ask "why" or start a talk page discussion. But it's going to be almost impossible to prevent the thousands of editors unfamiliar with DougsTech that are seeing these oppose !votes from asking for an explanation or starting a discussion on it. No matter what we do, there will continue to be drama created over this issue. Just look at almost every RfA in which DougsTech !votes. Disruption is being caused, and to stop it, either: 1. The community has to be prevented from responding to DougsTech and starting discussions on his !votes or; 2. DougsTech has to be prevented from making his !votes. I don't know about everyone else, but the second option seems more logical to me. Tim  meh  !  23:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your pessimism, if you don't mind my calling it that. I think that we, as a community, can decide to handle this kind of issue differently than we have so far. People like DougsTech come and go, and we can get into just as much of a flap as we choose to about it. Getting up the energy for a topic ban each time is not a viable long-term solution. There are too many of us who will be back next time to repeat, "let's wise up and start ignoring this already." In the long run, the best solution is to wise up. I'm confident we can do it. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or putting it another way: If you have blinding headaches from repeatedly pounding your head against the wall, it is clearly the fault of the wall for being there. If new editors are aggressive about those opposes, maybe that's the problem, and they need to be educated that drama is unproductive. This is as good a place as any to do it. AKAF (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the best possible response to a spurious oppose vote is simply, "Noted. Thank you." -GTBacchus(talk) 00:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be the ideal response, but you will never get everyone or even almost everyone to respond that way. Tim  meh  !  00:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Want to bet? There are so many processes here that people predicted would "never" work. I've got a hundred dollars saying we can do it. Whaddya say? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I'm so confident is simple: RFA, like many processes here, is populated more by regulars than by drive-bys. A reasonably steady population of regulars displaying some behavior is probably the most powerful way to establish that behavior as a norm, which is the idea, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is semi-serious but has anyone thought of doing a checkuser to see if this a reincanation of Kurt?--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 T/  C  00:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you need to be more careful about making unsubstantiated allegations like that. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not an allegation, it's a question. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very unlikely this is a reincarnation of Kurt. Tim  meh  !  00:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And that was the answer to the question. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) A checkuser sounds too much like fishing to me. We've had a fair number of serial opposers over time, like Boothy and Massivego; it just seems that they come and go in irregular cycles. Useight (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe after a few more of them, we'll finally learn not to let it get under our skins, and thus feed them banquets of troll-food. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet another reason to topic ban DougsTech: In the last two weeks, he has only made one edit unrelated to RfA and his !voting pattern. He has not made any edits to the article namespace in almost a month. He has barely edited in the last month, and the majority of those edits are RfA !votes or replies to questions or comments about his !voting. It seems his most important goal on Wikipedia has become to cause disruption at RfA. Tim  meh  !  00:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's true, then we're helping him with it by proposing a topic ban. Simply responding to his oppose votes with "Your opinion is noted; thank you," will deny him his fruit, of seeing people get upset. What we're doing now is load his plate with second and third helpings. Let's stop? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll say it again. You will not get anywhere near everyone to "deny him his fruit". Tim  meh  !  01:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've made it clear that you think it's impossible. Why not try it out, just to be sure? Why not take a chance that maybe we can continue to develop site culture, just as he have done for the last decade, blowing away everyone who said we'd not do it. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not try topic banning DougsTech, so maybe he'd consider actually contributing to the encyclopedia? I guarantee it will stop this disruption. Tim  meh  !  01:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, convince everyone. Unless you think that's going to happen, we're stuck with plan B. Your plan will stop one disruptive RFA opposer, and none of the next thousand to come through. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, we average about one of these people a year, so that's not much of an argument. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I plan to be here for the next thousand years. :P Seriously, though, this is not the only context in which we deal with behavior that we'll go ahead and call "trolling". This is a particularly easy context in which to learn to deal with it, and let that lesson spread to other areas of the Wiki. That's what I'm calling for. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Gosh, I am really conflicted on this. I am just beginning to get into the "inner workings" of Wikipedia and I can't help but to notice that this is causing a lot of--er--drama. On one hand I want to see DougsTech not vote in such a way as it doesn't seem so very constructive but on the other hand I want to honor his rights to have a legit vote. Basically, it's unfortunate Doug feels this way, but at the same time it's a little bit overboard to oppose every single RfA with the same reasoning. Basket of Puppies  01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If people would just let him insert himself as a footnote to every RfA until he got tired of it... there wouldn't be any drama. To some extent... we love this kind of nonsense. Otherwise, we'd do it less. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I got into a similar issue in my Wiki-infancy (2007). See User talk:Allstarecho/Archive 2. I wa petty much threatened with everything except being beat with the coffee maker at Wikipedia headquarters. The fact is, DougsTech's edits have obviously become a disruption.. look at this very page I'm posting on for proof. WP:POINT is certainly worthy of blocks and DougsTech should have been blocked long ago. - ℅ &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 01:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Generally speaking, I don't like copy and paste comments in discussions.  As many know, I oppose candidates who make simple WP:PERNOM "votes" rather than arguments in AfDs.  And yes, I have actually even encounted accounts that vote to delete every article in AfDs, because they claim that we have "too many articles."  So, if that's an acceptable stance, then saying we have too many admins should be acceptable as well.  Now, I don't agree with DougTech.  A more accurate stance might be that we have too many bad admins (even one bad admin is one too many!) and I wish and encourage him to take an approach along these lines, i.e. oppose the potentially bad admins and support the potentially good ones, but even so, once we get into censorship of opinions in discussions, even if most of us find them absurd, we run into dangerous territory.  After all, we're supposed to be following encyclopedic traditions--an idea that grew out of the Enlightenment.  We are supposed to be the models of open-mindeness and diversity of opinions and ideas and we defeat ideas we disagree with through civil and persuasive discussion, not be silencing, not by censoring.  Or if we think they're so absurd, then we ignore them, we don't create an uproar over such an opinion.  How much time is spent discussing something that seriously can be easily ignore rather than on offering compelling reasons in the RfAs to support the respective candidats, or perhaps more importantly on building articles?  Okay, so, if Doug was making person-specific or racist, or sexist copy and paste personal attacks, then, maybe we'd be getting outside of legitimate discussion, yet, here it is a blanket, non-personal claim that in his opinion we have enough admins.  Nothing racist, nothing sexist, etc.  He's basically saying, "Look, I mean nothing ill against this particular candidate, but I just think we have too many admins and as such, I don't support any new candidates at this time."  Okay, so that's that.  Either make a good faith effort to persuade him that certain candidates are worth it, or let him say what he thinks and move on.  And hey, if "copy and pasting" was really the issue, come on now, we don't have lots of supports in multiple RfAs that are more or less copy and pastes as well?  In any event, of all the possible things I could imagine in the unlikely chance I ever ran for adminship saying as a reason to oppose me, I think Doug's would be about the least personally offensive I could imagine.  One point I think it is important to make clear: when we talk of banning someone based on opinions, we MUST only do see in extreme situations, i.e. if their opinions is blatantly racist, for example, in a totally indefensible manner, i.e. something so imflammatory it cannot be ignored and just dismissed, i.e. something that damages the project's reputation.  Doug's "votes" are not in such a category and as such we should not stifle trivial dissenting opinions; that must be something reserved for something much more.  Anyway, that's my thoughts.  Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 04:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

BRD, phase D
So, I went ahead and made an edit, and you can see the next three diffs. Unless someone can say why everyone ignoring spurious oppose votes would be bad, I think that advice to ignore them is well placed. In the above discussion, at least one editor has seemed (to me) to take the position that such ignoring is impossible. I request that we at least give it a try. Opinions? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have tried. It didn't work. Ignoring doesn't stop the problem. I think we all agree his votes are totally unconstructive and meaningless. So why do we let them stand? Because his "right" to vote is more important than the integrity of the process, right? DougsTech does nothing to improve Wikipedia. He is a net negative to the project. Yet we are here fighting over his disruption. Now, if we simply removed him from the process until he stopped abusing it, we would have none of this. We need to eliminate the source of the problem: DougsTech. It's all very well pretending it's the people complaining about him are the problem, but if he didn't do what he did, there would be no need to complain, and we could all go on our merry way. Well I think I've said what I think about DougsTech too many times, and it's clearly gone over people's heads. It's unfortunate we do not respect ourselves enough to be trolled like this. Ignoring is absolutely not the solution.  Majorly  talk  01:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've certainly never mentioned, nor will mention, anyone's fictional "right" to vote. All I care about is whether we deal with disruption in the most intelligent way or not. I don't understand your claim that, "ignoring him doesn't stop the problem". Isn't the problem precisely his not being ignored? This is not just about DougsTech. This is about how to deal with such editors, because they appear in every part of Wikipedia, and I'd like to think that the room where we hand out keys to the mop closet is one where we try to exemplify the best behavior we know about. Now, if someone wants to indefinitely block the user, I won't oppose that. However, throwing a party like this one, and then claiming that DougsTech invited us... doesn't convince me. How can we have tried ignoring him? If we ever tried it, we'd still be there. When did we try the approach where we send out a message of how to deal with DougsTech's behavior by ignoring it? What am I missing? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if a topic ban is the solution that we ultimately find "best"... it takes time to make one of these happen, and in the meanwhile, editors will be confronted with these "votes". Is it really a bad idea to advise users who aren't empowered to push block buttons that their best strategy is to ignore the possible troll? Is that a bad idea? If it isn't, then I'm very inclined to put it back on the page, perhaps worded more carefully than before. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I liked the spirit of GTBacchus' edit, thus I made a compromise edit. Hopefully, you both can live with it.  I think the main problem with GT's edit was that it declared "ignoring" the issue as "the best way."  While I tend to agree, and think that DT gets a kick out of the firestorm that his opposes generate (and lay a lot of the blame on the people responding to him) many do not agree that it is the "best way."  Thus, I raised the spector having people consider if the RfA is the best forum or if their response would fuel the fires. I'm not saying not to respond, but consider the impact.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Time wasting
I haven't seen a thread this long about a single user in a long time, and it's wasting people's time. Why don't we just topic ban for wasting our time, rather than for disruptively voting? <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 04:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya know Steve, you make a damn good point. I watched this thread get started (for the umteenth time) this morning, and I told myself I'd not get involved in another pointless drama - well, I guess I'm failing that now.  A 17th century witch hunt because of 4 little words: "Too many admins currently".  As if any single "oppose" has had an iota of sway in any one, single, individual RfA.  A ban proposal that ain't nowhere near ever reaching any consensus, yet here we are.  The odd thing that comes to my mind, is the wonderfully eloquent and insightful posts here; and, I have to wonder "what if".  What if we took all the great 21st century grey matter assembled here in this one thread, and focused it in a singular direction.  Hell, we could probably solve the swine flue problem.  Well, maybe not, but I am damn sure we could make some huge improvements to the encyclopedia we're supposed to be working on.  Yea, I know, I probably just shot myself in the foot as far as any RfA I was interested in for the next year - but, I've never been that great at playing the political games.  As always, IMHO — Ched :  ?  05:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * RFA is a painful process, they say that by the time you're actually ready to be an admin, you won't want to be one. Don't worry about adminship, its overglorified. But the time wasted on this thread could have been used productively, which is the reason i'm so frustrated. People, go write an article or help with the giant mediation backlog, rather than wasting time here. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 05:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you honestly haven't seen a thread like this in a long time you don't spend much time around the WP/WT side of the house. If you do spend time there you might be misremembering the length or import of most discussions. This happens to be a relatively protracted debate over a relatively minor issue. Nothing suggests that the length of the debate or the utter unimportance of the subject (speaking here of the ban, not the editor) are out of the ordinary. While I sympathize (deeply) with the notion that people who end up resulting in time wasted need to be shown the door, I don't know that it is a terribly good metric. Protonk (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Starting threads like this one are the biggest waste of time. I'm not saying I like DougTech's voting. I find it stupid and contrary to the collegial atmosphere we should have here. But getting consensus for a topic ban like this is more trouble than it's worth.--chaser - t 06:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't see the logic behind that. I agree that minimally obnoxious trolling is best ignored.  But at some point behavior reaches a threshold where we are forced to grope toward a response.  Obviously it would be inappropriate for some admin to jump in and impose a topic ban.  However it should be just as obvious that doing nothing is damaging (I think there is room for debate as to how damaging).  I would have preferred this to be solved weeks ago when people approached DT and asked him to knock it off.  It wasn't, so we have to move down less preferred paths.  I don't think that we have a choice to just bemoan the unpleasantness of discussion, and the discussion will be unpleasant, especially where the actual conduct issue happens to fall on a fault line for our philosophy about communities.  I also, as I have said before, don't agree that absent discussions like this people like me would be editing the encyclopedia.  As you can see from my contributions, I have uncommon but productive spurts of article editing, but most of my "work" is in discussions.  I'm not the kind of editor who will edit more when there is less to discuss.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect that this pattern of behavior isn't too rare. Protonk (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

So Steve, should be be topic banning Tan for starting this thread ;-)--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked / then unblocked
I don't follow WT:RFA, so I've just noticed this discussion now; but I should note that I've just blocked DougsTech indefinitely for disruption. Having just recently skimmed the above, I would say my feelings are in line with Newyorkbrad in that Editing in such a manner as to irritate people without accomplishing anything is conduct to be avoided. The account has essentially degenerated into a single-purpose account. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 16:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a nicely bold move, but I can guarantee it will be undone by another admin before long. Tim  meh  !  16:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What an excellent way to throw gasoline on the fire. This is being discussed at ANI.  Skinwalker (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, my fault for not following WT:RFA (can you blame me?^^^^^). Topic ban discussions should really be held at a central location, imo. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true. Which since the WT:RFA discussion has essentially spun down, please direct all comments to the ANI thread, please, to keep it centralized and everyone in the loop. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unblocked by DF - We now return you to your regularly scheduled WT:RFA discussions. (Unwatching, apologies for raising a dead thread). –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Unnecessary
Is all this mumbo jumbo really necessary to become an admin. Of course, I think its a bit silly. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;"> South Bay  <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">  (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's very silly, but my current opinion is that it works (very wastefully indeed, of course) as a test. If an admin nominee/wannabe can make it through the RfA minefield then chances are well above average, I'd suppose, that they can make it through the lesser minefields of actual disputes without shooting themselves in the foot or going berserk. Much of the indignation and self-righteousness on display in RfA is grotesque, but even that sometimes brings unintended humor. Ask me next week and I might have a different opinion. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * RFA is definitely the worst way of creating administrators. It is, however, better than all others that have been tried. Someone famous might have said something similar before. Maybe. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 17:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it's the worst, until we compare it to anything else. I can live with that. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should go back to this. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. We should make it easy to be an admin and easy to no longer be one.  The fact that it's so hard to remove the tools is why we are so brutal on the front-end.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Make that a one week trial and see how many times WP:POINT gets mentioned. Seriously though, great idea this place needs some shakeup.--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 T/  C  02:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel bad for the first person to go thru the current RfA process when they probably expected the simpler one JC mentioned! ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 03:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Winston Churchill said that "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  14:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading User:Bibliomaniac15/A history of RFA for an analysis on how RfA evolved and random scatterings from User:Majorly/RfA/Stats and Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological). <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) (How am I doing?) 03:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think anybody with over 60% support should become and admin. This is much more reasonable and achievable to say the least. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;"> South Bay  <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">  (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that admins can do significant damage in the short term, which can require other admins to clean up, and make a mess of things, so we at least need some sort of gatekeeper system for ensuring that admins have some level of community trust. The problem with the current system is that it overemphasizes the negative.  A single questionable act from years ago is likely to generate a grudge which users will hold on to forever.  Once a user goes for RFA, the diffs of the early poor judgement come out, and then there's a bunch of pile-on opposes based on an old and out-of-context situation.  Being an editor at Wikipedia is like being a sports referee.  If you are doing your job right no one should notice you.  Unfortunately, if someone does notice you, its usually over a conflict, and because of that its often easier to build a case against an RFA candidate using a few out-of-context diffs than it is to show how good an editor because no one takes note of all the good stuff.  Not sure how to fix this, but it needs to be fixed in any future changes to the RFA process. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no way of fixing it while RfA outcomes are judged primarily by vote-counting, at least not where the only criterion for voting is to be an editor in good standing. If you set a system up to be roughly modelled on a high school class presidential election, don't be surprised when it ends up turning out like one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Southbay. The current system places too much emphasis on oppose !votes. Reducing the threshold for success to circa 60% instead of circa 75% would preserve all the good aspects of RFA and largely resolve its recent problems.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would have hurt anything if the 70% minimum threshold had been 65%; it would have given the crats some discretion in a few close cases, and I think they would have handled the judgment calls well. I'm not comfortable with 60%; too much too fast. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 20:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Making both RfA and recall easier sounds good until you think about how that system is likely to work. At a recall all of the admin's enemies will come out but not necessarily so many of his / her supporters. The current RfA system, for all its faults, may be better balanced.
 * Re "the diffs of the early poor judgement come out, and then there's a bunch of pile-on opposes", there may be a simple solution - all complaints and especially all difs cited in RfAs must be accompanied by the dates of the incidents. I hope most people will not give much weight to something that happened over 2 years ago, but I suspect many do not actually check the dates of the diffs, etc., especially if there are a lot of them. --Philcha (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it already is "unwritten" at 65%-68%---especially if the opposes are for lame reasons. --- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's currently quite pleasant to go through RfA if you've been here for a while, done your homework, and display your skeletons up front. I don't see what's prompting this thread now, of all times. Amalthea 22:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Amalthea, what's prompting this thread is that the RFA process is no longer promoting admins at even half the 2007 rate, and hasn't done so for more than a year. As a result the number of active admins has been falling. To answer I'm Spartacus's point; I've just been through the successful RFAs from so far this year plus a large number of the unsuccessful ones. No success was with less than 75% but several in the 65 - 70% range were closed as no consensus; and thats including all opposes however lame.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current 75-80% threshold is way too high for an RfA, almost impossible. That figure is something I would think is more appropriate for an RfB. Something along the lines of 2/3 or 65% support seems more reasonable. Part of the reason, I think, for the current high standards is that it's very difficult to get someone desysoped unless there was a serious breach of trust. For the most part, once one is a sysop, it is "for life". If administrator rights were easier to remove, then perhaps folks wouldn't be as concerned about giving it out.  tempo di valse  [☎]  23:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's 'almost impossible' to pass an RFA, how come out of the 6 RFAs currently open, 5 are passing at 90% or higher? It is very much possible to pass RFA at the moment, and I would oppose any move to lower the percentage needed to pass. Also, if it was made easier to pass RFA, then opposers would probably become more motivated and organised as a result; my guess is that the end result would be frequent RFAs failing at 50-60% instead of the 60-70% they fail at now. It's true that we've promoted less admins so far this year than in previous years, but I don't think that's about standards being higher or voters being harsher; I think it's because fewer candidates have submitted themselves in the first place. Robofish (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that we have more editors than ever, you'd think that a falling candidacy rate would probably, y'know, be indicative of something. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * RfA is by no means more pleasant for those who are transparent; if anything, transparency reduces the likelihood of success because it increases the chance of failing under random editors' single issues. Furthermore, as has been noted by empirical observation, having "been around a while" is actually a negative; admin rates actually drop off after a certain number of contributions, probably because more edits means more interpersonal relations, which means more retaliatory opposes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More edits could also be an indicator of somebody who overrelies upon various tools. 3K used to be a good marker of somebody who had been around for a while.  Today a person can easily have 3K edits in a week!--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the current threshold of 75-80% is too high for an RFA. The current RFA process is flawed – if you edit en.wiki for a long time (say for about two years), and apply for adminship, you RFA may fail because you may have pissed off some people. For editors who have edited en.wiki for a long time, the threshold should be slightly lower. AdjustShift (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How about substantially lower, just to give some of us old-timers a fair crack of the whip? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How low do you think we would we have to go to get you the mop??? I mean negative numbers are not an option ;-) --- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Might as well leave everything as it is then. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I say, I wouldn't mind lowering the bottom end of the discretionary range from 70% to 65%, but after re-reading the above, I think I'm on a different page than some others who are in favor of lowering the minimum. I think promotion at RfA should only happen if there's consensus, and 60% or 65% doesn't usually indicate consensus, so I don't think there's any big practical difference between saying the minimum is 65% vs. 70%; but perhaps it would be an extra deterrent to the very occasional apparent canvassing to try to sink candidacies, if people who were tempted to do that were looking at an apparent target of 64.9% rather than 69.9%. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 13:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that RfA is the only place on Wikipedia where consensus == head count in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, but I understand how you might feel that way after your experiences with RfA, and I hope you'll run again. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 19:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup Malleus, you've been here long enough to know that the motto of Wikipedia is "Anything to preserve the status quo!"--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A degree of organisational conservatism is not necessarily a bad thing in a scholarly project based on radical and untried social mechanisms. Skomorokh  19:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not necessarily a good thing either in a project that's trying to find its way. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)