Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/silsor 2

Requests for removal of permissions are automatically granted and do not require a vote. I am closing this request as successful, untranscluding the page, and moving the request to Requests for permissions for the stewards to act upon. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Finally, a sane action. N (t/c) 23:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to note, for the record, that Silsor appears to be waffling on his request, see Requests for permissions. I find this to be tiresome. We have plenty of problems at RFA without having to deal with frivilous and out-of-process requests and the rancor that ensues. I note that at least one of the stewards has stated that they will not act on self-de-adminship requests made on a local wiki, instead requiring them to be made at meta. I applaud this stance because it will allow us to remove any future requests for de-adminship, confirmation, etc. immediately simply because they will not be acted upon by the stewards regardless of outcome. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * UninvitedCompany, I'm not sure 'waffling' is the right word here. All silsor wanted was to allow this straw poll to run its course. He is familiar enough with our procedures to know how to approach a steward, if all he wanted was a quick change of permissions. True, WP:RFA is not the normal place for what is essentially a self-RfC, but on the other hand, it is no more disruptive than any other disputed RfA, the likes of which we get dozens a month.
 * Technically, as you correctly point out, a request for demotion belongs on Requests_for_permissions. However, considering silsor is one of the most dedicated, long-time members of this community, combined with the fact that he never had the opportunity to go through an RfA (having been promoted before this process was put in place), I think an exception should be made, and his request, pointless as it may seem to some of us, be granted.
 * This non-RfA has been moved back and forth from the main page no less than seven times, with several well-respected Wikipedians voicing their opinion on both sides of the debate. I doubt anyone would dare to revert your action; it is up to you, UninvitedCompany, to undo your action, and allow silsor the three remaining days of this harmless exercise, if only in recognition for his long, productive service as an admin. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see also my reply to Gurubrahma here. Owen&times; &#9742;  19:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that, if silsor were a bit more forthcoming about what exactly the reason for his request is (even if it's merely "I was promoted before RFA and wanted to find out what it's like"), instead of making vague comments about "the diseased way they look at RFA" and "where RFA and en-wiki-adminship have gone so badly wrong", everyone would be more inclined to humor him. Kirill Lokshin 19:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought I had been clear enough already, but since people still think I'm just being disruptive, here's some more clarification. I think that RFA is broken for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to:
 * its resemblance to a popularity contest
 * its tendency for users to vote without seriously reviewing the nominee's edit history
 * its tendency for users to oppose nominees for personal reasons
 * the way people treat adminship like a huge serious deal, which increases tensions on the wiki
 * See the ongoing wikien-l threads "RFA idiocy" and "RFA is embarrassing" for some thoughts from various other users on this matter. By my RFA, or whatever you want to call it, I hoped to present RFA with an unusual situation in order to watch the most unusual results from whatever mentalities people have going into an RFA.  I planned to write down everything I saw there and make suggestions about how to improve RFA.  I also fully intended to go through with deadminning myself so that this would not be an empty action.
 * RFA is still turning out many good results (most RFAs go well) but I hope to make it better. silsor 20:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I share your view that RFA is broken. Indeed, that view is widely held.  Further, I share most of your sentiments on the particulars.  On the other hand I don't believe that your breaching experiment has been particularly insightful, helpful, or communicative.  I am happy to discuss problems and solutions wrt RFA with anyone, and work towards improved policy.  I believe the WP community has become too large for such discussions to be effective when they involve the community, as the recent AfD debacle has shown.  The answer is to find a way to get a smaller group together to work on policy proposals and then present them to the community at large for comment.  Not very Wiki, I realize, but I don't think there is any other way forward.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been planning to discuss any insight that may occur after it is over.  I've never heard of breaching experiments before but that was an interesting read. I haven't yet decided whether the full wiki process can still scale. silsor 05:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)