Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 171

Where have all the questions gone?
The oldest active RFA has 2 additional questions. Download's RFA is the most active with 7. Come on, what happened to the flogging spirit? Thirty questions might be over the top, but I'm sure the flogged flagged revision folks can easily drive the count into twenties. NVO (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank the gods. Questions are instructive when they probe into an aspect of the candidates personal history or perspective. Good riddance to tiresome single-issue campaigners and boilerplate-peddlers. Skomorokh
 * Once one has enough info to make a decision, one need not inquire further. Dloh  cierekim  03:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfectly put, Dlohcierekim.  hmwith τ   20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * People stopped asking useless questions to find a reason to oppose? Yay ^^ Wizardman  20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

moving of WT:RFA to WT:RFA/Discussion ? (withdrawn)

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm sure I'm not alone among those who have unwatched WP:RFA due to the fairly heavy (and oft drama-laden) activity here at WT:RFA. As brion has recently commented that there is no intention to divorce page watching from talk page watching, perhaps WT:RFA should be moved to WP:RFA/Discussion (or WT:RFA/Discussion, doesn't matter to me). This would allow those who do not want to see the WT:RFA activity nevertheless see RFAs transcluded as they go live. (I know there is a javascript solution, but this is sub-optimal). WT:RFA would remain a redirect to the new location. –xeno talk 15:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You would still need an RFA talk page, and I suspect that people would keep using it as they do now. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. The discussions would still be at the target. WT:RFA would still redirect there. But the result is that people can watch WP:RFA without watching WP:RFA/Discussion. –xeno talk 15:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * YEH!!!! Dloh  cierekim  15:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh... now I get it. Sounds fine to me. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ecx3 Doesn't matter to me...--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Don't know if it would solve what you're looking for in the short term Xeno, and maybe you're looking for something different - but, you could always just put on your user page. — Ched :  ?  15:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have it on my admin dashboard, but I mostly use my watchlist. –xeno talk 15:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While I understand where Xeno is coming from, I'm not sure this is really necessary to be honest: watching WP/WT:RFA doesn't mean that you have to participate in the discussions here; and regarding watchlist clutter, it's not like every edit summary on this page consists of insults or "HAGGER???", so this page can easily be ignored while attention is paid towards the transcluding of RfAs. Acalamari 16:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, seems like a good idea. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 16:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You could also use my script at WP:HIDEPAGES to only show edits made to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship on your watchlist, and hiding all edits to Requests for adminship. Gary King  ( talk ) 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but I find it distracting when its shown for a brief second, then hidden - perhaps I am being selfish on this minor issue. Thank you for the link. –xeno talk 19:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From a technical point of view, that's the only way to do it. The watchlist can only be interacted with JavaScript, so the entire page has to load before any scripts can execute. Gary King  ( talk ) 20:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but I can still whine, no? =) –xeno <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Typically you wouldn't notice this issue, anyways, as a lot of other sites use JavaScript to hide information just like my script. The big difference is that Wikipedia is slow to load, and you might have a slow computer :p Gary King  ( talk ) 20:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry what's the point? If you don't want to look at this page, don't look at it. It's not hard. Show a little self-restraint.  Majorly  talk  17:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Majorly (!) – appearing on your watchlist doesn't oblige you to read it. This is a solution to a nonexistent problem if ever I saw one. – <span style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Segoe Script;"> iride scent  18:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Gotta agree that I don't consider this a particularly big issue. If anything, it'd be more confusing, not less. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Does that mean everyone who has watchlisted this page would then have to watchlist the new discussion page? Not that it takes that much effort, but it seems like a majority of people will have to make this change for the few who are bothered by this issue. It seems like 2 or 3 good ideas were proposed for individual users above, instead of redirecting this page for everybody. <font color="Navy">Law <font color="Navy">type! <font color="Navy">snype? 18:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Gary King offered a perfect solution for this problem to anyone who suffers it. No need to move anything because of that. Regards  So Why  18:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When a page is moved, the new page is put on the watchlist of editors who had the old location watch. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk


 * Sounds unhelpful. What if User:Discussion wanted to be an admin? Stifle (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He would need unblocked first, just like User:Front matter =) –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 19:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. You don't have to click. 2. There are two different pages that appear (talk and not). Its not like the talk page takes up room. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Segregating talk pages and their hosts seems like a bad idea somehow.--Tznkai (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gary King for the win. I love the script. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Renaming it sounds like an arbitrary decision &mdash; what will it solve? RfA talk is the most unproductive page on Wikipedia, across any namespace (I'm sorry, but to be honest, nothing is ever accomplished here &mdash; just pointless, trivial conversations about things that have been discussed thousands of times over), and that won't change no matter what name it's under. And as for the watchlist thing, it doesn't bother me because I never even check my watchlist (seriously, I keep a mental watchlist and I don't need to keep an eye on tons of pages).  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 22:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral That's an advantage, but I don't like separating the two pages. <font face="Papyrus"><font color=#9966CC>- <font color=#7B68EE>down <font color=#9966CC>load  <font color=#7B68EE>׀ <font color=#8A2BE2>sign!  00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all for keeping it simple - the way it is. Moving the page around is more work for more people than the work it saves for the few. Seems like a net loss. Useight (talk) 01:01, 7 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.

Requests for adminship/CardinalDan
Should we delete this? Looks like a bit of premature exuberance. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  20:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as it's not transcluded, the candidate does not object to its existence, and someone has a word with the nominator re: formatting and expectations and so on, I don't see a problem. Skomorokh  20:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We could have a series of lengthy threads discussing whether they are going to run and hound them with accusations of causing a disruption by daring to even consider a run for RfA. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I left CD a note.  Dloh  cierekim  00:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User already declined. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CoM - That's just stirring up embers to try to get a fire started again. Let it go, and in a few months take clean shot at the mop.  You do good work, no need to poke any tigers here. :) Ched2 (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Voice your opinion
Please see this. The voice your opinion link is pointless and is being abused by certain people.  Majorly  talk  20:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's redundant, but I don't see a compelling reason to remove it. I like the idea of rewording it, though. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is redundant, why keep it?  Majorly  talk  20:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you care to be more specific about the alleged abuse? The link would seem to me to be useful and intuitive, preventing unnecessary scrolling and having to find the right edit link. Skomorokh  20:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's say certain users are taking the "Voice your opinion" wording to the extreme. I think you all know who I mean. Is it really hard to scroll and find the edit button? How long have you been editing?  Majorly  talk  20:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why add an attack? And I also don't know who you mean.  And just change it to "...about this candidate" like you initially proposed, then move along. <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  | <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  20:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because someone will surely wiggle their way around it to soapbox about anything other than the candidate. It is redundant to the other numerous edit buttons.  Majorly  talk  20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I meant you, Majorly. Why add an attack?  (namely - is it really hard to scroll and find the edit button? How long have you been editing").  I agree that the link should be changed per your proposal elsewhere.  But why attack someone's intelligence to make your point? <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  | <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no attacks, only questions. I am merely curious as to why someone who has been here as long as Skomorokh has would need an extra link to click on. Perhaps I worded it funnily, but I did not attack anyone.  Majorly  talk  21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's cool Keeper, Majorly and I speak British English, and speaking personally I enjoy a good passive aggressive snarking. In fact, I had never noticed the link before now, but can see that it would be useful to neophytes. Skomorokh  21:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (damn I'm slow) Wikipedia is enough of an insiders cult already, I really don't think raising the barriers to contributing without any compelling need is a smart move. If editors are abusing RfA it's not because of the wording of some link, unless they cite that wording in their defence. A tool is "redundant" if it "does nothing different than" another, which is not the case here. I suggest you follow Keeper76's proposal. Skomorokh  20:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The irony here Skomorokh, is that it's not my proposal. It's Majorly's.  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  | <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  21:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * They have been using the wording in their defence! :) That's why I'd like it removed. The link is identical to other edit links on the page, so actually, it is redundant.  Majorly  talk  21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm simply ignorant of the abuse in question and you're valiantly trying not to stir drama or call anyone out by pointing to it, but you can't expect editors to go along with effecting a solution if the main need for the solution is hidden from them. But I think we have conflated two issues:
 * The wording "voice your opinion" encourages troublesome editors to declare they have a right to take a position based on any whim they like.
 * The link has little utility.
 * I think more input would be helpful on the second point, and that we all agree that the wording could be improved, but the underlying issue of frowning on !votes considered unreasonable by many has been decisively settled by the recent RfC. Skomorokh 21:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent + ec) I could be misunderstanding this completely but it seems to me that this proposal is a wee bit pointy. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the former. How about not reaching for POINT and actually thinking about the proposal? I can think of more obvious POINT violations myself.  Majorly  talk  21:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Just a thought. I'll accept that I've misunderstood this completely, apologies. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A tad better, but now it's far too big. As I said, I'd prefer to remove it altogether. There's enough template as it is without a redundant link to click on.  Majorly  talk  21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It solves the problem, gets rid of the "loophole" your ragging on about with this alleged "abuse" (I still don't know who or what you are talking about, maybe I'm daft). <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  | <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm "ragging on" am I? Now who's making attacks? :)  Majorly  talk  21:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeper's crabby. Lay off the Keeper.  In my neck of the woods "ragging on" isn't an attack.  It's a right. :)<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  | <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  21:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He's on his anti-DougTech/Kurt soapbox. He wants the wording changed in an effort to curb !votes that he doesn't feel should be allowed. Since other proposals have failed, he's going to try this. Although, I have to say, I think his proposal would have been stronger if he hadn't admitted that this is an attempt to curb somebody's posts.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already changed the template to be explicit: "Voice your opinion on this candidate".  That won't stop someone from opposing on whatever grounds they wish, so if those are your motives, Majorly, it won't work.  Continuously pounding your head against a brick wall expecting anything other than a bloody forehead is unreasonable Majorly.  Let it go.  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  | <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support change and agree.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Skomorokh  21:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for some context, "Voice your opinion" resulted from the days where editors disagreed over whether the classical "RfA is a vote!" or "RfA is a !vote" or "RfA is a discussion!". Originally, it was just simply "Vote here". - Mailer Diablo 05:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've often wondered why this was not removed when the s/o/n sectioning scheme was introduced. It's practically useless with so many participants in a regular RfA and with more convenient subsection [edit] links. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but consensus seems to say otherwise.  Majorly  talk  13:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/PK2
There was an IP address that vandalised the article of Cassie Davis, saying she was born in 1962 when she was born in 1986.

I have waited a long time to be an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PK2 (talk • contribs)


 * Apparently not long enough if you still do not know that you should sign your posts. Anyway, I suggest you read the suggestions on Not now which outlines what would very likely happen if you really submitted a request for adminship at the current time. While we appreciate your offer to help, I do not think adminship is right for you at this time. Regards  So Why  22:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrative retention philosophy
User:Malinaccier/Administrative retention philosophy. Just some thoughts on the subject. Would anyone care to comment? Malinaccier (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Everyking 5 and Ottava Rima
Now on ANI here.


 * This is not going anywhere productive; if there is anything actionable it can be taken to WP:BN. <font face="Goudy Old Style"> Skomorokh  15:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some uninvolved 'crats to weigh in here? His actions toward EK are pushing on harassment and are retaliation for EK getting him kicked off of Wikipedia Review for starting massive trolling threads related to why gay marriage is a bad idea. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that some intervention from a bureaucrat with no prior history with these editors would be useful here. I've come close to intervening myself a couple of times, but decided I wasn't the right person to do it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyking brought up the claims of hate speech. That is a personal attack, and it should be taken to ANI. Your claim that the Catholic Church is like the KKK is also incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, unclear indenting there: not mine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...? I was responding to Rootology. Rootology was the only one making this comment: "A duck is duck, whether it's wearing a white sheet over it's head or church vestments over it's body". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is akin to hating on someone because they school you in PvP World of Warcraft. It has no business here. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Everyking constantly attacking Wikipedia users in public and private forums is the equivalent of World of Warcraft? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think Hiberniantears is saying you're just cranky 'cos you got PWNED. Apologies if my leet-speak is out of date.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not even close. If you look at my contribs, I spent my time at WR defending the very people that Everyking used WR as a platform to attack. Being banned from WR is an honor as it shows that they can't take anything but sycophants that verify their own ignorance. Everyking's relationship with those like Poetlister at WR is telling of the kind of place that WR is. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And to say that being blocked would be a reason for me to dislike Everyking is to trivialize the years of attacks from Everyking at WR. You cannot simply ignore that. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Shef got my meaning. But I'm also calling anyone who spends time on IRC or WR and then comes over here and talks about it a complete tool. If you don't have the balls to call me out on something to my wikiface, then I don't give a wikishit. That EK is using another website to make fun of people is relevant, but nothing beyond that is important. Why the hell are all you fools using a different website to talk about this website when this website lets you talk ad nauseum about anything? It reeks of gaming the system, and contributes to the impression of cliques dominating things behind the scenes. See? I didn't even need to go on IRC to say that. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That one, I can answer; because WR allows you to talk to (gasp) Evil Banned Users on an equal footing, and while many of said EBUs are obsessive cranks, many others actually do have valid points to make; someone like Greg Kohs, for instance, I'll always take seriously even though I usually disagree with him, as he obviously cares deeply about Wikipedia (even if it's from a "my site can do it better" perspective), and regularly raises points that ought to be raised. I'll freely admit to making numerous edits at the suggestion of some of Wikipedia's most notorious cranks and crackpots, from Kohs to PoetTaxCorn; systems as disparate as the Catholic canonization process and the PageRank configuration process benefit from the injection of negative feedback, and Wikipedia's AGF/NPA culture – while laudable – makes it hard to say "this is just plain wrong" on-wiki. – iride  scent   20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope Iridescent's comment that Wikipedia's AGF/NPA culture makes it hard to say "this is just plain wrong" is ... just plain wrong, otherwise WP's in real trouble. I think a relevant comparison might be with the idea of sportsmanship - you do your best to win the contest, and you also respect your opponent. "Sportsmanship" in that sense is what's been missing from this entire issue. I can't see the whole backstory because WR has covered it up, but what I can see is at least 2 people who show (at present) no understanding of sportsmanship, and are damaging thenselves as a result. --Philcha (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear for anyone that's been here for any amount of time, and involved themselves in the Wikipedia and talk space, that very few are free to "talk ad nauseum about anything". Surely, there are a lot of things discussed ad nauseum on this project, but it is well-known that dissenters often find themselves on the business end of a block. It takes quite a bit to receive the same treatment on WR. Thus, I completely agree with Iridescent's points. لenna  vecia  21:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree; Wikipedians are by and large very intolerant of what they see as aberrant views, not conforming with the groupthink. The whole consensus "discussion" nonsense in this very RfA demonstrates that quite nicely. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As opposed to the Wikipedia Review groupthink which can be neatly summed up as "Read My Blog...If You 'Care"........? ohhhh zero hits on blog.... . Pedro :  Chat  22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pedro, I thought better of you than that. One crank – or even a dozen – on a site, doesn't make every user on the site a crank (or Wikipedia itself would be in serious trouble). Plenty of prominent Wikipedians – from SlimVirgin to Majorly to at least half of Arbcom are active members of WR, for exactly the reasons I've given above; the inertia of 10,000 "we always did it this way" voices makes Wikipedia appallingly bad at discussing and resolving problems internally, as a glance at the history of this very page should demonstrate. –  iride  scent  22:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Iri - I've long been a strong proponent of WR, and have regularly stated that the overall cause (to review Wikipedia in a harsh light) is good - I'll get diffs if you need them. WR is a good thing - but certain memebers are not. That was the response I was giving to the Big M when he refers to group think on this website, and to Philcha more generally. Pedro : Chat  22:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Big M"? Have we ever met? I might be a midget for all you know. I know you're upset with me because I caused your mate Scarian to flip his lid once again, but I'd prefer it if you stuck to the facts. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of those listed above are active members that are there to respond to criticism and are not there to criticize. They are also not the people in charge of Wikipedia Review. Now, ArbCom has had access to information showing which WR members are connected to releasing personal information (in my case especially), as they were CC'd on Moulton's list along with many foundation people. That same personal information was posted by WR members in multiple places. I was not the only person to have had this happen. So, the people who run WR are not the innocent loving Wikipedia users with a small complaint that your comments make them out to be. Just look at their tar pit for all sorts of nastiness and hate. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have to look further than my own talk page for "nastiness and hate". I don't see how wikipedia is occupying any high moral ground here. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You know that I am 100% against his action. However, those same actions done in an area away from any affect from here is even more unacceptable. The staff at WR are trolls who want to celebrate the destruction of Wikipedia. Their close friends and allies are just WikiAnarchists. There is a special place in hell reserved for the hypocrites and traitors. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And maybe for the people who don't know when to step back? This is rapidly turning into a circus atmosphere. David D. (Talk) 05:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what is happening is that if Everyking doesn't strike his blatant personal attacks and lies about hate speech is that this will go up for a ban proposal for him from Wikipedia at ANI. He has done this to dozens of people for over 5 years. He has attacked more people and treated more people like crap than most of trolls here. Do you know how many angry emails I've received from Catholics who watched my talk page and were absolutely horrified by his and Rootology's comments? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "The lurkers support me in email..."--SarekOfVulcanExtra (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe me, just look at the RCC FAC attempt. There are quite a few of us here who have had to put up with attacks like this. If any Arbitrators or Crats want a list of names, they can contact me directly. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll bite: how many of our fellow Catholics mailed you? 2? 4? 6? 8? Tell us. And if you think my defending the technical usage of language based on your off-site comments--you keep deflecting the fact that Everyking characterized your attacks that you posted on Wikipedia Review as hate speech--then please, take me to ANI right now. I feel your language on Wikipedia Review was hate speech, and I feel that any language or speech that aims, seeks to, or promotes the minimizing of legally granted rights to a fellow citizen of my nation qualifies as hate speech. So how many people? And I'm begging you--take it to ANI, or else you will shut up about this or you'll be brought to ANI yourself for attacking myself and Everyking. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can claim to be a Catholic all you want, but you compared the Church to the KKK. That definitely shows that you are here just to troll. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic, is there a need for action regarding Requests for adminship/Everyking 5? If so, perhaps making a notification at the bureaucrats' noticeboard would be a good idea. If not, perhaps this thread ought to be concluded before it digresses further into BADSITES territory. <font face="Goudy Old Style"> Skomorokh 23:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so much BADSITES, as TOOLTIME. ;-) Hiberniantears (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha. Serious. Time for Ottava to let it ride out. لenna  vecia  14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tooltime = Hammer Time = STOP!  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? To which part of MC_Hammer is SheffieldSteel referrign? --Philcha (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch and learn  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion
There are so many things wrong with RfA it would be difficult to know where to start, but here's a suggestion. What about a clear intent to deprecate comments like this one in a current RfA? Supporters slinging mud at opposers, or vice versa is at best unseemly and at worst inflammatory. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, although I believe such an issue is (surprise!) a common concern. Or at least there's been some discussion on it in the past on this page... <font style="color:#000066;"> GARDEN  16:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ... but nothing is ever done to stamp it out. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A potential solution would be to do what dewiki does: a straight vote, with little or no discussion. But there are just as many issues with that system, so... – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This RFA is an example of how not to conduct an RFA, with far too much drama, vitriol, and incivility on both sides. Unfortunately, there are strong emotions on both sides, tempers have flared, and it just needs to burn itself out. It's too late to close the door on the incivility and drama in this one. Hopefully, if people just refrain from responding, it will all die down and sanity will return. Any attempts to suppress what residual feelings remain will only escalate the drama and inflame more anger. Sad, but true.  Dloh  cierekim  16:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We are a consensus based system and not a democracy. The supports and opposes shouldn't mean as much as the arguments. If you want a better system, it would probably be best to have 5 sections based on traits needed to be an effective admin (knowledge, philosophy, behavior, etc) and then have people discuss each one. If they end up positive in each then they become an admin. That is, if we want a system closer to what Wikipedia is about. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't referring to any particular RfA, as this problem is recurring and endemic. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I also would like to make RFA a bit less of a hazing ceremony. I believe some months ago one of the crats struck a vote during an RFA, and of course various crats have mentioned in their summing up that votes opposing RFA promotion in principle are ignored. Personally I don't regard unfocussed comments such as the one Malleus quoted as being as bad  as attacks targetted at a specific editor. I would suggest that !voters at RFA making individual attacks be given reasonable opportunity to supply diffs, and if those are not forthcoming their !vote be removed from that RFA (arguably an attack not supported by diffs should be being removed anyway - but custom and practice at RFA is so far from normal that that would probably be considered too abrupt a change).  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can accept that scatter gun abuse such as I quoted is any less bad than targetted abuse. Indeed Iit may well be even more inflammatory, as there are more targets who may be inclined to respond to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a crazy notion--you leave a negative comment about the candidate anyone on their RFA RFA/RFB/AC/CU/OS elections, you're required to back it with a link to evidence, or it can be struck. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 16:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You've missed the point. I'm talking about negative comments made by opposers about supporters, or vice versa. Candidates have to accept that negative comments will be made about them as well as positive ones. As there is no need to provide evidence in support of positive comments made about a candidate I see no need to provide evidence in support of negative ones either. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, modified. And there should be a requirement for negative sourcing in things like RFA & RFB & AC elections, since WP:AGF is a policy. If nothing else can fix the broken system, maybe a stick can. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * AGF has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact a strict application of AGF would require you to accept that anyone making a negative comment had good grounds for doing so without you requiring evidence. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The comments of supporters and opposers should be uncensored. In the example you cite, the comments reveal a lot more about the voter than a simple "support" or "oppose" would. Hence those comments are useful for the deciders, though maybe not in the way the voter intended. AGF has to do with editing articles, and is irrelevant in RfA's. We need to know as much as possible about both the nominees and the voters. And I say "voters" as a convenient if somewhat misleading reference. If you want to switch it to a pure vote, you would need to canvass every possible editor, rather than the RfA's being left to a small cadre of "RfA fans" as they are now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously suggesting that a vote saying, for instance, "I'm supporting because I think all of the opposers are hypocritical wankers" isn't counted?" What if the majority of a candidate's support votes were along similar lines, with 90% support. Would they all be discounted and the candidate not promoted? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you should ask the deciders a question like that. I'm not an "RfA groupie", so I don't know all the ins and outs of that process. However, if I were a decider, if 90 percent of the supporters made comments like that, and if I weren't lazy, I would start to examine the motives of the opposers and see if they are part of a group that votes "no" all the time, or if their arguments are reasonable and it's the supporters who are off base. If it were the latter, I would probably reject the nominee. However, you've given me an idea. Maybe every supporter and opposer should be accompanied by a graphic that shows a count of his votes in previous RfA's, to better enable the deciders to see if a voter might simply be an obstructionist, like that one guy who always votes no just because he thinks there are "too many admins". That would be in addition to the reasons given, though; not in place of. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The difficult thing about looking at a graphic of an editors voting pattern is that two editors with the same standards can have very different voting patterns. It takes time to properly assess a candidate; a voter who never assesses candidates who have over 85% support would have a much higher oppose rate than a voter with the same standards who doesn't assess candidates who have less than 60% support.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Groomtech's questions
Groomtech is asking a couple of really pointless questions to every RFA. Normally I'd shrug and say to myself "it's just another question templater" but I looked a little deeper. The account has fewer than 50 edits, and their previous account has fewer than 100. I'm not sure what's up with that, but it doesn't seem right to me.  Majorly  talk  21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * His userpage is interesting.  Majorly  talk  21:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the editor aware of this thread. Pedro : Chat  21:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And yes, the 14th edit by this account was this. No-one finds RFA that quickly, and certainly not with that kind of input and edit summary. And yes, incredible though it may seem, I have read AGF before someone points me to it. This looks like another SPA that hides under bridges and eats goats. Pedro : Chat  21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like this is his first account: . – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That account has, as I mentioned, fewer than 100 edits.  Majorly  talk  22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be a name for this sort of editor. Not quite an SPA (as they have edited a few articles), but nevertheless, one of those that hides under bridges, and trying to remove this assocation through the making of trivial article edits.  Majorly  talk  22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Check User - 3 or 4 accounts here looking at the talk pages and links Pedro : Chat  22:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SPI is over thataway. The CU backlog is pretty low right now too… -- Avi (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User:The Wiki House appears to be a role account, judging by the statement on the user page.   Will Beback    talk    22:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Please see Sockpuppet investigations/The Wiki House; please add more evidence if you have. -- Avi (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, lots to respond to here.
 * Firstly, my questions. If Majorly doesn't see the point, he doesn't have to read the answers.  Most, but not all, of the candidates have seen fit to give answers, some quite thoughtful.  I think the point might have been felt by the candidate whose off-the-cuff response (later redacted) clearly showed that they thought of "Wikipedians" and "admins" as being different classes of creature -- that's a reaction which might well influence a decision.  I'm glad Majorly found the discussion on my user page interesting, I look forward to discussing it some time.
 * Secondly, how to find RFA. It's on page 197 of "Wikipedia: the missing manual" by John Broughton and Nan Barber, published by O'Reilly, 2008, ISBN 0596515162 (see the index under "Admininstrators, selection of")
 * Thirdly, may I suggest that "a name for this sort of editor" is "editor". I don't think my edits are all "trivial", though of course opinions may vary.
 * Fourthly, WP:SPI is indeed somewhere else. What a pity no-one has yet felt it necessary to inform any of the users concerned about it.  I'll cheerfully discuss my relationship to other editors now that I have found out about it.  Groomtech (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to defend the status of Groomtech, but I've actually found the answers to his question interesting. It seems not to occur to most candidates that there are two "rights" that are pretty widely acknowledged, the right not to outed, and the right not to be hounded outside of Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it, thanks. I hope everyone feels free to use the questions if they find them useful.  BTW, I gather the "status" issue which you mention is now cleared up too.  Groomtech (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
Hi guys. I'm confident that there is already a page for this and someone will be quick to link me there, but considering I couldn't find it quickly I figure I will ask here as it is related to administrative rights. I got got an email from a group known as the above asking me to donate to them my administrative tools so that they could use it for "freedom fighting." I know there is no way that this sort of behavior is being condoned and it bothers me greatly. You can't tell me that project has gone that far downhill? At any rate, I was disturbed and am willing to be of help fer any assistance I can. Let me know, SorryGuy Talk  05:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Already being looked into: WP:AN. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And here kicks off another discussion on the merits of removing the tools from inactive sysops. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Kickoff... How about we have a bot automatically find administrators inactive for over a year, and sends them an email asking if they object to removal to the tools. If they don't, they're desysopped. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X  clamation point  13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a little slow sometimes. Has anyone noted the connection between User:Groomtech's userpage and this thread?  Dloh  cierekim  13:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I brought this up a while ago here and at WP:VPP. It should be: if you don't use the tools in over a year, then yank them. Just like CheckUser. While the status of being an admin is not supposed to be a big deal, usage of admin tools can be extremely disastrous if placed in the wrong hands (like these "freedom fighters"). MuZemike 18:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a single reason not to desyssop an account that has gone unused for a year.  Dloh  cierekim  18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * With all the problems our world faces today, can we just reflect on how mind bogglingly pathetic someone is if they feel like a digital encyclopedia is the most productive place to start a revolution? Move. Out. Of. Your. Mother's. Basement. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And catch swine flu?! No way! <font style="color:#000066;"> GARDEN 14:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? More people get information from Wikipedia than say the NYTimes.  Dragons flight (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Freeing Wikipedia-- from the Cabal, from the evil admins, from its undemocratic principle's, from it's consensus driven way of doing things-- is not a new concept. This feels like a user that was banned back in 2006(?), who had promised to come back and liberate us from all the ills of the way we do things. He also said he would amass an army of admin level socks. Perhaps this is a new approach  Dloh  cierekim  14:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I must be even slower than Dloh. What is that connexion of which you speak?  Groomtech (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The NYTimes probably wouldn't be my first choice to start a revolution, either. I'd start with a country (possibly a small one, and almost certainly one with lots of sun, sand and rum). Need to move out of my mum's basement first, though ;-) <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 19:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That'll be because of the NYTimes's registration/paygate (: Stifle (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All these so-called freedoms fighters will end up doing is bringing long-lost sysops back into our midsts... So...net positive? ;> –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 19:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be bad karma.  Dloh  cierekim  04:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Groomtech has said he is not connected with this group in any way, and I apologize for getting the wrong impression from his user page, where he calls for "all Wikipedians to unite. That sounded like a something I associate with Freedom Fighting, and wondered what others thought of it, as I was wrongly thinking that he might share sentiments. I apologize for any consternation I have caused. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  21:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Dloh for such a prompt and complete response. Groomtech (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators
While many people criticize User:DougsTech for opposing every admin request. There is a whole bunch of users that I will not mention that Support every admin request, which is awfully more dangerous in my opinion. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;"> South Bay  <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">  (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Elaboration and examples would be nice. — kur  ykh   00:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, please provide some diffs or just use X!'s RfA vote counting tool to point out which users you speak of.--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 (  t  |  c  |  r  |  s  ) 00:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'll go ahead and put myself on the chopping block. I've supported in somewhere north of 90% of all RfAs I've participated in, but that doesn't mean I'm doing it mechanically.  I always actually think about the decision.  Of course, I have supported some RfAs that were obviously not going to pass (and that I would not have supported if they had a chance), but that's only because it sort of defeats the purpose to call it a "moral" support.  So, yes, there are some of us that support an awful lot of RfAs, but I don't think we're "dangerous". Cool3 (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that you're dangerous - it's that a single line of 'per nom' text is no more disruptive than Doug's oppose. You just read it and move to the next. <font color="Navy">Law <font color="Navy">type! <font color="Navy">snype? 01:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We could just say anyone who uses NBD or Why Not as a justification. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Per nom" is shorthand for,. "having reviewed the editor and the nom statement, I concur with it." "Why not" is shorthand for, "having reviewed the editor, I find nothing that would cause me to oppose." Why waste words?  Dloh  cierekim  03:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ↑ Precisely. A "per nom" means you agree with the hundreds—many times thousands—of words you read above. To oppose, you have to specify a good reason. NBD is there for a reason; because it's true. wadester16 | Talk→ 04:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, why not means "I don't care about it, let anyone in regardless of who they are". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * AGF strikes again! :P EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ↑ Precisely. (I should make a template out of that...) wadester16 | Talk→ 08:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's pretty outrageous, Ottava. Just because people have different standards at RFA from you does not warrant that canard. Anyone involved with this project enough to spend hours each day and to participate in RFA does care deeply. Even those with whom I personally disagree. intensely.  Dloh  cierekim  04:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is 100% factual that some people have no standards. That is why RfA is a discussion and not a vote. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want some actual statistics, User talk:I'm Spartacus!/RfA votepercent. The survey is a little old (September 2008), but at the time roughly 23% of the users who were !voting supported 90% of the time or more.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Soutbay, what is objectionable to many of us is not that DougsTech opposes every RFA, but that he offers a specious rationale unrelated to the candidate's merits or demerits. Some see it as making a point. Some see it as disruptive. Such opposes and opposers come and go. There is nothing dangerous in either specious supports or opposes. Wikipedia works by consensus, and some rationales are better, and therefore weightier, than others. I  don't understand the uproar over adding or not adding a rationale for this reason.  The better stated and founded a position is, the more weight it is likely to carry.  Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  05:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the cricitism is that Doug's opposes are valueless, but is "per nom" any more defined?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I only support RfAs. (There was one "oppose" along time ago, though I can't recall why I made that exception). Every editor whom I'd have wanted to oppose was already opposed by enough participants that another negative vote wasn't necessary. But I rarely vote in RFAs so perhaps I'm not a good example.   Will Beback    talk    05:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think SB's concern isn't the occassional supporter such as yourself, but rather the person who supports every RfA.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to mention, since it hasn't been said yet, that an individual supporting every RFA moves the support percentage, mathematically, much less than an individual opposing each RFA will. Not that consensus is dependent on the math, just bringing it up. Useight (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Er how do you figure? If one person in 100 supports, that is 1%.  If one person in 100 opposes, that is still 1%.  Now I think you are talking about the general rule of thumb that it takes 3 supports to counter an oppose?  Thus an oppose is worth 3 times as much?  You might also be referencing the fact that a person who opposes 90% of the time is more likely to be noticed than a person who supports 90% of the time.  Well, if those are your observations, there are a few counters to them.  First, as a person such as DougTech/Kurt stand out due to their opposes, their opposes are more likely to be discounted/discarded by the 'crats.  The 'crats know that DT/Kurt's positions are not respected by the community and thus, their !vote doesn't carry the same 3:1 weight.  Second, the counter does not exist.  As people who support 90% are not noticed, they blend in better, their supports are never discounted---even if they routinely just say "NBD" or "Support" or "Per nom."--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I agree with the likelihood of being discarded and the probability of the 3:1 weight not being taken into consideration. All I was saying is this: if an RFA is at 9/1/0 or 90%, and then the serial supporter adds, making it 10/1/0, it moves to 90.9%. If, instead, a serial opposer adds it moves to 9/2/0 or 81.8%. Based on the math alone, which like you said, isn't even close to being the only thing considered, the numbers can change much more drastically if a serial opposer makes an appearance than if a serial supporter does. So that's how I figure on the numbers, but, yeah, I also agree with the points you make. Useight (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I find myself often in the same situation as Will Beback - in general, I think my admin criteria are a little bit lower than the average in the community; so most of the time if I would have opposed an RfA it's already unlikely to pass and I don't bother piling on. Occasionally I will oppose if I have particularly strong feelings or if the outcome doesn't already look like a foregone conclusion; but it's pretty rare. I imagine my support percentage is very high these days. ~ mazca  t 07:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that any RFA !voters Support every admin request. Looking at Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) I found six RFAs in the last month with only one moral support between them, and that from an editor who I've seen in the oppose column more than once. Of course most of those were only up for a few hours so some of our more supportive !voters may have missed them. I have a support record of over 90% in the RFAs that I appear to have participated in, which I attribute to my RFA criteria being lower in some respects than many. But I rarely if ever !vote neutral - those RFAs in which I have not !voted are a mix of ones closed before I'd had time to assess the candidate, ones I ignored as foregone conclusions and ones I didn't !vote because after assessing them I did not feel able to either support or oppose.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! With the edit count inflation, partly driven by animation, and the "article builder" requirement others have, I often wind up supporting candidates that don't succeed. I joined Wikipedia at a time when it was easier to demonstrate cluefullness. I certainly don't have DYK, or FA, or GA. You really don't need all that to be able to exercise due diligence before using the tools. And all Hugglers aren't bad. Certainly, if you make thousands of patroller edits, it's going to  be hard for others to see your article building. Look at quality, not quantity, and evidence of understanding the button related policies, and a lack of the sort of temperament that would lead to misuse. Most of our candidates are pretty good users. Quite a few are excellent. So, Were, your standards may not be too low. And if this project is to remain a high quality encyclopedia, we will need more admins to mop up the place and show people who mess up the place to the door. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  13:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are indeed a lot of people who support even obviously bad candidates. And, yes "Why not?" is a terrible rationale.  To those asking why not, I offer the big list of bad admins we've had who have wasted so much community time.  But, it seems unpopular for crats to do more than simply count noses, so what's to be done?  Friday (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) Hi Dlohcierekim, I'm aware that my standards are lower than many, and probably quite similar to yours, but I don't regard my standards as too low, if anything I'm probably too strict. However if there are users who are concerned about those of us who frequently support I'm more than happy to discuss my standards either here or here. But I don't accept the label "I don't care about it, let anyone in regardless of who they are" and I doubt if anyone active at RFA does hold that position. Yes I want adminship to be less of the big deal that it currently is, and I believe that most experienced editors should be admins. I don't think it is healthy to have a small admin cadre who must perforce spend a large amount of their Wiki time doing admin work; If we had far more admins then the norm would be for admins to be active experienced members of the community who occasionally also use a mop.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Friday, that should be obvious-- if someone supports based on why not, you tell them! It is more than a "nose count." And if the reason you give to not support carries strength, others will embrace it as well. If enough do, the RFA will not succeed. If sufficient opposition does not arise, then the consensus is that the objection is strong enough to counter the willingness to trust. And looking at the deluge of new articles and edits that are never reviewed, we need more patrollers patrolling and more admins checking there work. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  14:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Friday has two good points there. "Why not" or indeed "NBD" does need to be combined with a proper review of the candidates contributions, talk page and so forth. Also we do need to pay more attention to those we've desysopped,  are there any patterns in their RFAs that could indicate things to look out for in order to screen out similar candidates in future? Conversely are there things that some !voters are looking for at RFA that past experience show to not be predictive as to whether candidates make good admins or not?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  15:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I support nearly every RfA these days, though I do review each candidate thoroughly see User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale . – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading those statistics what I see is what looks to be a bell curve at around 80%. Given it takes 70% to pass and losing in RFA is traumatic (heck winning one often is) that doesn't seem like anything you wouldn't expect to see.  People who go for an RFA are going to be people who think they are likely to make the mark and the voters are splitting close to the way they would be expected to.  jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk  15:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Were, needless to say, reviewing RFA's of de-admined users for patterns has been suggested before. Worthwhile to take another look, though. It's a complex issue.  Dloh  cierekim  15:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I support RFAs of users whose names I am familiar with, and only oppose if there is a good reason to. I always read the oppose opinions, and more often than not, completely disagree with what they are saying, or do not believe what they are saying warrants an oppose.  Majorly  talk  16:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The main difference is that people who support with very little listed rationale are not doing so to be gigantic d-bags. By the same token, people who oppose with minimal explanation are not doing so to be gigantic d-bags. However, people who blanket oppose an inane reason, with exactly the same phrase, are doing so only to be gigantic d-bags. More so when the inane reason looks like little more than pathetic attention seeking gambit. "Look aht mee... a ahm zo deeeep zat a cahn awfer zees ahbstrahct seery ahs to zee zingular gweatest pwoblem wiz zees encyclopeeediah!" Hiberniantears (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So - let me see if I've got this right - we should assume that contributors are acting in good faith, unless there's a good reason to think otherwise? You sir are a dangerous revolutionary. The Wiki Freedom Fighters are over there.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I carefully assess recent edits of candidates, review activity using the soxred counter, read the opposes, and support when I believe that the is no reason think that they will abuse the tools, and oppose or neutral when I have concerns. The result of that practice will vary by individual standards, but for me, it does mean that I support nearly everyone. I do not believe that this is a "dangerous" practice, rather, I think it is very positive.--Res2216firestar 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I could probably consider myself an excellent example of an editor who pretty much always supports RfA candidates. I would only really oppose somebody if I see good reason to believe that they will abuse, or badly misuse the tools &mdash; to me, administrators are not necessarily standards for all Wikipedians to follow, they are (or should be) trusted editors who the community trusts with an extra set of tools to help with maintenance work around the site.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 03:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Tally update bot?
Has anyone ever thought of creating a bot to update the tally's in RfAs. I have been manually updating them quite a bit lately and I notice that there can be several new "votes" added before anyone updates the tally. Anyway, it just seems like a logical area where we would have a bot take care of. I do not personally have the computer skills to create such a bot, but it seems like it would be a tremendous help, no? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, several people have. <font face="Goudy Old Style"> Skomorokh  03:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow! How did you find those so fast!  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was just thinking of ways that could compromise the few opposing views. Right now, the problems are that people update it manually, adding hundreds of useless revisions; RfA is a discussion, not a vote; and that it would just add useless revisions. My idea is that the bot updates a single page in its userspace that contains a element. It would run every 30-60 minutes, and that way, it updates a few RfAs at a time, saving revisions. The template would be transcluded on every RfA, which eliminates the people updating it constantly, and lets people focus more on the RfA itself than the tally. When a 'crat closes the RfA, then they just subst the template, and then the bot can remove it from the template, saving resources. Win-win-win all around. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  04:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like a really good idea. I support.  :)  <font face="Papyrus"><font color=#9966CC>- <font color=#7B68EE>down <font color=#9966CC>load  <font color=#7B68EE>׀ <font color=#8A2BE2>sign!  04:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really great idea, X - you'd solve two problems (manual tallybot + useless revisions) that way.  Flying Toaster  07:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see the issue with extra revisions, but alright... – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember SoxBot V/StatusBot? Although it could be said that this is actually providing a purpose... <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So here's my planned template: User:X!/Tally. And because I'm bored and I don't have a lot to do, . <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  13:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

First update done. Hows it look? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I support this proposal. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 22:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Same here. With X! on it, I'm sure it will be fine.  Syn  ergy 13:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So, I see no opposition. When will this go live on RfAs? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  02:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it going live tomorrow. <font face="Papyrus"><font color=#9966CC>- <font color=#7B68EE>down <font color=#9966CC>load  <font color=#7B68EE>׀ <font color=#8A2BE2>sign!  04:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've thought it out, and all it needs is a simple replacement of: (0/0/0); Scheduled to end +7 days

with:

; Scheduled to end +7 days

on Template:RfA. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  00:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bit of a consensus here so I've gone ahead and added it. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 14:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

proposal
No self noms, require others to nominate you, to reduce Rfas that are clearly wont be success and to weed out bad canditadates. Arma virumque cano (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing SNOW RfA's is part of the process... <font color="#2F4F4F" face="Century">ceran <font color="#2F4F4F" face="Century">thor 20:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But it makes the canditates feel bad and its better to not have them at all Arma virumque cano (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above user (Arma) appears to be an SPI. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a Freudian slip. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I made two self nominations of myself for adminship, but both failed to a massive extent. I don't see a problem with self-nomination, although I believe that nominations by others indicate some trust. I don't see a need for such a ban as it is not helpful and it is excessive. — Mythdon  t / c  20:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As we saw with CoM, there is no practical difference between a self-nom and asking someone else to do it - he still got clobbered, on merit (or lack thereof). I am personally suspicious of self-noms, but am equally suspicious of asking someone else to do it. It's the same thing. But there's no reason to prevent it. As for "feeling bad"... they'll get over it. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some self noms succeed, and I'd be loathe to describe self noms as bad candidates. An automated system that prevented users with fewer than 500 edits self nominating would save dozens of newish editors a year from being badly bitten;  But  I see no need to prevent self noms in general.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  20:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm suspicious of self-noms, but that doesn't mean they don't have merit sometimes. Maybe a minimum number of edits AND a minimum number of months editing would be a useful minimum requirement. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite what Kurt Baseball Bugs feels about self noms, we've had many successful self noms in the past. Heck, we've even had several motions to require that all noms are self noms---and those proposals actually have more merit than the notion to ban self-noms.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Kurt"??? I may make a "curt" comment from time to time, but that's about it. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just being a little silly... slap me with a trout--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide links to the motions? Not that I'm interested though. I just want the links so others can see them. — Mythdon  t / c  22:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know where they are off the top of my head, but the proposals have been along the lines that certain people have too much clout here and that their nominations carry too much clout. If we forced everybody to be a self-nom, then you would "minimalize" the impact of these nominators by relegating them the discussion section.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Outdent to reply to BB. "As for "feeling bad"... they'll get over it." Perhaps they do, but looking at the subsequent contributions of rejected RFA candidates IMHO there are too many good editors whose getting over it involves leaving Wikipedia. The last time we discussed a minimum threshold there were concerns that we should avoid editcountitis, hence I'm now suggesting 500 edits, happy to also stipulate a two month minimum. It would still be possible for an unusual candidate with either less than 500 edits or less than two months tenure to run provided they could persuade an editor who did meet that criteria to nominate them. Looking through Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) since the beginning of March there have been more than a dozen candidates who could not have self nommed if wp:RFA was set to not allow candidates to run unless they had both 500 edits and two months tenure. I doubt if anyone bothered to seriously evaluate any of those candidates; so putting such a threshold at RFA would avoid biting about sixty newbies a year. A threshold for self noms of 750 edits would have ruled out another three candidates, and no blocks in the couple of months would have ruled out at least one more.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

i think edit count is bad but 500 is a clear no no so okArma virumque cano (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsuccessful RfA's
Anonymous D was challenged on his talk page for the wording he used in closing an RfA. Apparently the wording implied that RfA's with less than 50% support were to be closed as "unsuccessful" and those with more than 50% that were closed by a 'crat should be closed as consensus not met. This wording IMO (and echoed by Julian) was wrong. So I changed it. I rephrased it to state that those with less than roughly 70% would be closed as Unsuccessful and those that fell into 'crat discretion would be closed as "consensus not met." I then indicated that 'crat descretion was 70-75% but may be higher or lower depending on the circumstances.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you; RfA's aren't a vote. <font face="Papyrus"><font color=#9966CC>- <font color=#7B68EE>down <font color=#9966CC>load  <font color=#7B68EE>׀ <font color=#8A2BE2>sign!  04:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't we just change it to winners and losers? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends on your definition of "winning" and "losing". I have found that I can be a much more effective vandal hunter without being an admin. >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who "challenged" Anonymous D, though if you read the actual discussion I think you'll see that it was a civil inquiry. It is worth noting that the practice Spartacus is discussing has been used since at least January 2006 - ie. more than 3 years.  The change Spartacus has made implies the range of 'crat discretion is narrower than is suggested by "most of those below ~70% fail" on the RfA page.  The change would require all closes since April 2004 that are currently described as "consensus not reached" to be checked to see whether the need reclassifying based on Spartacus' new definitions.  Further, I think the idea of the distinction is that it gives some idea whether the RfA was majority supported or not.  I can see that being useful in looking to a future RfA, and I see no particular benefit flowing from the work needed on reclassifying the last 5 years worth of unsuccessful RfA's.  EdChem (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I could go for a change like this, but only if the archived unsuccessful RFAs listed there are changed to comply with the new definitions. Useight (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with putting a percentage number on it - that is heading towards a vote. Bureaucrats should have the discretion to weigh the discussion and there may be times when a higher or lower percentage than 70 percent would be appropriate. Dean B (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a number on it before, 50%, this simply moves the cutoff to 70% for archival purposes. Useight (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the 70% number is dangerous in a way that 50% is not. Let's suppose that an RfA closes with 69% support.  Should the closing 'crat class it as "unsuccessful", implying that the percentage was the important thing?  Or should s/he close it as "consensus not reached", implying that the 'crat exercised his or her discretion in deciding not to promote?  If categorised as "unsuccessful", can't a case be made that the 'crat should have exercised her or his discretion as RfA's are not votes - and thus the decision should be reviewed?  If that means that all 69% cases are "consensus not reached" then the cut-off for the "unsuccessful" category is not actually 70%.  Since no serious case can be made for promoting under 'crat discretion at 51% no similar problem arises with the 50% cut-off.  I suspect that most 'crats aren't going to want to define whether borderline cases were decided primarily or numbers or other criteria, which is what the new definitions risk forcing.  EdChem (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which leads into the difficulty of changing the archives to match the new defintions (which have been reverted): the archives would be better refactored by the bureaucrats, which would be no small task. Useight (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, I don't think it really matters. There were a few cases where the !vote was above 50 and closed as unsuccessful and one where it was below 50% and closed as no-consensus.  (But those were clear and rare exceptions).--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked into the history, and for the most part going back to at least august of 08, 'crats have accurately used the original criteria when notating the outcome. As such, I went ahead and self-reverted myself. I do think the criteria should be revisited.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If a bureaucrat had to mull a particular request over a while before deciding not to promote, the "no consensus" wording ought to be used; if the result was clear from the discussion and no judgement call needed from the bureaucrat, call it "unsuccessful". We need to move away from seeing RfA as a vote, just as we have done for AfD. Instead of formalising arbitrary thresholds, we should trust those chosen to assess consensus to do so, and respect their decision as made. <font face="Goudy Old Style"> Skomorokh 06:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, who cares? :( Stifle (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't, I haven't really cared what the specific wording a crat used when preserving an unsuccessful candidacy. If it didn't pass, it didn't pass and consensus was not achieved.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just a matter of sparing hurt feelings. Looking at CoM's RfA, for example, they could be kind, and quote Maxwell Smart: "Missed it by that much!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * come on Bugs ... be nice. ;) — Ched : ?  14:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How about changing the wording to be: This would eliminate all reference to percentages and place it more upon the individual 'crat as to how it was closed. Was the final outcome obviously a failure or did the 'crat have to closely review the RfA?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * unsuccessful means the voice of the community clearly indicated that the candidate was not ready, at the present time, to become an admin.
 * consensus not reached means the candidate received enough !votes in support that the final decision fell, in part, on bureaucrat to measure the strength of argument.

I think we need a thread on ageism or blanket opposes or WikiProject endorsements or something... Getting down to the bottom of the barrel on things to argue over with this one ;-) <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T (formerly Avruch) 14:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know Nathan, I think it's a very valid topic. I'm personally not one to support or oppose based on "age"; but, User:Malleus Fatuorum, as cold and insensitive as his posts can appear, really does have some valid points at times.  Sometimes what looks good on paper, doesn't always play out quite as well in the field.  Depending on the areas that admins work in, they can come under some pretty unsavory posts and accusations.  An editor who is very young in physical age could be adversely affected by some nasty remarks.  As long as an editor has been around long enough to understand that some crappy attack text written on a web page shouldn't be taken personally, and the candidate is mature enough to not get all "bent-out-of-shape" by USENET type text - then I think it's fine to ignore the age issue.  BUT - that is a pretty big "if" indeed.  Not a "bottom of the barrel" issue at all I think.  The bottom line is: it depends on the individual candidate, are they wiki-qualified, and can they handle adversity in a mature manner. — Ched :  ?  15:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ageism is a valid discussion, sure - I was contrasting it to this current topic, which is a little less earth shattering in importance ;-) <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T (formerly Avruch) 17:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I like "consensus not reached" as a polite way to describe the conclusion of any unsuccessful RfA that received a substantial amount of support and ran for its full duration. I presume that a desire to avoid embarrassment is one reason why many borderline RfAs are withdrawn by the candidate before they run the full duration (and also is a reason why many potential candidates are reluctant to be nominated), which leads me to think that it's a good idea to make the closure as unembarrassing as possible when a candidate bravely chooses not to withdraw. --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Terminology, as I understand it and have used it:
 * unsuccessful - less than 50%
 * no consensus - more than 50% but not successful
 * successful - ...really? I need to define that?

Just my two cents. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever decision is reached here, I don't think that crats should be expected to trawl through archived RfAs trying to figure out which need to be changed. They are called "archives" for a reason, and changing them retrospectively is revisionist wonkery. Thank you.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 16:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @EVula. successful defined: Means, you asked for it - now you're stuck with it .. lol. ;) (note: That's a collective, in general, "you" - not a "EVula" specifically "you") — Ched :  ?  17:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this distinction between "unsuccessful" and "no consensus" is a very good idaa. It gives editors like myself and Ottava Rima something to aim for. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite aimless to have a protracted discussion about this, really. I've changed the RfA to reflect the norm; it's a "no consensus" now. Still, I would urge the changing of the practice here. Something is either successful or unsuccessful. A third definition is completely redundant, in my eyes. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 17:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I support the current system, as described by EVula above. Indeed, I just reverted the description of BQZip01's RFA on Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) here - admittedly before seeing this thread. This system makes it extremely simple to list an RFA without having to make a judgement call about whether it fell into the 'not successful' or 'closed by crat discretion' zones. Besides, I like the description of RFAs that failed at 50%+ as 'consensus not reached' - it indicates that there was, in fact, majority support for this user becoming an admin; just not consensus, as we define it here at RFA. Robofish (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are such descriptors really necessary? I think the tally speaks for itself; and usually the two are located next to one another. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 17:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't strictly necessary, no - but for the sake of the extra effort it involves (none) it's nice to describe a close RfA as "not quite enough support" rather than "failed". I don't think anyone's going to break down in tears because their RfA was "unsuccessful" rather than "no consensus", but I see no reason not to use the more encouraging phrasing for the less-blatant failed RfAs. ~ mazca  t 17:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why I don't use the descriptors at all; see RfA/CRGreathouse for an example. I just say that I closed it, and leave the "pass/fail" commentary in the hands of the closing templates (both the verbiage and the colored backgrounds). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 02:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)