Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 96

message: Just a note to all, I've re-worde the active nominations section at Template:RfA Navigation so it now reads active nominations for Admin and Bureaucratship instead of Active nominations for Admin and Bureaucrat, if this causes any problems please revert. Regards --The Sunshine Man 09:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fine. Of course, I would think "Adminship and Bureaucratship" would sound better, but it's probably fine the way it is. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I've changed it accordingly, I thought at first it would sound as if I was repeating myself but you were right. Thanks --The Sunshine Man 18:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:RfA Navigation]] 

message: This is only the 22nd heading, but the scroll bar is still quite long. Is it fine if I archive the page? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  20:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Majorly (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived the Gracenotes RfA stuff. Still quite long though. —Kurykh 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I archivd up to the "editcountitis", in case you couldn't tell. :) Just revert it and yell at me if that was too far, ;) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  21:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wah! :-( I made a scintillating comment in an old thread, and now no-one will read it... <sniffle> (well, seeing the sarcasm detector failed a few sections above, I'd better add this disclaimer not to take this comment seriously) Carcharoth 00:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I had read your comment before the archiving. And I agree it's a good one.:)- TwoOars 07:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think bots can do laugh tracks yet... Carcharoth 12:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of these days soon... bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving the page 

message: Well, we all know the passing a RFB is near impossible, but admins, do you think you could pass in the current RFA system, and why? (I know a common answer will be too controversial, but is there another reason, such as you haven't been active at WP:AIV?)--R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 13:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naw. I wouldn't pass an RfA, it I went through that swill again.  — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not many current admins would pass an RFA again now. Probably only 5-10% of active admins are uncontroversial enough to do so. – Chacor 13:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not, I'm far too controversial. ^demon[omg plz] 14:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Can I be the first one to say - probably? ;) Maybe I'm overconfident, maybe when I request resysopping I should do it through RfA and see what happens :) Riana ⁂ 14:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Riana - do not do that, not worth the risk :) (although I know you'd pass anyway). Majorly (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention a major waste of time! Riana ⁂ 14:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My meatpuppets don't pass RfAs. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I could pull it off, yeah. This thread touches on something I've been thinking about already, which is "what if?" scenarios of people doing RfAs again... it'd be an interesting experiment. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Especially if we adopted the rule most of wikis take in desysopping inactive admins by yearly confimation. Majorly (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I can safely say that I couldn't pass RfA now, when you become an admin, you get into too many controversies. If your doing your job correctly, your going to grab quite a few enemies. That's not a statement saying I'm a perfect admin - I wouldn't pass because I've had too many tantrums. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would still pass RfA, but it would be a heck of a lot closer than when I actually did. Newyorkbrad 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would still pass pretty easily I think. Very few of the people who I've pissed off know about RfA. :-) Grandmasterka 16:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If an admin has been doing their job properly for more than 6 months then they will most likely have bothered enough people(enforcing NPOV, NPA, FU etc...) to fail an RfA. Shoeshirt 16:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really I believe this is not true. We did elect seven arbitrators in December, all of whom received overwhelmingly more supports than opposes, and all of them were experienced administrators. Newyorkbrad 16:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: meta:Requests for permissions :) --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hell, I'm desysopped right now, and all for experimentation. But you'll have to wait until the first of July :) Riana ⁂ 18:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I could, considering that I passed last month. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 19:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, newbies don't count. ;P EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I pretend to be a desysoped admin and shove an RfA in on that basis? Just to see how many people go " Support - had the tools before must be ok" without actually checking that in reality I've never had the buttons ? Just because I reckon they'd be at least a dozen, and would reconcile with the edit quantity / quality / count debate above ..... Pedro |  Chat   20:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As funny as that would be, I doubt you'd get very far; logs are easy to find, and someone would quickly ask for a diff or two about your de-sysopping. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree, but I bet there would be a few supports before someone actually bothered to check. My point is really in recognition of the above - viz. people comment / support without actually looking at contributions. Present esteemed company excepted of course! Pedro |  Chat   20:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I'm not an admin (yet), but I would say it would hang on a tightrope whether or not I would. I'm trying to get my mainspace edits up over 1000 so I have a better chance of being supported though. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  20:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: editcountitis? see above? Pedro |  Chat   20:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, mate, I'll even be down to earth about it. ;) I just checked and it's 709. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  20:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but they're all really good edits. Stuff the editcounters and run now! Pedro |  Chat   21:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm waiting for someone to nominate me…hey nominator, ya hear me?!? :P —  $PЯINGrαgђ  21:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm. Interesting ... :) - Alison ☺ 21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CANVASS or not ? :) Pedro |  Chat   21:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh be quiet. :P If I did any at all (which I wouldn't) it would be by e-mail. :P —  $PЯINGrαgђ  21:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose for flagrant violation of WP:BEANS. —Kurykh 03:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if such a system did exist, we'd have to make sure that all oppose !votes provided damn solid rationales, otherwise we'd toss out their comments. That'd be a good way to address that particular concern. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think I would pass if I went up for RfA again. I've considered it, just to get an evaluation of my work on Wikipedia, but some other people have told me not to do it because I'm not controversial or anything, and it will just be a waste of time. Of course, I'm not sure if they're just being nice, or using reverse psychology to persuade me to go for an RfA again. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're telling the truth.  You (Nishkid64) are about as slam-dunk a candidate as there is.  The result would probably be 154/1/0, with the one dissenter being "Moral oppose for wasting our time.  Go back where you D.Y.Kame from! :) YechielMan." YechielMan 18:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be that person, except that last time I did that with a slam-dunk candidate, the deliberately frivolous concerns I brought up turned out to be serious concerns. -Amarkov moo! 03:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I'd probably pass; I mostly do technical admining work and account creation, which tend not to get people annoyed. (I was surprised not to get more opposes due to my low article-writing count when I ran originally.) --ais523 10:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... maybe not. I'm not sure, really. I'm just glad that there's no reconfirmation process to stand in the way of the work I do. --Deskana (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would fail miserably. I don't often need the tools, I average about 4 edits per day and have never used AWB or a bot, I edit at inconsistent rates and have even taken (gasp) Wikibreaks. The large proportion of voters who insist that admins must be consistently obsessed with Wikipedia, and to show this obsession by making an edit every 30 seconds, would snowball my nomination. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could you pass? 

message: I had actually come here to post something going in the same direction. I've had very similar ideas about "shadow RfAs" or somesuch, without binding result, but to give admins feedback about how much community support they're actually enjoying. You see, community support should not be necessary only to become an admin. It is quite necessary to be an admin. And in the current system these two are somewhat totally perverted. —AldeBaer 13:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fantastic discussion

message: Both the reconfirmation and de-adminning proposals are covered at WP:PEREN#Administrative. These are both dead proposals. --Durin 15:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reading over Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Demote_inactive_admins, I think that things have changed, or at least have been clarified to be different than apparently presumed by the PEREN point. (the non-controversial removing and regaining the mop, being a major one). - jc37 11:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:PEREN 

message: Many people hate these, but would a straw poll be a good way to start finding consensus? Greeves (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another RFA straw poll?! *Commits Hara-Kiri* bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, before stabbing myself to death as Bibliomaniac suggests, I'm curious to know what issue you're hoping to find a consensus on! Pascal.Tesson 03:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought maybe he was asking for a nominator to request adminship on his behalf, since that's what RFA is... a straw poll! -- nae'blis 16:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not looking for a nominator right now, (I am currently being admin coached) but as for the poll I was just throwing an idea out there. Greeves (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:STRAW|Poll]]

message: I need some help here; ANNAfoxlover has created my second adminship nomination, and I do not want it. I told ANNAfoxlover before posting here that I don't want the nomination; also, I was not informed at all prior to her creating the page. I do not wish to accept the nomination for the following reasons:
#I am the nominator of two active RfA's, one of which is highly controversial.
#Somebody else has offered to nominate me, and was going to create the page at a later date.
Can the nomination page be speedy deleted, or do I have to decline it and put it in the unsuccessful RfA's archive? I'm asking because I'm not actually sure what to do. Acalamari 22:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. Agathoclea 22:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you; I'll go tell ANNAfoxlover then. Acalamari 22:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record: declined nominations should be deleted if they didn't start running (and archived as unsuccessful if withdrawn while they were running), as far as I know. --ais523 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that was the case, I just wanted to make sure. I didn't answer the questions or accept for my reasons listed above, so the nomination was never a failure because it didn't even begin. Acalamari 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion? 

message: How about this as a way to de-votify RfA – impose a minimum length restriction on all comments. That is, the length of each comment in the Support, Oppose or Neutral sections (defined as the number of characters in the comment excluding signature, "#" and any text in bold) must be greater than or equal to a fixed value, else the comment is moved to the "Discussion" section and not counted towards the percentage figure. (Yeah, ideally we'd get rid of the percentage figure too, but old habits die hard, and the bureaucrats have already demonstrated their inability to look beyond the number).
Precisely what the minimum length would be is something that would need to be decided, of course – but even something very small, like 50 characters (that's just the length of this comment in brackets) would get rid of the comments lacking any rationale at all, the "per nom" comments, the "good candidate" comments, and also some other nonsense things like "doesn't need the tools". A further rule stating that no comment may be merely a copy-and-paste of a previous editor's comment may also need to be introduced in order for this to work.
Personally, I feel we should try to encourage contributors to explain their view of the candidate, with particular emphasis on establishing that it is in fact their view, not the view of whoever got there before them, and detailing precisely how the candidate's qualities make them more or less suitable for adminship. With this in mind, perhaps the minimum should be set a bit higher. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, of course, so I have already provided a sample rationale as an indication of the sort of thing we should be aiming it. While the responses suggest it is vastly preferred to the usual unexplained "support"s, several users have completely failed to grasp the point and supported "per" my rationale. Much as I hope it does not become necessary to ban all use of the word "per", too, I fear it may be the only way – Gurch 18:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would this devotify the process? People could just add filler crap and inflate their rationale. In addition, why would we want to write something again when the person above us has already taken the words from our mouths? bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 19:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You wouldn't, because it's more convenient to write "per [user]". But I have a feeling that sometimes, if you actually asked someone to explain themselves in detail, it would transpire that their opinion is somewhat different than that of the user they refer to in their comments (especially if said user brings up multiple points, and the user who comments "per" that user actually only agrees with some subset of the points) – Gurch 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with your intention (discourage "drive-by" voting, encourage explanations), but I don't see enough benefit to outweigh the instruction creep. This would simply turn the "per X" comments into virtually identical paraphrasing. Chaz Beckett 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, instruction creep. Make it as hard as possible for the candidates, but as easy as possible for the voters. Yeah, I'm with you. (You people have got to stop taking my ideas so seriously). Oh, while I'm here, here's another thing. Remember when a high edit count in a short time used to be seen as a good thing, and now it's taken as little more than obvious evidence of a sockpuppet? I made 8,000 edits in a month long before I was nominated for adminship, and I wasn't a sockpuppet of anyone. Don't you think it's amazing how "some candidates with high edit counts might be sockpuppets" turned into "all candidates with high edit counts must be sockpuppets"? – Gurch 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that's the case. Most people will still unquestioningly vote for someone with enough thousands of edits; people mention minimum edit counts in their rationales like 3500, 5000, or 7000; and we haven't even seen someone with an edit count < 2000 apply recently, so I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that editcountitis and editcount inflation are cured. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  ... or am I, too, taking you too seriously? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Most attempts at requiring reasoning fail. For example, in my university, students may appeal their grade if they give a reason for it, the most common reason is something along the lines of "I think I deserve a better grade". However, a good rationale tends to influence other contributors to the same RFA more than a simple "vote and sign" will do. Don't think that writing a good rationale is a waste of effort. Keep in mind also, that there are few or no policy reasons for why a person should or should not be an admin, so consensus is pretty much all we have to go by. (This is in contrast to AFD where policies like WP:V and WP:NOR temper the raw consensus when determining the outcomes.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum rationale length 

message: Some of those here may be aware of this proposed principle at a current ArbCom case, which looks likely to pass:Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.
In light of this, would it be relevant to make a BLP question standard for all RFA candidates, at least asking them whether they would ever intend to get involved in that area of things? I've written more on this here, and have reproduced most of it here: I feel that this change makes adminship a big deal (or bigger than it was before). There are some admins who I would trust to do regular clean-up tasks, but there are some that I would not trust to carry out BLP deletions. There are also non-admin editors that I would trust to properly enforce BLP. I'm all for more rigorous enforcement of BLP, but why focus on admins? This focus on admins being the ones to carry this out is an expansion of the roles of admins that many will not have foreseen. Many admins at their RfA were given the tools by community approval to carry out tasks such as speedy deletions, and determining consensus on AfD discussions. Making judgements on BLPs is a different mattter again. What you will end up with is a de facto group of self-appointed BLP admins, distinct from the rest of the admins (who will either on principle or in fear of getting it wrong, stay away from such actions). The basic questions are ones such as: (1) Are all admins suitable for BLP duty? (2) Should admins wanting to carry out BLP deletions go back through RfA? (3) Is a pool of BLP admins necessary or desirable? There are more questions, but that should be enough for now. Carcharoth 12:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Should admins wanting to carry out BLP deletions go back through RfA?" Um. You are kidding, right? Please tell me you are kidding. You are seriously suggesting we go through another 1,200+ adminship requests simply because ArbCom endorsed a policy (that's right, not even a policy change – just ArbCom endorsement of one). Did we make everyone go through RfA again last time we expanded the speedy deletion criteria? When we introduced semi-protection? When we introduced proposed deletion? When we introduced anonymous-only blocks? When we introduced cascading protection? When we introduced the biographies of living persons policy itself? No, we didn't – Gurch 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is only making adminship a huge deal. The positon to me has always been about a few extra buttons. What such a question will make is that admins are very close to representing Wikipedia on a legal front, and a lot of admins here are under 21, under 18, and some are not even teens. I feel that will cause too much trouble. Evilclown93(talk) 14:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, great, legal FUD. I can't be bothered to argue against such trash – Gurch 14:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't get you, Gurch... Evilclown93(talk) 14:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  From User talk:Gurch, it seems he is annoyed about the recent RFA that foundered on an attacks sites question. I'm not too happy about that either, particularly the subsequent mass banning of IP address. See Gurch's comment here. I'm not coming out with pithy statements like "I can't be bothered to argue against such trash", but I can understand why some editors are stressed at the moment. It seems to be silly season on Wikipedia. Carcharoth 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. I've mixed up two different RfAs there. Sorry. The silly season comment still stands. Carcharoth 15:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, a little confusing there. You've demonstrated quite succinctly just how bad the situation is, though – Gurch 18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Gurch, I was kidding. I was not seriously proposing re-adminship and would oppose that myself. I'm just pointing out some of the problems and some of the possible solutions. Please don't pick up on one point and make a big deal out of it. You make some good points about other times when adminship responsibilities have been expanded, but this case seems, to me, to be a bigger expansion into content areas than ever before. Instead of judging opinion, admins are being asked to decide sometimes tricky cases of BLP policy. Personally, I think all RFA candidates should be allowed to say that they have no intention of ever working in that area. Carcharoth 14:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have too many "standard" questions, 3 is more than enough. Ask questions if they are appropriate to the candidate, but don't make any more default, please. Majorly (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current defaults cover the basics well. We learn the candidates' outlook on administrative tasks, their perspective on their contributions, and their perspective on their interactions with fellow users. I don't think there's a need for any specific questions, such as one dealing with BLP issues, to be default. Leebo T/C 14:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If we start adding "standard" questions on specific topics, we'll soon have a couple of dozen standard questions. -- Cecropia 15:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been always a believer in that you can answer those question in the nomination statement itself (Self-nom) or in the optional part (not self-noms). We can always put a hidden comment that asks to mention responses to the three currently standard questions instead of stating the questions. Evilclown93(talk) 15:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no point of added another required question. If you want to know the answer, just ask it yourself on the RFA. And what if the candidate doesn't have a firm understanding of BLP, and because of that, will not be working in BLP at all, but in blocks and xFDs. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, they probably would. This would be somewhat analogous to the way in which, while Ignore All Rules isn't covered by the standard questions, every candidate nevertheless recieves and is expected to answer a question on it. Users have made a point of asking the same question on every RfA before, and it generally continues until they tire of it. Not really much that can be done about that – Gurch 18:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a BLP question to the standard RfA questions? 

message: It may be a little too early to start the celebrations just yet, but I think this may be the first time an established, useful contributor has actually been forcefully driven from the project by the response to their adminship request. I'd just like to offer my congratulations to all those involved in this exquisitely engineered fuckup, and hope to see more of the same in future. Remember, if you think you're right, this doesn't apply – so keep screwing over those contributors! – Gurch 18:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you need to apply this to yourself as well: Remember, if you think you're right, this doesn't apply.  RxS 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... she was unquestionably blocked from editing, thus forcibly preventing her from editing. I'm not sure how much room for error there is... -Amarkov moo! 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ah. I see. So when good users are driven from the project as a result of the way they are treated on their adminship request, I should assume good faith and... what? Take it as a sign that they were no good to us anyway? Please share with me your interpretation of this situation and how this sort of thing is perfectly acceptable and not in any way a sign that things might not be right, because I'm having trouble seeing it – Gurch 18:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has driven this account from the project. Gurch, you need to stop your trolling and your hyperbole. If s/he wants to stay, all s/he has to do is stop using Tor; or continue using Tor but not apply for adminship; or apply for adminship but explain the reasons for using Tor, in private if it's sensitive. S/he's chosen to do none of these things. You're treating the person behind the account as though they're completely useless; someone simply being tossed around on wild seas with no control. The truth is very different. You also have no evidence that the person has been driven away, just that that account has stopped editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Another industrious checkuser has taken it upon himself to identify and block every IP address I have used in the last three months. I know this because I have read the block logs and noticed that several of the IPs blocked as part of this spree have (oh, shit!) nothing to do with the Tor network." User talk:CharlotteWebb. Not to endorse Gurch's hyperbole, but that statement from CharlotteWebb herself does sound a lot like "driven from the project", actually. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see her penultimate edit, where she states very clearly that her real IP has been blocked too. Thus it would seem that none of those things would permit her to stay. She also makes very clear in that comment precisely what her reasons for leaving are – Gurch 18:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether you're deliberately stirring this up, or just not thinking straight. If s/he wanted to continue to edit with that account, all s/he had to do was e-mail a check user, point out her non-Tor IP address, and ask for an unblock. This could have been done discreetly by someone other than the original blocker so as not to draw attention to it. Instead, s/he chose to shout it from the rooftops and act as if s/he was stomping off. People, please open your eyes. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: On balance, I'd say the Brandt incident was worse; that was a monumental screwup as opposed to merely a very large one – Gurch 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...I thought we assumed good faith when the checkuser said that he only found CharlotteWeb when he was seeing who had used a TOR IP. But now he's (or some other checkuser) checkusered CharlotteWeb's to find all the IP's she's used and blocked them? If only non-checkusers, could read the log. There's a lot more going on than we know. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can read the block log. I'm not sure you'd be able to get CharlotteWebb to disclose exactly which IPs were blocked, though – Gurch 18:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I will go through the block logs and figure out which ones are not tor. FunPika 18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already found a non-tor IP. 83.149.231.20 Of course I am only checking for Tor and not other proxies. FunPika 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's likely an open proxy too; resolves to Moscow. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't post IP addresses here; given that one of the key issues being discussed is whether or not revealing simply the method of accessing Wikipedia is a privacy violation, I have no doubt that revealing IP addresses certainly is.  In particular, you cannot know for certain that this is one of the IP addresses from which CW was editing.  Risker 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Although, static IP addresses are placed in suspected/confirmed sockpuppet categories all the time, because of the "abuse" clause in the privacy policy (and the real need to handle sockpuppet cases). However, CharlotteWebb certainly did no sort of abuse, although the policy takes into account abuse by others who have used the IP address. Regardless of these specific rules, it is generally sage to not post IP addresses, especially since in many cases it may be a violation of the privacy policy, as Risker said. GracenotesT § 05:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb]] 

message: Don't revert vandalism. Yes, that's right – we've actually reached the stage now where making more good edits will actually decrease the chances of you getting adminship. If you want to revert vandalism, start another account and do all the vandal reverting on that – Gurch 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's diversity, not quantity! –Pomte 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the continuing decline of the sanity of RfA. It's become a gibbering mass. --Durin 19:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Gurch, thanks for pointing at how hard it is to pass and how broken RFA is, while being funny at the same time. :) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Funny? It's a genuine recommendation. There are many other benefits, too – for example, that account's userpage and talk page can safely endure whatever random abusive gibberish the vandals decide to place there, without you having to worry about reverting it all the time. What's more, you'll be awarded a pile of barnstars which you can shunt over to your other account when nobody's looking – Gurch 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fighting vandalism is an important function at Wikipedia, and it's a central reason for removing the restriction on editors once they have they have become trusted. I would be more concerned that an editor seeking adminship understand vandal-fighting policy rather than to say it isn't important. The removal of two key restrictions on non-admins: the revert button and the blocking function were specifically reserved so that vandalism could be effective fought. If our culture at RfA has come to the point where this important maintenance function is denigrated, we have some problems. -- Cecropia 19:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  A monkey can "fight" vandalism. The article writers are generally those with tact -- and generally they make the good sysops. Most of these "vandal fighters" get mopified and once they've got their "status" stop "fighting" shortly after and go "rouge" (I can think of one Mighty Morphin Power Ranger right now). Matthew 20:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it me? Me? Oh please let it be me! --Durin 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try not to get ahead of yourself. Matthew 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I find that a large and unfair generalization. I do not believe that a monkey can fight vandalism. Dealing with unconstructive editing properly is not an easy task, especially when it comes to dealing appropriately with users whose edits are obviously unacceptable and must be reverted, but which do not fit the narrow definition of 'vandalism' – something that one must be able to do in order for one's time spent watching recent changes to be used effectively. More importantly, though, it is completely untrue that "most" of those who deal with vandalism regularly cease to do so when they become administrators. Review if you will a scattering of recent changes – and note the many administrators we have who also deal with vandalism, some of whom have been steadily doing so for months or even years. Note also that vandals are blocked... clearly administrators are involved in that; they don't block themselves, you know – Gurch 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Matthew, I find that comment to be rude, offensive and ignorant in the extreme. I would write more but asumme you will realise it is wrong and that you will strike it. You do many vandal fighters an injustice by making it.Pedro |  Chat   21:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Monkeys eh?. Pedro's right, you might want to retract that. Cheers.--Sandahl 22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  You saying he's right... and him actually being right, well, they're two different things. I've no intention of removing my legitimate opinion. Matthew 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Cross post: Please do not twist my words. I'd be inclined to consider that an actual violation of WP:CIVIL. "A monkey can 'fight' vandalism", there's no comparative there - just a statement of my opinion. For the Matthew, Matthew 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further cross post. How am I twisting your words? Please provide diffs and substantiation. There has been no twist at all. Put an ape in front of a keyboard and it will probably beat it up - see this  for example. If you really believe that the good work reverting vandalism by numerous editors and admins is a hum-drum affair that only an ape would do I sugest you re-evaluate this project and your reason to be here. In an ideal world it would be about article creation, but sadly there's a lot more to it than that. If you are being facetious see WP:SARCASM. I'm sorry but your accusation back to me is unfounded and I would appreciate it if you would actually review WP:CIVIL before spouting it back to me. Best wishes. Pedro |  Chat   22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Off subject but refering to the above Copy of dialogue refering to the above (unindent). 
I've no intention of posting any diffs. - you may read message #1 you sent to me, if you desire. "Put an ape in front of a keyboard and it will probably beat it up", teach it to use the keyboard then. "[G]ood work", right... I'm sure using automated scripts is a challenge. This is an encyclopaedia, end of. Matthew 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew I am way out at sea here. You refer to my first comment though I have no clue why you are putting G in brackets? And I assume your "automated scripts" bit refers to TW or AWB or similar - neither of which I use for vandalism. "Using automated scripts is a challenge" also seems a bit of beat. Cummon mate, you are a respected admin but this seems way out of character. Pedro |  Chat   22:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, this is particularly different from the challenge of writing automated (and semi-automated) scripts. I doubt a monkey could do that (exception) GracenotesT § 05:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  If you're under the impression that vandalism is dealt with using automated scripts, I'm afraid you are mistaken. All but the most obvious vandalism is too ambiguous to be accurately detected by a computer program without an unacceptably high level of false positives. There is one bot which reverts vandalism, yes, but this is only the most blatantly unacceptable stuff (e.g. replacing an entire article with "penis") – a minority of all vandalism. The rest of it has to be found and dealt with by humans, manually. (We also have to go round after the bot correcting its mistakes, too...) – Gurch 11:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't forget that, if you use an alternate account, you absolutely must slap people across the face with  or else you will be immediately community banned, despite WP:SOCK#LEGIT not saying anything about it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "What's more, you'll be awarded a pile of barnstars" - I actually laughed. This is so true it's unreal. I've noticed this before. "Promote me to admin, look how many barnstars I have". --Deskana (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me just say this: Qxz got more barnstars in one day of vandal fighting than Gurch got in 15 months, including 6 months as an administrator – Gurch 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. --Deskana (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The barnstars part is not necessarily true... I'm not complaining, but what I have is a "random smiley award, a "smile" and the RickK... from a banned user since March, when I got addicted. Evilclown93(talk) 21:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Top tip for barnstar goodness: focus on reverting other established contributors' userpages. That usually gets you a "thanks" if not an award of some kind – Gurch 21:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's why I nuked mine. Evilclown93(talk) 21:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you did that to be an annoying little so-and-so, and irritate anyone who clicks your name. :) Well, possibly not, though I would welcome a ban on arbitrary cascade-protection of one's own userspace. Just redirect it to your talk page like the rest of us – Gurch 21:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just like it better as being no-existent. The redirect for some reason annoys me. I prefer tp see a the redlink. Then it doesn't exist, and with the redirect I admit I am mildly dazed with redirect. Evilclown93(talk) 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Mildly dazed with redirect"? Yeah, I think I know the feeling... – Gurch 21:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This chat of usernames does remind me of a certain RFA... bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 00:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we need a new IRC room for RFA or for you to use #wikipedia-social. FunPika 21:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't be silly, that's the off-topic channel. I'd be kicked for talking about RfA in there! – Gurch 11:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice to new contributors considering adminship 

message: I personally think that just getting someone's IP can't always tell if someone is a sock or has a bunch of admin accounts. They can use AOL, a different ISP, or just some big ISP that lots of other people use. They don't need Tor or proxies.  Also IP addresses never tell people things like with the whole Essjay scandal, they never revealed that. So basically people can lie about anything unless they're checked out. I mean I stumbled on some sites recently that said people were even lying about what gender they were and these weren't mere admins but people very high up.  Basically, I think maybe the foundation should do better background checking than just bothering with IP addresses. I remember reading something about the Runcorn socks thing and they said something like "even if we got 10 different pictures of 10 people holding up signs saying they're different, and their driver's licenses, and they came by in person we still couldn't be sure." SakotGrimshine 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we now checkuser all candidates? What's next, drug test? ~ Wikihermit 00:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well remember, a recent candidate got sunk for a comment made while drunk... Captain panda 00:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't officially or require a checkuser, but it could be/is happening for all we know. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would violate the privacy policy though, surely. --Deskana (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it's happened to CharlotteWeb after Jayig brought it up. Whoever checkusered Charlotte herself and blocked all her IPs. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (two edit conflicts) I'd think so. Look at the checkuser codes. Code A is attack account creations, not admin candidates. ~ Wikihermit 00:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Code A isn't attack account creations! FunPika 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes?Request to identify and block the IP addresses responsible for blatant vandalism and attack accounts... ~ Wikihermit 01:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe checkusering of admins would fall under "G" for "Great violation of privacy." Incidentally, it's the miscellaneous category. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 01:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Code — for "because I can". ~ Wikihermit 01:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh, H would be so screwed... EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? I don't think I'm getting your humor :) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither. See also:  My Wikipedia name HighInBC is a reference to my enjoyment of hiking the mountains and valleys of British Columbia. :-) ~ Wikihermit 01:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Except it wouldn't keep people from "farming" admin accounts. (Not that I seriously believe anyone ever has or ever will do such a thing). It would only detect people foolish enough to create multiple accounts, edit with them all through the same IP address, and try to get two of them promoted within three months of each other – and frankly, I think anyone who put that much effort into something and yet made such basic mistakes wouldn't be able to pass one RfA, let alone multiple ones. All it would actually do, in practise, is violate the privacy – and possibly even lead to the desysopping/banning – of any administrator and adminship candidate who happen to share the same IP. (This may seem unlikely, but bear in mind most of our administrators are young adults, many in higher education, and that many educational institutions use shared IPs; the probability of coincidence falls greatly, and indeed I'd be surprised if we don't currently have at least one pair of administrators whose edits primarily originate from the same IP.) – Gurch 11:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikimedia, Jimbo, Angela... everybody that controls WP on a more legal front will NEVER, and I mean NEVER, approve of this, mark my words due to privacy concerns. It's not going to happen. Evilclown93(talk) 12:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well thing is, if there is any benefit from Checkusering admin candidates, it can be done through other, more reliable means of identity verification, and if identity verification finds problems it can be dealt with in a private manner and not someone popping by and blabbing about what the results find. SakotGrimshine 12:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The random application of checkuser to admins or admin candidates is a poor solution. Bayes' theorem predicts that if you start checkusering people randomly (instead of applying it only where there is a high pre-test probability of sockpuppetry), you'll get many more false-positives than true-positives. If the fundamental concern is Trojan-horse admin accounts, then the answer is to be more discerning when !voting at RfA. The recent sockpuppet admin accounts had some fairly clear hallmarks; let's learn from that. If the fundamental concern is open proxies, then block the open proxies on sight - in this case, though, I was hearing, "Oh, we saw CharlotteWebb on open proxies before but didn't do anything about it until s/he applied for adminship." If the policy is inflexible, then enforce it upfront. If it's flexible, then it shouldn't be whipped out as a bludgeon at RfA time. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another idea: Although we'd probably have the state of Florida hunting the Foundation down, the CheckUser policy does say that they're allowed to CheckUser if given permission by the person being CheckUser-ed. We could make it policy to "voluntarily" submit yourself to a CheckUser before being allowed to post an RfA. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, who would want to take the trouble of "voluntarily" checkusering themselves? RFA shouldn't be a Gattaca-style process. Most people nominated for RFA have earned a sufficient amount of trust; to scan them and banhammer them down if their violators is violating that trust and results in the loss of a contributing user. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 02:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the whole checkusering of admin candidates idea 

message: I am currently requesting adminship and I am wondering if putting a neutral notice in my signature would be pushing the canvassing guideline too far. I feel that it would attract the best people to comment on me as the have seen me before the RfA and they may have had positive or negative experiences with me. This would be the signature I would have: Greeves (talk • contribs • RfA)
Thanks! Greeves (talk • contribs • RfA) 02:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't do it.  I think the whole canvassing thing gets taken out of proportion, but it's not particularly important that everyone should know about your RFA.  I assure you that you will have no trouble passing regardless. YechielMan 02:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problems with it, but I won't do it. ~ Wikihermit 02:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've seen it done before, but like the others have said, you run the risk of someone thinking you're canvassing. People will find the smallest things to object to when you are up for RfA.. -- Ned Scott 02:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't.  I'm supporting regardless, but RfA's have failed because of this before (although in the case I can remember, the link said "Vote, Vote, VOTE!") G1ggy Talk/Contribs 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While a notice in your signature is obviously objectionable, I don't think that anyone would mind if you put a notice on your user page.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, consensus does not appear to be against that. Quite the opposite. GracenotesT § 05:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  My advice on this: don't do it. Right now, the community is really nitpicky about canvassing, resulting in the aforementioned TfD. A notice on your userpage is enough, but my philosophy says that you should be in RfA if you can pass without any outside attention through canvassing. Evilclown93(talk) 12:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature 

message: I put up a request for adminship about a day ago (look here), and it hasn't come up in the list of nominations. Is there something I should be doing that I missed out? -Zacharycrimsonwolf 12:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to transclude it on the main Rfa page like this:

Evilclown93(talk) 12:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's been done.  Experience has shown that if you need to ask how to transclude an RFA, you probably need a little more typing typing mindlessly like an infinite monkey before you can destroy other people's work. YechielMan 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please redact the attack on 'monkey' editors and the comment about destroying other people's work. 64.126.24.12 14:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 64.126 etc - WP:SARCASM probably applies. Pedro |  Chat   15:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome... that may be the first time anyone except me has referenced that essay. MastCell Talk 16:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Generally speaking, I have to agree with the overall concept that Yechielman so delicately said. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wow...the RfA only lasted 8 hours.  Maybe YechielMan was on to something :p G1ggy Talk/Contribs 22:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:RFA 

message: I've started an essay at Wikipedia:Getting the most out of a request for adminship.  I'd be interested in thoughts on this, and for other editors to improve it.  I'm aware that there is quite an overlap with Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions, and it may be appropriate to merge some or all of the content into that essay, but I've tried to address the issues in a different way, giving examples, and looking at how some of the less helpful comments are based on solid reasoning which needs to be expressed, while others are based on a lack of understanding of the process. Warofdreams talk 00:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good! I think the examples are especially excellent. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 18:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very Valuable. I'm not sure every bizarre objection at RfA can be covered, but this is shaping up into a valuable tool. I will review further and would be pleased to provide input on the talk page. Pedro |  Chat   18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't even realise we have this.  Nice work, WoD, but there probably is an overlap...maybe merging your colorful examples with the random pictures of beans and anime?  That would make the ultimate essay ;) G1ggy Talk/Contribs 00:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the feedback.  I've now merged the essay into Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Warofdreams talk 04:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. :) You did well. Acalamari 16:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting the most from RfA

message: Bah! Typical! Evilclown93 has been nominated. Now I really respect this editor and was kind of expecting an RFA sooner or later. However I have deliberately avoided any comments at RFA in the past few days whilst my own process goes through. Normally I like to comment (even on obvious WP:SNOW cases to provide moral support) but I've resisted temptation on the premise that this could vaguely be seen as "I'll support you - please support me back". As it goes Evilclown's RfA looks rock solid to pass at present, but I'd still like to add my opinion. I've seen no policy on this but should one bar one's self from commenting at RFA whilst one's own RFA is in progress as a matter of wikiquette? Pedro |  Chat   18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I neer hought of this actually. I commented on RfA's when mine was going through without a second thought. Then again, NYB and Daniel had RfAs up at that time, so of course I was gonna vote, but still. I doubt people wil hold it against you if you vote, but i might be wrong. Wizardman 18:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take part in pretty much every RfA I run across, have been doing so for quite a while, and I didn't see any reason to stop during my RfA. I think I may have even opposed someone during the run :) Riana (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BOLD slays the beast of WP:CANVASS I guess! Thanks! Pedro |  Chat   18:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at this RfA. I strongly opposed it and had a massive argument on it at the same time, and this was whilst my own RfA was going on! But in today's climate, I'd recommend nobody do that ;) Majorly (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest in the interest of the greater good that you comment away.  Your RfA is no big deal (remember?!) and if anyone had any issues with anything your have to say about fellow RfA candidates then that's up to them.  Do as per Pedro, be bold, comment away.  The Rambling Man 19:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I both supported and opposed users during my own RfA, without giving it much thought. I don't think that any of the candidates I voted for/against later participated in mine.  hmwith  talk 19:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Nah, don't worry about it. !vote away. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a big deal. Also Pedro, thanks for your analysis of my RfA... Evilclown93(talk) 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You should not worry about how you vote during another's RFA while your own is going on if you can express what you feel tactfully and with minimal damage. If you have grounds to oppose someone and can present an argument as to why, it is better than just a per above or I do not feel confident in the candidate. If the user you oppose cannot handle constructive critiscm and in turn opposes you solely for that reason, at least you'll have the knowledge you took the higer road. --Ozgod 11:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems consensus is comment if you wish to, which is a good thing IMHO. I solved my own problem so now I can !vote without fear of retribution! Ha Ha! Pedro |  Chat   15:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You were around 80%. You would have passed. Evilclown93(talk) 15:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're too kind. But Ryan highlighted an area of policy I was wrong on, and considering that it was in my self-proclaimed core area of vandal fighting that's a big black mark. In addition there were some opposes coming out based on 'popularity contest'. Now I don't want to use this thread as an examination of my RFA so let's not get side tracked, but I guess that popularity and this thread do link in a way. I have commented about it to this user and I really felt that it was a bit of a mean rationale to oppose - not mean to me - but at other editors who supported, as it implied that was the only reason for their support. Pedro |  Chat   16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commenting at RFA during one's own RFA 

message: {| class="wikitable"	Username	S	O	N   	S%           	Ending	Duplicates?	Report
Mattbr      	23      	0	0	100%	3 July 22:37 	No    	Details    	
Andrew c    	45      	0	0	100%	3 July 03:37 	No    	Details    	
FisherQueen 	56      	0	0	100%	2 July 15:46 	No    	Details    	
Evilclown93 	70      	0	2	100%	30 June 17:51	No    	Details    	
Jreferee    	79      	1	1	99% 	29 June 23:42	No    	Details    	
Sanchom     	40      	3	1	93% 	28 June 09:48	No    	Details    	
VirtualSteve	79      	1	0	99% 	27 June 15:08	No    	Details    	
Yay! --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So much for the old multicolored week! Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has there been a red\orange week? Simply south 22:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. The users would probably be SNOW'd or withdrawn if that happened. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 22:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even "yellow week" would be unlikely, since about 1/3 of all successful RfAs are close to unanimous. Leebo T/C 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were to look back on last week/very very early this week, you would notcie that we were looking very yellowy-orange at RFA actually. Its also important to note that there are only six or seven candidates at the moment. Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point - we could use more candidates :-). We should all go find someone to nominate! WjBscribe 15:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, my RfA is not unanimous; it does have one opposer.  However, I'm taking it as unanimous in spirit... -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pfft, axe-grinders don't count. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! I guess. —Anas talk? 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now I really hope mine goes well - I'd hate to mess up this monochromic event. --Milton 07:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Milton. I hope you dont change the trend. I bet you do too. :) Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's green week! 

message: I think that, to make monitoring RFA, from the RFA page, easier, that the RFA reportboard (see left) should be added somewhere to the official RFA page. What do people think? Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not against it in principle, but I'm worried that 1) It makes RFA look more and more like a vote (that old argument!) and 2) It may encourage "pile on" support or oppose without editors actually making an informed decision by reviewing contribution history/ answers to Q's etc. Just my two pence. Pedro |  Chat   07:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reply to that: Its a matter of making things easier. I dont think it will make a difference, its a matter of ease. if someone wants to, they can apply it to their page, its no big deal. It just makes the results seem more sure and clear. Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure I see your point, but it just makes it so much easier to see how Rfas are doing. Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: THREE RFA'S WITH 100% SUPPORT', I've got to find a good reason to oppse! :) --Chris g  09:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok... :) Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Nooooo! Never shall this board be placed on the main page. --Deskana (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understandable, but it doesn't need to be on the main RfA page for you to use it in such a manner, which is what we're discussing here. --Deskana (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I agree with Deskana on that point; sorry for not making this clear in my previous comment.) --ais523 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd be fine with "For a quick numerical summation of active requests for adminship, see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report" (or something similar) being placed on the RfA page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think it is convenient to have it on WP:BN, for bureaucrats to see what is going on, but it is not necessary to have it on WP:RfA. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As it stands, the report is exceedingly easy to get to for anyone who wants to get to it. It even has links straight to individual requests, so that regulars who use the report probably don't even need to visit WP:RFA at all, they can just start at the report. Given that adding the report can only increase the perception that requests for adminship are votes, or worse, prejudice people as to the outcome of a request before they even visit it, I see no advantage in putting this on WP:RFA. --bainer (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I can honestly say that I visit the actual RfA page fairly rarely. The report is more than adequate for me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest just adding it to your userpage as I have done; I always give it a quick look before heading over here. I'd also suggest admins place a transcluded copy of User:VeblenBot/PERtable on their userpage/admin page. It's a great way to keep track of those  requests. - auburnpilot talk 17:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Durin and others who fear the obvious vote-minded mentality the table represents might prejudice votes; the table is easy enough to access in your userspace, anyhow. The table has a number of other features, though: links to each subpage, closing dates, a preliminary check for duplicate votes, and might include other features, such as a column indicating whether a given nomination has been accepted. Could these other features be useful for a table which doesn't include the vote counts, possibly placed on the front page? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I guess I see the point now, I understand where you all are coming from. But I think Luna above might have a neutral idea going on above which could be quite useful. It would simply be a matter of redesigning a script wouldnt it? Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion for the RFA board to be placed on the official RFA page