Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-08-07/Features and admins

Correction?
Ambuj.Saxena is the third user to have an RfA supported by over 100 users, yet fail to be promoted to admin status, joining CSCWEM's first nomination, and Rob Church's fourth nomination.

That's not entirely correct; my second RfA had that dubious distinction as well (although I withdrew instead of waiting for a bureaucrat to close it; perhaps that's different). --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 12:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should have commented here instead of on IanManka's talk page. Of course, at the time, this page was just a pretty red link ;). NoSeptember  19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the real story of the Saxena RfA was that it reached 87-1 approval at 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC), when a key comment from a well-known administrator led to a sudden reversal. The RfA was also extended for a number of hours with no explanation, which became controversial as well. To top things off, the final close came on 110-40, less than two percentage points below the 75% threshold. (Sean Black was recently re-admined with a lower percentage.) A lot of very sharp commentary followed on the nomination's talk page and elsewhere. The sheer volume of support for Saxena was important, but the brief story in the Signpost misses all the drama of the nomination. Casey Abell 13:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that was the tip, but I made the dubious mistake when writing the phrase in question to not include all the controversy, lest I get it wrong entirely. It was my first Signpost contribution, and I didn't wanna screw anything up. Perhaps you would like to write a little portion for next week's column?


 * And yes, I did mess up in regards to your RfA, Joturner. This will be corrected for next issue. See my talk page and my response to NoSeptember found here (responded to before reading this talk page). I'll be sure to mention these next week in the Signpost. In my conscious effort to not mess up, it seems I just did that. Sorry again, and feel free to comment further on this column here. Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that people enjoy controversy and that RfA was quite unusual. I guess one way to be sure you don't make a major mistake is to ask a few supporters from each side of a controversy to read the article before publication and give you feedback as to accuracy and POV. Welcome aboard, our newest Wikipedia journalist :).  NoSeptember  18:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to sound harsh in my criticism, but this RfA was a doozy and really deserves thorough coverage. Feel free to use my little paragraph for a starting-point. I've been invited to write for the Signpost before, but I have to wimp out because I'm afraid it would cut into my article-writing time. Also, I'd probably be a little too flip for a halfway decent journalist. And I agree with NoSeptember that any article should get a going-over from at least Ambuj Saxena himself and SlimVirgin, and probably some other editors who were involved, to make sure that it's balanced and comprehensive. Casey Abell 22:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I have my work cut out for me the next week. :P If it is any consolation, I added those things very close to the deadline, so needless to say, I may not have been able to get clearance from SlimVirgin and Ambuj.Saxena in time. *sigh*, excuses excuses.... Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the involved parties are necessarily the best contacts. Sometimes a supporter who is not as emotionally involved works best. And you can never satisfy everybody, nor should you, an accurate NPOV article is more important than keeping people happy. NoSeptember  09:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Lessons
Perhaps we have to draw lessons from such RfAs, and introduce the required changes in the system. For the sake of posterity, I am giving a link to Ambuj's RfA discussion page: The Herd Mentality. --Bhadani 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I find it disheartening that Ambuj's reputation and body of work were dashed by just a few statements. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 17:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes Indeed. --Bhadani 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)