Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 45

message: # Support With the important disclaimer that I am in no way criticizing or looking down upon those recently made bureaucrat on other's nominations, I do want to express an opinion on this for future bureaucrat nominations.
#:Being a bureaucrat requires a commitment to certain things that are inherent in making or removing candidates for adminship or bureaucratship. An expectation of fairness is a given. Knowledge of the process is a given. However, having to deal with other users in a promote/non-promote situation calls for the willingness to do a few extra things, among them: (1) to be active in watching RfA and/or renames; (2) to be ready to make a decision that may anger any number of people, no matter which way it is decided; (3) to be willing to make that decision with neither sympathy nor rancor; and (4) to be ready to coherently explain that decision and stick by it. Because of these considerations, I feel that this is a case (compared to adminship) where self-nomination is not only not a negative, but should be required. Why? Because if an admin feels that he or she has gained the knowledge, skills, commitment and desire to do the things above, their first act of positive interaction with the community as a prospective bureaucrat should be to put themselves forward and express why they should be placed in the position.
#:Therefore I feel that bureaucrat nominations should not be put forward by others, nor candidates solicited. If someone needs to be convinced to be a bureaucrat, they probably should wait until they feel confident in themselves that it is something that they want to and are capable of doing enthusiastically. Those who might have been inclined to nominate a bureaucrat can put their same reasoning and discussion into their Support vote for the candidate. -- Cecropia 06:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes (Nominees should put themselves forward only)

message: #Strong Object Luckily, my nomination of User:Francs2000 found here is a testament against this.  I hope others follow in this form! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 12:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No (Nominees or other admins can put up candidates for bureaucrat)

message: *It was established tradition that all bureaucrat candidates were self-nominated. It doesn't fundamentally have to be this way, so nominations by others have slipped through, and we can abandon the tradition if we're so inclined. On the other hand, there isn't a tremendous need for bureaucrats, so there's not that much reason to abandon the tradition (unless it is treated as a reward or status symbol, which it emphatically shouldn't be). --Michael Snow 22:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other perspective

message: I have removed this section because it has been tried and established several times that the only ones who can give out checkuser are Jimbo, the board, or the arbcom and have stated that they are currently comfortable with the number of users who have checkuser power at the moment so voting people to have checkuser would serve no purpose and could in no way be binding or even helpful in most cases. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for checkuser privilages 

message: I've written a tool that gives an alternative view of a user's edit history, see here.  As far as I'm aware, it gives more insight into a user's edits, and allows easier viewing of conversations on AN/I and such than existing tools that I'm aware of.  Here is an example of AN/I tracking, click on the "context" link, and the user's edit will appear at the bottom of the history, allowing you to see anyone that may have replied to the user.
The sort-by-name feature   allows one to quickly look at just AfDs, or WP:AN comments, or just WikiProject contributions, etc.
The tool is somewhat targeted to the RFA process, and if anyone has any suggestions to improve its applicability to RFA, please let me know.   --21:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's handy, having a link to the various articlespaces like that. Makes things very handy for checking out someone's contribs. --Deathphoenix 22:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  Already bookmarked. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is pretty rad. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow. How much of a server impact is there? Does it cache? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, Kate will tell me soon enough if anything is being abused too much.    Nope, no caching except for what mysql does itself.  People on the toolserver do run queries that take some time to run, and this tool ends up being fast because I was able to pull the data off of indexed fields (eg. in the second view that lists the individual articles, I would have liked to have included date-first-edited and date-last-edited, but that field didn't seem to be indexed).  Still, it's pushing some number of bytes over HTTP.  Maybe it should have the "(next 50)" links like the Special: pages have.  On the other hand, if it's really popular, maybe somebody should code it in PHP so it is a Special: page.  --Interiot 23:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: very useful - good work that interiot! Grutness...wha? 23:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly, automated tools can't/shouldn't be a major influence on RFA's.  Any tool will certainly distort your own edit history, and probably others too, and not always in immediately-obvious ways. But hopefully it moves a little beyond unvarnished editcountitis at least.  --Interiot 05:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice!! Very nice indeed! Editcountis may be mitigated somewhat because you can check out what lies BEYOND the plain numbers. Good work! The Minister of War (Peace) 10:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit history tool 

message: Today's failed RfA of abakharev demonstrated how sock puppets may rig voting and mislead other voters into believing there is a substantial opposition to the nominee. Bonaparte's socks exposed in this case also voted on other RfAs. To avoid such problems in the future, I suppose we should articulate some clear suffrage requirements on the par with those applied the in ArbCom elections. It is unacceptable when admins are elected by people totally uninvolved in Wikipedia. Only those who have a certain number of edits (say 300) and a certain time of editing (say two months) should be allowed to vote. I'm curious what others think about it. --Ghirla | talk 15:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they could always just use the talk page... but that's not what we were told Semi-Protection would be used for. Wouldn't we need to amend the policy first? --LV (Dark Mark) 18:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sometimes my brain works faster than my fingers - what I am proposing is indeed a change in policy. bd2412 T 01:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so you preemptively SEMI RfAs, what about preemptively SEMIing AfDs then? Then why not just preemptively SEMI articles mentioned in the news or on certain blog-type sites? I know, I know... slippery slope arguments are weak sometimes, but would it not fall under instruction creep? --LV (Dark Mark) 01:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I would support a suffrage of 100 edits & 1 month.  -- JamesTeterenko 16:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffrage requirements 

message: I was thinking yesterday at night, about how I recently voted "Reluctant oppose". Other people have made such votes too sometimes in the past. I can understand why people do so. They feel the candidate is a good person and has great potential, but has too little experience or is too controversial at the moment, so they have to oppose the nomination for now. But what if it was the opposite? How could anyone ever vote "Reluctant support"?
The same goes for AfDs. I can understand "Reluctant delete" votes, they are for articles about valid and encyclopedic subjects, but which are badly written. But how could anyone ever vote "Reluctant keep"? JIP 10:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: at AFD it happens all the time. I see people vote reluctant keep on video game characters or barely notable schools which are kept because of precedent and policy, but which the person voting keep on would rather could be deleted. Grutness...wha? 11:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would think that "reluctant keep" would make more sense when it was a very, very close call, and you happened to come out on the keep side.  Voting keep when you actually wish it was delete doesn't make much sense, better just not to vote at all in that case. —Cleared as filed. 05:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reluctant votes 

message: Would someone close Lotsofissues's RFA, please?  Voters do not seem to have noticed that he has withdrawn.  Thanks.  Chick Bowen 03:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawn nomination 

message: I've lost my patience. Harassment of Masssiveego or any other user on an RFA will no longer be tolerated. Neither will modifying other users' comments as Gustafson has been doing. Or voting multiple times as Encyclopedist has been doing. Or advocating ignoring the votes of certain users as many have been doing. freestylefrappe 14:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COOL. The cabal^Wbureaucrats are looking into this right now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to point out that we are not advocating ignoring anyone's vote, even your innapropriate Spite Votes, FSF, just pointing out a voting pattern.  As it is, like Alex said, its the Bureaucrats decision here.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The Beauracrats don't need to rule in this at all unless there's going to be a policy change. Last time I checked, following users around, adding little disclaimers like BD2412 has been doing, and you mimicked, is the only inappropriate action. As to my "spite votes" - continue your behviour, and continue to nominate candidates, and you might as well get used to them. freestylefrappe 14:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freestylefrappe, I do hope you understand that if you're actually admitting to spite votes, then they will be ignored.. there are better avenues to voicing your concerns, such as using the talk pages as you have been doing. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not admitting to "spite" votes. I'm just pointing out his rude characterization of my votes. freestylefrappe 15:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there is an accepted view that, if votes in RFAs are believed to have been cast in bad faith, it is legitimate for a user to point this out (courteously). The oppose voter is, of course, entitled to their view and to justify their vote. In any case it is usual and fair for any oppose voter to explain why it is a 'big deal' for the admin candidate. David | Talk 15:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really expect us to believe that BD2412's disclaimer on almost every current RFA was courteous? It is unfortunately usual and unfair that administrators feel they can harass any user without facing consequences. freestylefrappe 15:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse for me "shouting" but this is a tempest in a teapot. Policy on issues like Boothy or Masssiveego was established a long time and remains the same. Bureaucrats are expected in tight cases to consider the reasoning behind individual votes to try to determine whether they are contributing to, or useless to, determing consensus. Someone who always votes "no" and who seems to do little else on Wikipedia will be recognized in that context. BD2412 is doing nothing wrong in pointing out potentially problem votes, any more than a candidate asking why someone opposed or editors arguing about a voter's assertion. However, I would ask anyone who "points out" problem voters that a half-dozen or so such postings should be sufficient to "hit the bureaucratic donkey over the head" to get its attention. -- Cecropia 16:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't shout it isn't helpful.  On the topic of these notes I think that it's perfectly alright for a user to point out suspect votes either by an indented comment below the vote or (preferably) a comment in the comments section, assuming that it can be done politely. JtkieferT | C | @  this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee ---- 17:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch, my ears are burnin'. I posted a note after every instance because I do not know which bureaucrat will close which RfA, so I was notifying whoever closed that particular RfA to a relevant pattern. In retrospect, this was overkill, and in future instances I shall restrict such commentary to this page and to the talk pages of the closing 'crats. bd2412 T 14:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Loss of patience

message: First, everyone needs to chill and take a step back. Let's all stop being silly and start acting like adults; there is no need for namecalling, nor is there any need for this to blow up like it already has. So much drama. Have you people forgotten about assuming good faith and staying cool?
This is my take on this entire situation. BD2412 could have alerted the bureaucrats in a more discrete manner, but he didn't. There's nothing he or anyone else can do about it. One one hand, Masssiveego has not violated anything by blanket opposing without explaination. On the other hand, I as a bureaucrat find that oppose votes without explainations are not in any way helpful when I need to make a decision on whether or not to promote someone. Why?
The RFA page itself states: Please explain your vote, if possible, by including a short explanation of your reasoning, particularly when opposing a nomination, though this is never required. To me, this is a catch-22 for us to make an informed decision. Oppose votes that have an explaination are what I like to see. However, sometimes an oppose vote which has an explaination will have such a stupid explaination that I will be inclined to discount it. "I don't like this candidate" is not a valid oppose reason, in my book. But if I discount that vote, people will think that I'm being biased. However, oppose votes that have no basis behind them, especially if a candidate has a vote ratio that requires my discretion between promotion to admin or not, make me angry. Why did you oppose this person? Did you oppose him/her because he/she is a man/woman? This has happened in the past! If I'm going to be making a decision based upon what a person says as compared to what a person doesn't say, then I'm sorry, but I will probably rule in favor of the candidate, not the oppose vote.
Consider this: a candidate requires a 75%-80% support rate to be considered for promotion. That means that one oppose vote effectively nullifies 5 support votes. Sure, providing a reason to why you're blowing away five support votes isn't required, but it's at the very least a courtesy to not only the candidate but also those five support voters that you're nullifying. Providing an explaination is not required, but it is the civil thing to do. It is not difficult to spend an extra two minutes to provide a reason behind an oppose vote. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, BD2412, did post here, just above this thread, but perhaps email would have been best? I think he did the right thing overall IMHO.--MONGO 15:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to commit a very unorthodox act by pointing to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. This is an underused noticeboard for bureaucratic things. I invite people to use it regarding things such as this. Future reference, of course. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've doubled Gustafson's block to six hours since he unblocked himself. I'm annoyed that I was not alerted about the discussion going on on the administrator's noticeboard until several users had already commented, and Mackensen, not Gustafson was the one who notified me. Either there needs to be a policy change, or the disclaimers have to stop. It's that simple. freestylefrappe 15:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is beginning to get really ugly... --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow. We're all making a mountain of a molehill here, and I see no reason why we should escalate this even more. After reviewing the discussion, it seems like our bureaucrats have been providing a voice of calm and reason in otherwise un-called for panic. There's nothing serious about this situation; we trust our bureaucrats to make the right call based on consensus, and there's no need to change anything right now. If it works or isn't broke, there's no need to fix things. How things got aggravated to the point of blocking, I don't know... <sigh> Sorry, just my two cents. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't feed the trolls. That's all that seems to be happening with this wasted breath over Massiveego. Marskell 22:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My take on it

message: Oppose votes are no longer allowed. Anyone found to be voting opposed shall be submitted to reeducation. -The Cabal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freestylefrappe (talk • contribs) 
:Hey, can you please calm down? The way you're treating this isn't likely to get anyone to agree with you or compromise. — Ilyanep (Talk) 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addition: And not just you, this whole situation is getting out of hand. — Ilyanep (Talk) 15:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Freestylefrappe, I don't know how I can politely say this, but you're acting rather immature. Knock it off. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Everybody calm down. This is why you elected bureaucrats. Now we're even fighting about issues before a particular promotion/removal is made. -- Cecropia 16:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A sense of humor helps. But this takes an atmosphere of self-confidence. Any paranoia seems to remove the fun out a situation. It's important for us to somehow build rapport with each other, a sense of common ground. Fortunately, there is an encyclopedia to build here. That ought to build the community spirit. But when a defensive reaction occurs, somehow we collectively seem to harden our hearts against the recreants. --Ancheta Wis 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice

message: There are several pileon oppose nominations again. Any objection to prematurely removing those, to prevent the nominee from getting badgered overly much? Radiant_>|< 23:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No opposition here.  I used to be of the opinion that we should leave it up to the nominee, but the point of RFA is to determine consensus to give a user admin privileges, and leaving up obvious failures don't contribute anything to that effort. —Cleared as filed. 23:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have already re-added mine after Cecropria removed and closed it prematurely under the snowball clause so I would just like to request that you don't remove mine prematurely. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 23:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Can it be that a snowball comes from flocking enemies, and if you wait for a week, it turns into a diamond? Mukadderat 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The closure of RfA noms should be left to Bureaucrats. That's why we have them. -Splashtalk 23:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me to be common sense that a nomination that is totally opposed after a few days is going to fail.  Since our purpose here isn't to have procedures for the sake of procedures, I can't think of a good reason not to remove obviously failing nominations.  It's not like it can't be easily reversed if someone does it in error. —Cleared as filed. 23:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the nominee agrees, then fine. But not otherwise — bureaucrats are imbued with the authority to determine outcomes of RfAs, and, imo, noone else has that authority. -Splashtalk 23:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Per Splash, Durin, Tiger, Tit, Strange and Ben...bureaucrats close RfAs or the nominee withdraws. There is no consensus for any other policy and I really must take issue with citing the (non-guideline, non-policy) Snowball clause in Front Matter without consensus. Marskell 11:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Fully agreed, and thank you for removing it Marskell. --Durin 14:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Snowball clause]] 

message: In order to prevent a pile-on, I closed this RfA after the nominee withdrew his request. I hope I didn't break the rules (since I'm not a bureaucrat, or even an admin.) Please correct me or follow up behind me or do whatever is necesary to maintain order in the RfA system. (Just don't block me.) --TantalumTelluride 07:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Reasonable maybe, given the low number of edits for the candidate. But, closing such RfAs shortly after they have begun seems to set a standard of X number of edits in order to apply for adminship. There is no such standard. ANYone can apply for adminship. User:Raul654 became an admin with just 30 more edits to his credit than Bugs5382. Again, see discussions above; early removal of RfAs by non-bureaucrats lacks consensus. --Durin 14:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I think the issue is not edits, but that the nominee withdrew.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *(laugh) Right you are. I was in too much of a rush with my earlier comment. --Durin 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing withdrawn RfA 

message: Having just gone through (and failed) the RfA process I would like to propose that a greater effort is made to help enthusiastic Wikipedians who feel they want to do more than just editing to develop.  
I think the problem is that the RfA pages don't really direct users wanting to do more, about how they can do more without actually becoming an Admin.
I am thus proposing a Wiki School to help us post-newbies learn more of the trade.
Brusselsshrek 08:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Wikipedia maintenance is a good start for those looking how to help further without being an admin . -- Longhair 08:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there are also any number of Wikipedia:WikiProjects that are always looking for willing people. Grutness...wha? 08:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Esperanza has something set up. NSLE (T+C) 09:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki School proposal 

message: Regarding the above, here's a radical motion. HALT the RFA system. Voting will continue on current candidates, but there will be no new candidates for a week or two. Having no promotions for a short while won't harm the wiki and gives us time to work out the kinks for a new system.
New system: take a leaf out of WP:FAC. New nomination pages shall have two sections. One with reasons for why the person should be an admin, citing good things they've done. And one other with reasons for why the person should not be an admin. People are encouraged to be concise and cite diffs. After a week, the bureaucrats decide if the person has (1) done enough "good things" (i.e. has enough experience) and (2) done few "bad things". Advantages should be obvious. Disads include more work for the 'crats, and possible allegations of cabalism.
Radiant_>|< 15:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I somewhat agree. I think it should be somewhat similar, except only editors with 500 + edits should have suffurage, voters should be required to cite reasons why they oppose or support, and it be required that voters do proper esearch on each canidate before a vote. -ZeroTalk 15:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that without suffrage the procedure turns into a circus. On the other hand, reasons cited pro and contra often consist of bullshit like "I think he would be impartial" or "I believe the user will abuse his rights". Precise links to the editor's previous edits are indispensable to assess whether objections are genuine or trollish. --Ghirla | talk 15:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *No, I mean no voting. Use reasons rather than pileons. Radiant_>|< 15:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like it. Gets back to the idea of consensus, farther away from voting. Surely we won't die if we don't have any RfAs for a week or two... -- nae'blis (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Corollary - Because specific incidents constitute evidence against bad behavior, whereas it takes a long track record of good behavior to become an admin, in a given time it is possible to build up far more bad evidence than good evidence. This explains the RFA effect often derided as "people having long memories" - that for a given number of bad incidents, it takes a very long time to build up sufficient good behavior to counterbalance the bad. 
When I have more time, I'll check in with my opinion on RfA. Carbonite | Talk 15:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I think it be mandatory that all aspiring voters be required to do research on the nominee first. If they support, provide a diff, if they oppose, provide a diff. And I think suffurage very important - 500 + edits or more should be sufficent. Hell, make it a 1000. And the closing Bcrat absolutely needs to check thee allegations and reasons for one's vote. I hope we are serious about this, because the latest "spite votes" by Freestylefrappe and "no-concensus" votes by Massingvino have been the most  slanderous votes I seen in the rfa nominations since I've come to wikipedia. -ZeroTalk 15:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Cruel, truthful, and graphic. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the suffurage, my good men, the suffurage..! And what about the diffs..?! Surely een those minor aspects would help improve the process. -ZeroTalk 16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *So basically you're saying we need to create accountability for existing admins in order to have a good way of judging prospective admins (not to mention for creating a failsafe). That sounds reasonable, actually. I agree that at present, admins are not really accountable for anything, and they should be. Radiant_>|< 16:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, your very asute comment sums up my concensus quite nicely. Although my main point was also to keep bad-faith voters out of the nomination. I have seen rididculous amounts of votes based on the most petty of views. (FSF's spite votes are unacceptable and should be marked out). Nominating administrators should be based on was best for that person, the community and the encyclopedia as a whole. And one more thing: No people under currently under rfar should be allowed to vote ethier. -ZeroTalk 16:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *So guilt before innocence? Even if ArbCom were a court of law (which it isn't), presuming guilt of someone simply because they are under ArbCom is, I think, a very bad idea. Under the current RfA system, a bureaucrat has no obligation for transparency of their decision. I think this is a good idea. If it was transparent, being a bureaucrat would be an awful job. With the opaqueness of the process, bureaucrats are free to discount whatever votes they wish for whatever reason. I think they already do this on a regular basis. This is also why it is important to be very careful about who becomes a bureaucrat. They must be absolutely, implicitly trustable more so than an admin or ArbCom member because their decisions can not be scrutinized by the public eye. Currently, our current batch of bureaucrats does a pretty good job of this. I've noticed only a couple of what I would call irregularities in the last 400+ RfAs. --Durin 16:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. The rfa process has become sickeningly slanderous. Its time to crack down, and its time to crack down hard. My suffurage query is still my most important ideal on this subject however- 1000 + votes. Real simple. Keeps out (most) of the trolls, and we don't have to worry about clueless newbies assumming wrong allegations. One vote I've heard flaunted to the point of obsesssion is the half-ass "I've never met this editor". -ZeroTalk 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I once engaged in attempts to get people to stop attacking other people for their votes, and instead focus on the votes themselves, if they felt they had to comment. I was roundly attacked for doing so. I guess that followed; tell the attackers to stop attacking and you get attacked. Still, as I noted elsewhere, this is a volunteer effort. I don't volunteer to be attacked. So, I gave up. RfA is an inhospitable place at times. But, until someone takes some very direct action to take a stance of intolerance against abuse at RfA, the abuses will continue. As for what people think are viable basis on which to vote; again, bureaucrats are the people who decide. I've had one vote discounted because the bureaucrat felt my rationale was poor. C'est la vie. I'm sure the bureaucrats are capable of handling this. --Durin 17:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Yeah I tend to agree. I have still not seen any hard evidence that there is a real problem with too many admins or bad admins, (in fact I thinkw eneed more admins not less) let alone that any changes to the system would fix that problem.  Simply put:  I've seen no evidence of a problem or that these changes would fix that problem.  Until then I am opposed to any changes.Gator (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see no problem, you have too little experience here. One example. One of the most active wikipedians ever, User:Mikkalai was blocked for the first time in his 50,000+ edits when he fended off attacks by proven socks of a troll, who is now banned from editing Wikipedia. The admin who blocked Mikka was elected a week before that and nominated by a troll who indulged in that sockpuppetry. Mikkalai got pissed off and does no editing since then. This is a problem: the admin who scared one of the most prolific editors from editing never heard about Wikipedia:Controversial blocks and/or decided to support a troll of the same nationality as himself who had him nominated to adminship to boot. The damage is irreparable, as there is no other editor who can make such an amount of anti-vandalism work as Mikkalai had done.--Ghirla | talk 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. We need a new way of doing things; infact, that's why we're discussing it now. I also have good faith in our Bcrats', and I am positive they are competent in this procedure. But, we as the community, are going to put in our two cents and help them out. No longer shall we see baseless trolling and Spiteful vandalism on rfa's. We settle this now. -ZeroTalk 17:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Radical motion