Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Philafrenzy

Re: James500's vote (moved from main page)
Support. I am sure that Philafrenzy would make an excellent admin. James500 (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It should probably be noted that the above vote appears to have been made in bad faith. James hasn't contributed to RFA at all in over three years, and hasn't contributed significantly to RFA in seven years (one in 2014, one in 2013, one in 2012, and a whole bunch in the spring-fall of 2011), so his showing up here shortly after I did and voting the opposite way to me, especially given his recently having conflicted with me at, for example, WT:NBOOK, as well as his history of hounding me by, for example, requesting the unblocking of an editor for apparently no reason other than that they were blocked, in part, for trolling me, is difficult to take in good faith, and his refusal to offer an explanation when asked just makes this all the more suspect. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hijiri, your comments are an almost perfect example of how not to use circumstantial "evidence" (in scare quotes). I have the RfA analysis template on my user page. It has Philafrenzy's name on it right now. I have interacted with him at various venues for many years and have seen only good things. I have recently come back from a wikibreak of several years, and this is the first RfA about someone that I know well enough to make a judgement on that I have had time to read. There are nearly a hundred editors at this AfD, many of whom I know quite well. You need to stop assuming that actions of every other editor revolve around you. They do not. Stop thinking that everything is about you. Stop. James500 (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with James here. Let's let it be. Lourdes  10:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I never said "everything is about me" or "the actions of every other editor revolve around me". I had compelling reasons to believe that the above vote was an act of bad faith, based on the demonstrated history of the above editor acting bad faith. I asked for a good faith explanation and was not given one, so I posted the above. Now that an apparent good faith explanation has been offered (I say "apparent" because I have no effective way to check if "this is the first RfA about someone that I know well enough to make a judgement on that I have had time to read" is true -- I very much doubt it has been true since 2011, and the break only last two years, not seven or even four), I will happily drop it, but I would appreciate the above off-topic and completely unnecessary accusations against me (which are essentially a repetition of the harassment I was subjected to a few weeks back) being stricken. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. I went and checked. The candidate and James500 have never interacted on en.wiki before, and I see no evidence that they have interacted elsewhere (or how that would be relevant -- anyway it seems the only project they've both edited more than 27 times is Commons, but I don't know how to check interactions on Commons), so the above "apparent good faith explanation" is a transparent lie even if we don't consider the fact that many editors James has interacted with before have no doubt come to RFA since 2011, and that James's above explanation for how he was even aware of this doesn't make sense unless he logs on every morning and scrolls down his own userpage. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Moved to talk page.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  10:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I really wish folks would wait a bit before doing things like that. I barely had time to look at the evidence before my comments were removed. I don't know if these kind of discussions on RFA talk pages are taken into consideration (I know they are not with AFDs), but ... yeah. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , actually, you do have a way of checking whether or not there is any truth in the claims (I have interacted with him in various venues and this is the first RfA about someone I know well enough to make a judgement on). There's always the editor interaction analyzer to see editor overlap. For the record, Phil and James have zero history of interactions (edits spaced months and years apart do not constitute interactions) strike reason: Evidence of interactions provided, missed because none of it showed up on EIA for some reason. Compare and contrast the overlap between James500 and Hijiri88. Your choice what you do with that information, but this isn't the venue to pursue any of that. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually noticed that independently. James is a serial liar, with a demonstrable history of attempting to cover his tracks when it comes to his own misbehaviour (see his infamous "don't bold your !votes" essay), so I wouldn't be at all surprised if the above is a total fabrication. In light of this, I have stricken my above retraction, and would like to ask 's permission to move it (or some portion thereof) back to the main page, given that there is now no notice anywhere near James's vote itself that it appears to have been made in bad faith. I don't doubt Audacity's good faith in the matter, and have no doubt that had I not initially jumped the gun and assumed good faith to the point of insanity my comments would not have been removed from the main RFA. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought this discussion was over; seeing that it's not, I inserted a comment so those who are interested can follow it here, without cluttering up the main RFA.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  11:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since this isn't really relevant to whether Philafrenzy would be a good admin, but is about James500, I don't think this needs to be on the main RfA page (a note is enough) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Your tool doesn't work. See for example Articles for deletion/Romie Tager. If you want, I will try to find more examples. James500 (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC) I was also at the DRV for that. Another one is Articles for deletion/5 Pump Court Chambers and IIRC there are several other AfDs on chambers in the Inns of Court. I also recall seeing Philafrenzy bringing a lot of AfDs for law firms including that silly work stress firm. Also a French stamp collecting thing, possibly a journal. There's probably more I have forgotten. The point is that I have seen Philafrenzy around a lot. And I have seen enough to conclude that I like his style. James500 (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC) The Editor Interaction Analyser is a cherry picking piece of junk. James500 (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you've only ever interacted with him on AFD discussions where you didn't bold your !votes apparently because you were trying to avoid the automated analysis tools recognizing you (which you called hounding), and now you are complaining that said tools are "cherry picking pieces of junk"? Anyway, if the only places you have interacted with him are AFDs where he agreed with you, I still don't buy your excuse. There are probably dozens of editors who've come to RFA in the five years you've been active on-wiki but not on RFA on whom you didn't comment, so your showing up here less than an hour after me is still very questionable. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that I am also familiar with his work such as at the King's Bench Walk article because I have been following these areas of the project. And I'm sure we've both edited some of those articles. Your probability argument is simply a logical fallacy. Especially as I have been inactive for several years until a few months ago. James500 (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC) For that matter, there are nearly a hundred editors at this AfD. How can you justify the argument that I must be following you and not, say, this chap. Or one of the many other people who are here whom I have known for years. And that is one reason why your argument would not stand up in a court of law. You have failed to apply the anthropic principle (no one is special). James500 (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop referring to this RFA as an AFD. It makes it look like you are just copy-pasting a stock response to a hounding accusation you received somewhere else. I have no idea why you did it once, let alone twice, and I don't really care to try to figure out. I suspect I'll be happier that way. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@User:Mr rnddude: Could you please look at this, admit that the interaction tool doesn't work and strike your "zero interaction" comment above. James500 (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC) If you want to find interaction, you do it like this:. And, lo and behold... there's lots of interaction. There's no guarantee that's complete either. James500 (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The vast, vast majority of those are likely duplicates, or false positives resulting your name appearing on a log of multiple AFDs/DRVs/whatever with his. The low figure cited below, which includes all the concrete ones you have cited, seems more reasonable. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Changing some of the parameters on tool and it works, . ~ GB fan 12:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck. There's some interaction, not none. Fair enough. I did not receive your ping, just so you know. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No comment on the meat of this thread, but I was also surprised that the tool showed little interaction between Philafrenzy and I, since I'm quite sure I've seen his/her name around. Perhaps the reason setting a date range works is because the tool only checks the last X thousand edits, and Philafrenzy has an awful lot? Pinging . &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that could be the reason, since (and I just noticed this now) it says James500's interaction with Phil on Phil's talk page was two years apart (!), but the actual timeline page gives 13 hours (naturally!) while two years are not mentioned, and the actual edits James500 made to the page were way back in February 2014, or around 7,700 edits ago. I'm not sure why that would happen, but while 's fix does fix it, doing so without the dates does it as well, so... wait... maybe it is. Screw it. Not being able to rely on these tools is really frustrating; nothing at the tool's home page implies it only works with a certain max number of edits by the editor who made the larger number of edits (or whatever) and so changing the namespace or date range can give more accurate results... >.< Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Gosh Yet another example why lengthy discussions about any vote never really changes those votes. And accusations of "bad faith" rarely improve cordiality much.   A cursory use of the regular Wikipedia Search box shows a lot of interaction between the two, by the way.  Collect (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment an open RFA is advertised on every watchlist. James500 routinely !votes keep at AfD, and Philafrenzy has created a lot of articles.  That's more than enough explanation for his participation at this RFA.  The suggestion that his vote is a bad-faith attack on Hijiri is so absurd as to make me question Hijiri's competence. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

User:L3X1's detailed reasoning
Transferred here as the complex formatting breaks the support numbering... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and my apologies as well. Because this is on the talk page should I remove the cot/cob, ? Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  18:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keeping in mind that I do not know Philafrenzy well and I think DYK work to be a minor achievement, nor am I swayed by content creation, I think Philafrenzy has the skills to BPD and will not abuse them, as no damning exvidence has been brought forth to the contrary. Analysis of AFD work here shows nothing improper, I can't expect everyone to go to an AFD every other day and have thousands on tap, but it isn't redder than my feet after kicking spam pages to the waste bin. Let's check out the Xtools.
 * Edit count: decent
 * deleted edits under 5%: √
 * Thanks: 1909
 * Approves and Patrols: low, but that's not everyone's forte
 * awareness of other projects: exists
 * SA editing (personally I don't really care but other do): 20%
 * Project areas: Mostly mainspace, but sufficient Wikipedia-, Talk- and User Talks
 * Noticeboards activity: 50 to AIV and ANI, enough to prove knowledge of existence. Some people have expressed displeasure/disapproval about the lowness of those numbers, I will point out that there is a sizeable group of editors who won't touch ANI with a three meter stick, and believe that us ordinary non admins should not "meddle in the turf of adminz". I disagree with that line in its entirety, but you can't please everyone. As for AIV, exist long enough on Wikipedia and you will come across active vandals that you will have to report. If you aren't monitoring the Special:Recent XYZs pages or using other tools, that number is not going to be spectacularily high. Once again, can't please everyone, but these numbers cannot be used to support a line of complete inexperience with these areas or assume bad faith about Crazy Stamp's ability to mop with care.

So from the Xtools, nothing troubling. Clean blocklog can be noted as well. Now I will look at the opposes for anything that might remove my faith that Philafrenzy has not only the basic ability BPD with care, but has no malice to misuse the Mop. I won't do myself or P a disservice by line by line commenting or refuting, so here are the highlights of what I get from reading through the O'Pposes. I have to take the opinions of editors I respect such as Fram, Drmies, Barkeep, TB, Swarm, and Katie, against the opinions of editors I respect such as 78.26, Ritchie, RedRose, Beeblebrox, and Deb. In regards to Q11, I think a reminder that they are contrary to our policies is incorrect can be given and then we be on our merry way. Considering how large and vehement the backlash (hostile environment?) to paid editing is at the moment here on en.Wiki, I don't see that one incorrect reading of a policy to be the end of the world, esp in context of the rest of Phila's reply. Also, my opinion of Close Paraphrasing doesn't apply here.


 * I just wanted to mention that the percentage of deleted edits isn't very significant one way or the other. Editing a page that is subsequently deleted counts as a deleted edit. It may be a very good edit. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Question
User:PCHS-NJROTC, I am going to have to ask you to not ask that question of yours again-- "I realize this isn't your primary area of interest, but assume it is May 23, 2016, you have been asked to help with a backlog at WP:AIV, and someone has reported this fictitious IP address. There has been no edits from the IP in four hours. What do you do? (Pay close attention to the talk page comments.)" kind of wiggled out of it, and with good reason, since it is entirely unclear what you're asking. First of all, why is it May 23, 2016? The last date on the talk page is "May 2015". Second, the IP is fictitious so there is no way in which we can gauge the IP's edits. Third, I suppose you want the candidate to say something like "but look at all the GA nominations", and I guess you want them to say "but there have been no warnings", but here also, since there are no contributions there can be no assessment. Fourth, "there have been no edits in the past four hours"--but of course we don't know what those edits were.

Anyway, the right answer is, of course, "four hours is so long ago that it makes little sense to block the IP now." Except that the other day I blocked an IP for a couple of months since it had been producing the same kind of vandal edits for years. And in this case you have an IP from which similar GAs and FAs are produced, so this is static. In fact, there are fishy things going on. In February 2005 someone who claims to be "User:WhiteHatHacker" leaves a warning message--but inside that message is your username. In January 2007, someone called "Walker, Texas" places a rather vague warning on the talk page, as if they'd never heard of Don't template the regulars (the IP already has 5 GAs and three FAs). I do not understand the reason for the block in 2007, nor the one in 2008. Then, somewhat inexplicably, there's another warning in 2015, from User:Vandalism is stupid--and that same admin then goes on to block the account and to deny an unblock request, which is totally against the rules. So what is our candidate supposed to make of all this? This entire narrative has way too many hypotheticals and unknowns, and I wish you wouldn't put candidates through this. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am looking for people who are going to say "they can just make an account." If someone says that in this scenario (and I have seen it before), they don't need to be an admin. I could call out a couple of admins as examples of what I do NOT want to see any more of, but that's just going to start arguments. Some people are going to disagree with me on this, but instituting unnecessary blocks isn't just heavy handed, it is outright disruptive to this open wiki project, and I want to see that behavior cease as the admins that do it eventually retire. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 15:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope I just indicated to you that there are many, many different answers here, and to make someone do all that for your set-up is really too far-fetched: you don't really care what they say as long as they don't say that one thing. And I don't like the idea that you essentially set a trap; that's not how RfA is supposed to work. No, I protest this question, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'll second Drmies' concerns here. There is no reason to make up some lengthy, convoluted, fictitious talk page in order to misdirect someone into answering a question you aren't even really asking. Additionally, it doesn't even really make sense. Suggesting that someone would be better off creating an account where they possibly share an IP or use a public computer is enough for you to think someone doesn't deserve to be an admin? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Nihlus  15:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * ,, concuring with , I'll explain a little more to help you:
 * You almost invariably ask a question of this type, or a very convoluted scenario, when you vote on RfA. This often has no bearing on where the candidate intends to focus his or her work as an admin.
 * Most voters do not see the need to pose a question every time.
 * You flagrantly disregard the rules regarding user questions: some of your 'questions' are as many as 6 questions masquerading as one.
 * Such questions are precisely one of the main reasons why many editors are disinclined to run for adminship.
 * Answering user questions is optional.
 * Some nominators counsel their candidates to disregard irrelevant or trick questions.
 * If your questioning becomes a disruptive pattern, you could be facing a community bid for a T-Ban from RfA. (whether it succeeds or not is another matter).
 * I hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally I think the candidate gave a very good answer to that question. It was out of his area of expertise, and he admitted it. There are many areas for admins to work in. It is good that this candidate didn't try to bluff it out. I agree also that this kind of gotcha question is not a good idea. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it was a gotcha question, but that doesn't mean anything in it was out of the area of 's expertise. I think they read the question very well (as loaded and unfair) and just avoided it in a diplomatic way. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * was already warned about his disregard for the rules nearly 3 months ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You call that a warning? No, what your diff shows is that he was notified that there's a two question limit, and that's because he asked three questions at a previous RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite
I just have to know what the "extremely fishy self-promotional issue" is. Normally these sort of self-promotional articles just regurgitate the blurbs on the back cover of the book, and the self-promotional tone is evident (as it is here). The article in question is nether well-written now well sourced, which is disappointing considering that we now know it was professionally written. The only interesting point I spotted was that she claimed to have ghost-written Samantha Geimer's book, an unverified claim that somehow still remains in the article. (My favourite bit, though, is that she wrote letters to Penthouse.)  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  14:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. It's a sentence located in the ghost-writing section. w umbolo   ^^^  14:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And, that sentence is?!? Lourdes  14:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Guardian quote would be my guess. It's too grandiose for a third-party to put it into the article. It's the only thing that really stood out to me as "ok, we get it, you're a legendarily good writer" when I read the article. The Guardian did write that though, but they were talking about Samantha Geimer, not Judith Newman. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added another reference to the article, supporting the claim that she was the ghost-writer.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  15:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, in their question, Wumbolo titled the sentence to represent an "extremely fishy COI self-promotion issue". I would have expected such an extremely fishy COI self-promotion statement to be astutely visible to any normal editor. If it's not evidently visible to me, or to a plethora of other editors, then I fail to see why it should be a make-or-break query. I'm sure wumbolo did not mean it that way. Andrew's link which he posted in the main RfA page is obviously self-explanatory. But I'll still await Wumbolo's expose on the self-promotion issue. Lourdes  15:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. What I was originally referring to is the ghost writing section in general. The link posted by Andrew is an explanation of the COI editing, but the ghostwriting content is suspicious since it was assembled too well. w umbolo   ^^^  15:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment for me it was the section header, You Make Me Feel Like An Unnatural Woman: Diary of a New (Older) Mother Published April 21, 2004. That is a book ref, when copied to Amazon, takes you to the page for the book. It is exactly named in that manner to enable lookup. When you look at the article, you zoom into it. It is easy to see, positioned as it is, at the top of the article, at eye level on a 15inch laptop screen, the most common type. I don't believe the ghost writing section is particularly suspicious or particularly complex in terms of the written word. scope_creep (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

General comment
Saddened that this candidate, unless there is a reversal in sentiment, is not likely to prevail in this RfA. It is a reflection of the way the system is unforgiving: bad or poor administrators are not easily demoted, so getting through an RfA is not easy. That is why there are so few RfAs. People don't want to undergo this kind of proceeding. If there is a need for more administrators this process has to change. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's at 71% right now, so will probably go to a crat chat. What the crats will decide though, is anyone's guess. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Not only is an oppose vote worth two supports, but if it goes to a crat chat they give them greater weight still. So RfAs always want to avoid a crat chat.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  14:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The last RFA, which failed with almost 70% support, showed that the process is still not fit for purpose IMHO, particularly given the demonstrable need for more admins to step up. I personally am starting to think we should set the bar at supermajority (66%) and not have crat chats except in exceptional circumstances. Serious problems always seem to cause an exodus of supports anyway, so I think the community is already self regulating this process without a need for 10 editors to have an arbitrary supervote. Obviously that's not going to help here &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , if we need more admins, then we should be trying to raise people up to a certain standard rather than lowering our standards to include those that may not necessarily be qualified. Nihlus  17:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That only follows if the lower-current-standard [would-be] admins are worse, on average, than the average of the current active and recent crop. Dunno if that is true. Qwirkle (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the "standards" are different for everyone who turns up and !vote. Different people want different things, and unless you've got somebody who covers enough bases for the whole !voting electorate, it doesn't happen. As I've said elsewhere, I can think of three editors who I think would be very good at covering copyvios as admins and who I would support at RfA. One doesn't want to do it, despite repeated asking for about 18 months, one would fail on activity levels, one would fail on civility. You can't win. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , you want inactive and uncivil admins? Nihlus  19:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That wasn't really what I was getting at. I would prefer active and civil admins (and your definition of "active" and "civil" may be different from mine - for example, I don't think "oh for pete's sake that was a terrible block, just undo it now before I drag you to the dramaboard" violates WP:CIVIL but your mileage may vary), but is a perennial backlog at CCI a price worth paying for it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been mulling this over today. I don't think there'll be a consensus for the change, but what if we dropped the "pass" mark to a supermajority (ie: 67% down from 75%) and the "crat chat" area as a majority (ie: 50% down from 65%). If a candidate is problematic, opposers simply have to put up a good solid argument that others will agree with, and we should still get an appropriate result. It still means anyone who gets the bit does so because most people wanted them to. I'm also sure there have been numerous discussions about no correlation between a narrow RfA pass and getting desysopped for cause. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, so? That’s only relevant if desysopping for cause is based on the same sorts of grounds that makes a candidate barely squeak by an RfA, and that clearly is not so. If one of the plebs were caught doing something that could get an admin booted, it is extremely unlikely they’d even run. Qwirkle (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why have crat chats at all? Do they add value to the process? I'm all for giving 'crats a bit of discretion to discount particularly bad arguments, but I don't think we should have a defined "zone" for creating a second crat-only vote. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Ritchie meant "discretionary" rather than "crat chat," although the former certainly may lead to the latter if needed. I don't think Ritchie meant to propose two large changes, just one. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 20:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the overall process is so capricious and potentially vicious that you'd have to have your head examined before running if you fall into one of two categories: 1) You have engaged in disputes and have made enemies, or 2) you have possibly done things in the past that can be seized and used against you. I know very few active Wikipedians who can be quite sure that they don't fall into one of those two categories. If they do, the humiliation, the trial by fire, the general stress they would be subjected to is just not worth it. Better to not even try. I think we all know this, but then we complain that we don't have enough admins! Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're using unwarranted hyperbole (vicious? capricious?). The whole point of an RfA is to examine a candidates record and that's what we're seeing here. Oppose !voters have concerns about the candidate that they have generally expressed in a reasonable manner. Many support !voters (myself included) have a different take on the candidate and have also generally expressed ourselves in a reasonable manner. There is no requirement that every RfA be successful (though, I hope, this one will be) but if the process is conducted in a reasonably discursive fashion, then what's the problem? --regentspark (comment) 13:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing hyperbolic about it. ’s recent RfA contained implications that would, in a more serious venue than Wiki, clearly be actionable. Qwirkle (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regentspark, I wasn't knocking the opposers. However, I think that some empathy needs to be shown for candidates, and also an understanding that this is no way to run a railroad if we want more admins. I also agree with the point raised by 1l2l3k below. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This RFA seems to me very unfair. I clearly explained how the examples on close paraphrasing were under WP:LIMITED, but when people make up their minds, they will claim TLDR and not move easily from their position. I hope that the crats can switch it around. Overturning a 65-75% into a positive outcome is possible, by looking at this page, such as this, or this, although recent chats have been more conservative. In case of a negative outcome (which I think would be unnecessary, and I really don't wish), I think Philafrenzy should by all means retry next year. He definitively comes out very well in my eyes in this RfA. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well this went south rather quickly. From 72% at one stage yesterday to 64% now.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 65% at the time it should have closed. Don't forget the 1%! Philafrenzy (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as "should have closed". It closes when a crat does so, and the percentage is at that point, not at exactly 7 days from being filed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was just making a humorous aside. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * yah, and the crats made it clear at the last RFA that they might have taken it into account if there had been a large swing after the end of the scheduled time. It doesn't really matter here I would think, but I hope a crat comes along soon. Those guys don't get called upon very often, but this is one time when they're needed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , this is very obviously a case where it is not needed. Nihlus  13:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , given some of the factual errors in the oppose votes, such as citing articles I did not create, images I did not upload, and references I did not format, it might be appropriate. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , 64% is outside the discretionary range of the bureaucrats. While nothing is impossible, it is extremely unlikely anything will change the close. Nihlus  13:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be right Nihlus but I don't see why I shouldn't have the benefit of the process since it only went to 64% at the last moment just before it closed. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You can ask that question at WP:BN if you think the matter should be reconsidered, Philafrenzy. Ultimately the decision to promote or not is up to them. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have asked the closer on my talk. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to have closed as unsuccessful. But 65% at the scheduled time. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I came to change my neutral to support but didn't when I saw there was zero time left. That was before others switched their votes and before it was officially closed. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This process is just so fucking broken. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Looks like Requests for adminship/L235 is sailing through without any problem. So much for a broken process... --Randykitty (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that sometimes RFAs approve candidates doesn't mean the process isn't broken. But you probably knew that already. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)