Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 35

message: I delisted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Private Butcher because the user seems to have left (or at least has some problems). Would a bureaucrat please close the nomination. Broken S 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need a bureaucrat for that. It's just like non-admins can close AfD's, but only if they result isn't delete. Non-bureaucrats can close RfA's, but only if the result isn't promote. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured that might be so, but where are the instructions? I have never closed an RfA. Broken S 23:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bleh I don't know the template, it was created pretty recently (but then again so was the nomination template...) just ask Nichalp or UninvitedCompany. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's a shame. I believe he's a recovering addict, who suffers from terrible depression. By the way, I wish people wouldn't keep piling on the "oppose" votes once it's clear that an application is going to be unsuccessful, and especially when it's clear that the candidate has personal problems. In the six months that I've been on Wikipedia, this is the post I feel least good about. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously Ann you've had a change of heart since then, and I applaud you for it. I fully agree that it's unnecessary, if not downright evil, to pile on oppose votes after an obvious failed nomination. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: this makes me feel really bad for him, I'm afraid that RFA was probably a very bad experience for him. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 02:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How many good users do you think we lost due to having a bad RFA? Borisblue 07:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given how high standards have become now, we should be careful about turning away good people. Would it be nuts to create an intermediate usergroup between Registered and Sysop ("Moderator"?) - perhaps without blocking ability or whatever? (This is easy in MediaWiki 1.5, I think.) Then good users who look likely to be good admins can be recommended for that status instead, rather than just denying RFA (which must feel like a pretty unpleasant rejection from the community). Alternatively, grant adminship on probation (for a month, say); use the nomination talk page to collect discussion of whether to de-sysop a new admin - this might ease some concerns based on giving powers that are so rarely revoked. Rd232 talk 09:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tell you, my RfA was MUCH harder than I thought it was to go through, even though people had nothing but nice things to say (it resulted in a three week wikibreak). As for an intermediate step between user and admin, I was thinking a while ago when ITN on the main page was never updating, how about giving some users the right to edit protected pages (and no other powers except that and perhaps rollback). They would be instructed never to edit page that has been protected due to an edit war, but they could freely edit things that are protected due to vandalism, such as the main page templates and other pages. I don't think that a huge elaborate process should take place, just that if an admin sees a user who never vandalises, he asks him wether or not hed like to be a "Trusted user", and if so, the admin would make him that. No vote or anything, just an admins good judgement (it isn't like it's a huge power or anything. Aslong as a user is found not to be a POV-pusher or vandal, this shouldn't be to much of a problem). Ofcourse, if he abuses his power even once, any admin should take his powers away. What do you guys think? gkhan 12:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that conflicts with the basic philosophy that pages should be protected as rarely as possible. And bestowing powers in such an ad hoc way smells like a recipe for trouble, particularly if you think about the implications of needing to regulate removal of same in cases of abuse. If we want more powers for Trusted Users, the automatic move power bestowal process seems a better model (all but most recent 1% of accounts, AFAIR). Rd232 talk 13:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think "consensus" is best gauged from actual practice. Nominations are regularly removed prematurely if they stand no chance of success. I removed PB's nomination because it stood little chance of success (though not nil) and had clearly caused him a great deal of stress; it seems to me that stress-prevention, where possible, is in the community's best interest. I consider it unfortunate that users pile oppose votes on to nominations which are clearly unqualified or otherwise failing, but as long as they continue to do so, I will continue to remove said nominations. — Dan | Talk 15:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *So actual practice determines policy? If not, would you please direct us as to the policy that covers delisting RfAs that are going poorly? Removing PB's nomination might have been in his best interest, and it might not. At least one nominee whose RfA was going very poorly was mad when it was removed prematurely. You are presuming that you know the inner thoughts of each nominee whose RfA you prematurely remove. A more balanced response is to suggest to the user that they withdraw their nomination. There are multiple reasons for retaining RfAs that are going poorly. Whether a user is becoming stressed over their RfA is not the only interest in play. If this "actual practice" is policy, then I suggest we open a poll to determine what should be done; it is and has been open for debate. Relying on "actual practice" to summarily override that debate is (unless you can cite policy), I think, less than we could hope to be. --Durin 17:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Durin, why not apply for a bureaucratship then? You seem to be so passionate about the process. --HappyCamper 00:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Delist

message: I archived the exceedingly long list of Archives to an Archive at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archives. Cheers. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 22:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we archive the archive of archives? :-) Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  22:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if the archive-archive is aware of its own Gödel number. (apologies for the lame-ass math joke) gkhan 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: The new procedure is mostly ok, but since the questions are not mandatory, I don't think people should delist if someone doesn't answer them. 
Kim Bruning 00:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, when a member of the arbcom adds a listing here pursuant to an arbcom decision, it's probably not a good idea to revert him (grin) →Raul654 00:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arbcom referrals are a special case, and probably shouldn't be reverted. But the delistings are meant to prevent the "Oppose until the questions are answered" votes we were getting. Titoxd(?!?) 01:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been Neutral til answered in my experience. Durin recently said to me that the policy reads they must answer the questions, but I'm totally against this. If someone doesn't wanna answer the questions, there's no stand alone literal POLICY stating they must. Policy dictates they must accept the nomination however, as we won't op someone who doesn't want it ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it actually says explicitly anymore that nominations without the questions answered will be removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Tsaright, we all make mistakes. →Raul654 01:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe a better compromise would be to replace the boilerplate questions (with no answers) with a small explanatory notice when a arbcom referral or other special circumstance takes place? (Although in an ideal world people would not blindly oppose due to no answers without reading enough to realize why there are no answers :) Turnstep 11:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't recall the policy discussion that led to the assertion that there is a consensus to remove nominations where the candidate fails to answer the questions.  Answering them is optional, and a small number of candidates have either failed to answer them or deliberately deleted them from the RfA and still passed.  I object to this new requirement; at the very least, let's have a poll on this issue so that I can find out if there is anyone other than myself and Kim Bruning who feel that this is unnecessary. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I link you to this discussion (linked above), which I assert has a consensus that the nomination should be accepted and the questions answered before a nomination is placed on the RfA page. In my mind, it also holds that pages should not remain listed unless questions are answered, and that has been the practice on the page for the recent time period. That does not mean that the issue cannot be reconsidered, I am simply trying to assert that there was a discussion of this and a reasonable consensus for that action, at that time.  Further, I am not asserting that said policy of removing unaccepted and unanswered nominations applies to Stevertigo's RfA, I am merely discussing the process in general. I personally haven't noticed any candidates that have refrained from attempting to answer the questions, or have removed the questions, but I am sure you have been observing RfA longer than I. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting when questions not answered 

message: I offer the following information only as information for those who may have recently come to the RfA discussion page as a result of Stevertigo's RfA. I do not assert that the following policies apply to that nomination, I only wish to make clear why certain procedures have generally been followed on RfA recently. 
*Kim Bruning commented above: "The new procedure is mostly ok, but since the questions are not mandatory, I don't think people should delist if someone doesn't answer them. "
*→Raul654 pointed out that the listing in question was added at the behest of the ArbCom, which does make it a special case. 
*Christopher Parham then commented that "I don't think it actually says explicitly anymore that nominations without the questions answered will be removed."
As a consideration for discussion, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate currently states: "Once this RfA subpage has been created, the nominator must explain on the RfA subpage why this nominee would make a good administrator, and the nominee must accept the nomination and answer the questions on the RfA subpage before it can be transcluded to the main RfA page. This prevents editors from voting against candidates simply because they have not accepted the nomination or answered the questions. It also prevents both nominees and nominators from being embarassed when a nomination is declined.". This information was added on October 23 2005, beginning with this revison: . Prior to that, the page had only these less clear instructions, which stated: 
# Go to your RfA subpage, and either accept or decline your nomination. If you decline, be sure to inform your nominator.
# After you accept your nomination, make sure to answer the standard questions for all candidates.
# Change the time on your RfA page to indicate the current time (available on this page).
# Edit this page and add the following text above the most recent nomination (replacing USERNAME with your name):
           ----
(from this revision, dated October 7, 2005.)
RfA standard procedure for some time now has been to require the questions to be answered and the nomination accepted before being transcluded to the main page. A discussion in procedure change to require nominations to be accepted before being transcluded to the Mainpage occured here. Further discussion occured here.  Several RfA's have previously been removed from the RfA page, with the given reason being both that the candidate had not accepted, and that questions had not been answered: 
# (unaccepted)
#
# (questions unanswered)
# (questions unanswered)
#
#
#
# (questions unanswered)
#
With one recent exception, where Titoxd removed a nomination that was accepted but the questions were unanswered , and Redwolf24 replaced it, asserting that "they only have to accept, they dont have to answer Q's yet", , which does seem to contradict the previous precedent.  
I offer the above information only as information for those who may have recently come to the RfA discussion page as a result of Stevertigo's RfA. I do not assert that the preceding policies apply to that nomination, I only wish to make clear why certain procedures have generally been followed on RfA.
Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall the policy discussion that led to the assertion that there is a consensus to remove nominations where the candidate fails to answer the questions.  Answering them is optional, and a small number of candidates have either failed to answer them or deliberately deleted them from the RfA and still passed.  I object to this new requirement; at the very least, let's have a poll on this issue so that I can find out if there is anyone other than myself and Kim Bruning who feel that this is unnecessary. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I link you to this discussion (linked above), which I assert has a consensus that the nomination should be accepted and the questions answered before a nomination is placed on the RfA page. In my mind, it also holds that pages should not remain listed unless questions are answered, and that has been the practice on the page for the recent time period. That does not mean that the issue cannot be reconsidered, I am simply trying to assert that there was a discussion of this and a reasonable consensus for that action, at that time.  Further, I am not asserting that said policy of removing unaccepted and unanswered nominations applies to Stevertigo's RfA, I am merely discussing the process in general. I personally haven't noticed any candidates that have refrained from attempting to answer the questions, or have removed the questions, but I am sure you have been observing RfA longer than I. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Information on De-listing

message: I have removed Steve's nomination. It's clearly going to fail. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's come here from the ArbCom, and his adminship hinges on it. It's not fair to remove it without an order from the Committee. I'm going to reinstate it. -Splashtalk 12:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest solution would be to let the nomination remain until Raul654 removes it. He added the nom and since he's a bureaucrat and a member of the ArbCom, he's in the best position to judge when/if it should be removed. Carbonite | Talk 12:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The committee should have bit the bullet and made the decision themselves or, at least, made the "instructions to the jury" much clearer in adding the nom. Marskell 12:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I violently agree. Subject Stevertigo to public mauling is exactly the sort of thing the ArbCom are supposed to prevent. I can't believe the Committee seriously thought there was more than one possible outcome. -Splashtalk 12:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the ArbCom actually said "Stevertigo...shall submit himself as a candidate for administrator at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship" (bolding mine), I'd suggest that his listing by Raul is pretty much invalid and could be removed without waiting. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I mentioned above, I think Raul is in a better position to judge than any of us. The whole point of the ArbCom's ruling was that an RfA would decide whether Stevertigo retain adminship or not. It's already obvious that the RfA will fail. Arguing over whether it should have been a self-nom or not seems rather pointless. Carbonite | Talk 12:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see any point in continuing with the RFA-c nom. Raul nominated Steve to confirm his adminship. The RFA-c is failing miserably, which means he definately does not have the support of the community. has anyone asked Raul if he would like to continue with the RFA? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "Should they carry out a remedy like this in future." Hopefully they don't. "The Arbitration Committee is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort to be turned to when all else has failed." Here they are treating RfA as a last resort—that's not what RfA is for. You can call it reaffirmation of his adminship, but tacitly its a referendum on his behaviour. They should not have brought it to this forum. Marskell 13:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree. Bringing this matter here was out of line, and doomed to failure. But for me, the main reason it showed bad judgement on ArbCom's part is that the people here at WP:RFA are being expected to go through the entire ArbCom case to gain an understanding of what has transpired such that they can make an appropriate vote. I don't expect most people will do that. Quite a number, I am sure, are seeing that he has been the subject of an RfAr and will vote in opposition. It is akin to having a court case conclude against him, and then having a jury which was not present during the trial read a transcript of the trial to determine his guilt. <tongue in cheek>Maybe we should start an RfAr against Arbcom?</tongue in cheek> :) --Durin 14:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And actually, I think this would have been more in line with the spirit of the ruling that he bring it here himself. If he had chosen to bring it here, then he could more reasonably be expected to deal with what's been thrown at him. If he had chosen not to, de-admining could have gone ahead without the fuss and ill-will that has emerged. All-in-all, a poor call. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevertigo has always had the option to voluntarily request to be de-admined. In fact, I suggested this option on his talk page before the ArbCom case was initiated. I agree, it would have saved a lot of time for everyone involved and would have avoided a lot of fuss and ill-will. Carbonite | Talk 14:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I enquired some hours ago whether a public hanging (or mauling, in my words) is what the Committee were seeking at the bottom of WP:RfAr#Stevertigo's RfA. I remain hopeful that the Arbitrators may clarify their intent. -Splashtalk 15:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination of Stevertigo

message: As per the arbcom ruling and my request on m:Requests_for_permissions, to that extent he has been desysopped. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 21:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  note 

message: Per Kelly Martin's comment above, I'm starting a poll to determine what everyone thinks about the new delisting rules. Titoxd(?!?) 05:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, well put. Rx StrangeLove 14:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agreed. As stated by myself in prior discussions here, I think it is a bad idea to remove RfAs prior to the end of the 7 days, unless they are made in bad faith. I'm also opposed to bureaucrats removing them, but feel less strongly about that than random good faith editors prematurely removing them. I feel very strongly that a nominee should be given the opportunity to voluntarily withdraw, rather than forcibly withdrawing them. Forcibly withdrawing has lead to problems in the past, and even now with the (albeit unusual) Stevertigo nomination, which was removed early and put back up. --Durin 17:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Durin, pretty much exactly.  Forcible withdrawal does more harm than good.  If the nominee wants it removed, they can easily say so, and it will be done.  Friday (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting Poll 

message: (Keep new rules and allow delisting if nominee does not answer questions)
#Titoxd(?!?) 05:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: (Go back to the old rules, and delist only if the nominee does not accept the nomination)
# See m:instruction creep. Questions should not be mandatory. Acetic'Acid 07:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: #Do these rules include delisting early if the candidate seems assured of defeat? --Maru  (talk) Contribs 05:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral/Other 

message: #Wikipedia:Does_Wikipedia_have_too_many_polls%3F_poll. Dmcdevit·t 08:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, well put. Rx StrangeLove 14:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agreed. As stated by myself in prior discussions here, I think it is a bad idea to remove RfAs prior to the end of the 7 days, unless they are made in bad faith. I'm also opposed to bureaucrats removing them, but feel less strongly about that than random good faith editors prematurely removing them. I feel very strongly that a nominee should be given the opportunity to voluntarily withdraw, rather than forcibly withdrawing them. Forcibly withdrawing has lead to problems in the past, and even now with the (albeit unusual) Stevertigo nomination, which was removed early and put back up. --Durin 17:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Durin, pretty much exactly.  Forcible withdrawal does more harm than good.  If the nominee wants it removed, they can easily say so, and it will be done.  Friday (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erm. 

message: Some thoughts 
# Frivolous nominations. 
# Candidate declines nomination.
# Candidate requests a delisting.
# Admin questions not answered within 5 days of accepting nomination. Voting should only start after candidate has answered questions.
# Spoiled nominations. Excessive controversy results in irreparable damage to the voting process. 
Klonimus 07:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As this apparent flux in the delisting policy comes in the wake of my RFA, Ive made some comments and requests with regard to the appropriateness of my delisting. (See #Inappropriate delisting)-St|eve 04:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *There's been an ongoing debate about when to delist from before your re-RfA came up. In concur with Encephalon's suggestions. --Durin 15:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Simple proposal for delistings 

message: #Only list an RFA once the User has accepted the nomination.
#Only delist an RFA once the User has withdrawn the nomination. encephalon 04:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As this apparent flux in the delisting policy comes in the wake of my RFA, Ive made some comments and requests with regard to the appropriateness of my delisting. (See #Inappropriate delisting)-St|eve 04:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *There's been an ongoing debate about when to delist from before your re-RfA came up. In concur with Encephalon's suggestions. --Durin 15:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I think 

message: I get concerned when good editors get upset in RFAs. Sadly, some have even left the project. Is anyone else worried about this?Borisblue 14:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a concern certainly. I think it might be a good idea to have a very prominent link on the nomination page to a subpage that concisely lays out the potential consequences of RfA, what the user should expect, how the user should be prepared, etc. This should not be provided as an obstacle to nomination, but as a guide. Beyond that, I don't know what more we can do. I don't think we should be responsible for user's poor reactions to contentious RfAs, assuming we do the above. Some users are just ill-suited to being an admin. We might be able to head some of the off before they go up for RfA, but once they are up for RfA we can't control what happens nor should we. --Durin 15:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to write exactly what Durin said.  Anyone coming up for RFA should steel themselves for a possible pounding by all the POV warriors with whom they have ever collided, and accept it--as best they can--as an inevitable part of being part of this huge and chaotic community.  A lot of good editors who stay away from controversial articles still go through 40-1, or so, while now almost anyone who has been brave enough to tackle Israel-Palestine or Bush-Kerry or Lilliput-Blefescu or whatever, will likely be subject to oppose votes, and sometimes downright nasty comments.  A subpage giving warnings and advice on how to handle the stress of RFA might be a good idea.  Antandrus  (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Those are some good points, Durin. I'd support having an "RfA Guide" that would explain the process and potential complications. I also think that a user fit for adminship should be able to withstand a harsh RfA. If the candidate starts lashing out at users who challenge them or act in an incivil manner, they're probably not ready to be an admin. Carbonite | Talk 15:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Durin, great contribution, as always!!  Preparing oneself mentally for the RfA journey is a really good idea.  Being nominated and then thrust out "naked" into the open can be a very humbling experience.  I might add that you may wish to include a section on RfA ettiquette discussing such matters as advertising your RfA, campaigning, er, uh, voting on your own, etc.  Noting that there are no rules against such things, but they often land the candidate in an ill light.  I'd love to see the draft when you post it.  >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 17:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool stuff. I've scribbled some thoughts down at User:The Land/RfA Guide; hope they are of use. The Land 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I think of it, making it a subpage of the RFA page makes more sense than making it a page by itself, as per Durin's original suggestion. Borisblue 18:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Guide? Borisblue 18:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *Precedent examples? --Durin 18:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *:There's a first time for everything :) Actually, in your first comment on this section you said it would be a subpage. Not a big deal for me, though, I'd just thought it would make more sense since the guide would be intricately linked to RFA. Borisblue 19:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, I found some precedent but I think it's not a good one to follow. For quite some time now, there's been a general opinion that subpages are bad, and linked articles are better. I've created the guide as per convention of Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and others. --Durin 21:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure you need two pages. Why can't the first just be a section of the second? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *I definitely think it could be. In fact, that's the way I'm structuring Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship (working on the draft now). My concern is as I noted above; "keep it short or expect it not to be read". But, perhaps there's so much text in this section you didn't read that ;-) Seriously, I think part of the goal needs to be educating would-be horribly failed nominees as to the likely result of their nomination. Having a looooong document for them to read is unlikely to result in that effect. Regardless, I think Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship is a good idea...even its focus is less about advice for nominees than about the process in general. --Durin 19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I caught it, but perhaps I am simply underestimating the length of this guide. Or have some sort of shortcut to just that section. Or have that section near the top where people might notice it. I can't wait to see what you come up with. Have you looked at User:The Land's subpage yet? There are a couple of decent points on there. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guide to RfA

message: As stated above, the delisting was inappropriate as I had not been online for a few days and had not formally accepted the nomination to begin with. So according to the rules of RFA, the automatic nomination by Raul456 was invalid.
I likewise have not had a chance reply to the various "potshots" directed at me, and this RFA had become the forum by which criticism of the RFAR decision (to remand it here) was given attention. I do not think it is appropriate for me to modify the page myself, as it is listed as an "archive," so now I humbly ask that a third party relist me on WP:RFA, modify WP:RFA/SV to show its active status, and removed its listing from WP:UAC. Thanks in advance, -St|eve 18:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevertigo, while I feel for you in terms of the RFA being a slugfest against you, I don't think it's appropriate to start yelling at the Arbitration Committee (specifically, Raul). I know you're upset, but think of this positively. This is the time for you to rebuild trust from the Wikipedia community. Cater to the community and you will be catered to in turn. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This depends on your definition of "trust." If you read my diffs and know my work on controversial topics and my ability to write and reason with as full possible fidelity to NPOV, then you can measure my level of "trust" based on that information. If measure "trust" by my presence on IRC (which I dont use), or through pictures of me hugging wikipedians at wikimania, or by barnstars and personal notes of support on my talk page, then we might have some disagreement with regard to our operative definition of "trust." IAC, its not my intention to embarrass the Arbcom —others are free to comment on the wisdom of that decision. Its my intention to make my case to "the mob" and answer each criticism directly about my conduct and my status as a sysop. I dont see how that should be controversial, or construed as "yelling." I simply think that if there is to be some review of my character, there must be appropriate responsiveness and dialogue. The Arbcom (see talk:proposed decision) was not appropriately responsive, and my presence here is the result of that unresponsiveness. I sincerely request that the community extend to me the ear that the Arbcom did not. -St|eve 18:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've reinstated the RfA. --Michael Snow 18:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your newfound responsiveness, but what does "me aculpa" mean in this context? The decision was to make no decision, but rather instead to "throw it to the mob" as others have said. Was this a product of decisiveness and clarity or simply an engineered means to "tar and feather" someone with whom you (collective "you") have some disagreements? Would it not have been less embarrassing for you to be appropriately responsive during the actual Arbcom case? I understand you feel reluctant to admit to mistakes, and that is indeed forgivable. But your "me aculpa" is besides the point and is merely the last in a comedy of errors that could have been prevented. Please forgive me if this RFA has become a learning experience for you. Me aculpa. -St|eve 18:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: * It's Mea Culpa. --Durin 19:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends where you stick the a. -St|eve 19:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course Im going to assert that attacks on my character are improper and unsubstantive. I dont see how your claim that I'm "argumentative" has any bearing here. If I argue point by point in a rational (albeit at times sarcastic and pointed) manner, then Im called "argumentative." If Im away from a computer for a few days and dont get a chance to respond, then I'm called "unresponsive." Damned if you do, damned if you don't has similarities to unfair treatment, though you make the blanket claim that "no one has treated" me in such manner. While I appreciate your understanding of the time element with regard to the remedy, I would appreciate it more if you did not limit your public criticism to me alone, as I am not the one who crafted the remedy to follow the RFAR. There are many ways to gain trust —among them is simply representing oneself earnestly and truthfully —even in a mob justice situation. Being argumentative is only superficial aspect of my character and conduct —those who consider it to be a symptom of abusiveness are making a superficial rather than substantive judgement. -St|eve 21:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relisting SV RFA 

message: It keeps getting reverted even though I filled out the page--Lapsed canadian 21:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you are playing about. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 21:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think what Theresa means it that she or others consider you to be a troll, and that any reverts of a so-called "trolls" edits should be considered valid. If Im mistaken in my interpretation, it is no doubt in part due to Theresa's curtness and lack of explanation. -St|eve 21:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretation is essentially correct except that I consider him to be trolling rather than consider him a troll. This is some kid having fun that's all. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 22:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about just stating in the edit summary why the nomination is being reverted, instead of using the rollback button, which is for vandals only anyway? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right. I should have done that. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 10:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why can't self nominate myself?