Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 30

message: I am currently under nomination for adminship and one oppose vote has come. Should I explain my position by writing something as noted below the Oppose vote or somewhere else? OR, Just let the nomination run its course:
“Would you please come closer to me and explain the exact reasons for opposing my nomination for adminship? Do you really feel that wikipedia should have materials, which do not conform to the guidelines?  I invite you for a chit-chat, and I shall certainly endeavor to remove your doubts. Thanks.” 
Suggestions are requested. In case, I came to the wrong place, sorry pals. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't please everyone, just let it run its course. Martin 15:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict) The user is well-known enough has given a legitimate reason to oppose, so I'd let this one go. From the looks of it you'll pass no problem. Live to fight another day, ma man. gkhan 15:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It does spoil a cent-per-cent vote I agree, but at 43:1, and a day and a half to go, I don't think its absolutely necessary to respond to each oppose vote. Some users oppose to bait a candidate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Nevertheless, I clarified my position at the appropriate place. --Bhadani 14:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A request

message: We never finalised previous discussion on inactive admins, and I found this from the commons website;
:== Inactive admins ==
:As with the policy for administrator access on Meta, inactive administrators may have their access removed. According to this policy, any sysop inactive on Commons for a full year will be desysoped. "Inactive" means no edits in the past 6 months and fewer than 50 edits in the last year. Inactive administrators may re-apply through the regular way.
Shall we conduct a straw poll to see if we can form a consensus on having this as policy here as well? Note: i know we all hate polls, but we have had more than one discussion on this, and this is a quick and painless way to finally do something about it. 
I'll start a poll on the admins notice board soon unless anyone can think of somewhere better to have it. Martin 14:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please not on the AN. That page is usually half an MB in size, and a poll will push it even further. A wikipedia namespace would be better. See also WP:CS =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, not AN.  Wikipedia talk:Administrators, or a subpage of this page, would probably be more appropriate.  Sam Korn 15:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point I have made it at Wikipedia:Desysopsing inactive admins. See you all there. Martin 15:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been moved to Wikipedia:Inactive administrators (2005). --Blackcap | talk 01:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It's a simple preventative measure, which is policy on commons. Martin 17:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: btw, in life you'll learn that "pain in the butts" are people who resist change for no reason other than it is change. Martin 17:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Martin, I was just making a joke, unrelated to the merits of the above proposed poll. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sorry. Martin 18:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive admins part 2 

message: Admin User:Taxman, before he went on break, said (and I agree) that this was the right place to bring my concerns: "The much better way to handle the issue if you think there is a serious problem in the way the RFA policy is handled would be to let your RFA stay removed then bring the issue up on the RFA talk page and point to that discussion from relevant other places. That way it's not you trying to argue your way into adminship, but the issue is still handled." 
Note: It looks like the Bureaucrat who had initially reposted the RfA and said to let it run its "one week" course was outvoted, and other Admins have locked both the RfA page ("vote closed" reasoning) and its associated "talk" page: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts.
It appears that my attempt to "talk about it" on the talk page was not even permitted: A clear attempt to stifle my voice. (They gave a reason, but I don't buy it; My attempts to voice my concerns over my failed RfA have moved to this page here, and I'm keeping a copy on my user page and my computer's hard drive -for archival and backup purposes.)
Why do they have such a talk page, when it is clear that they are afraid to talk about it in a public forum? They lock even the talk page! Wow.--GordonWatts 20:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some general RfA Problems: Taxman said this was the page for it

message: (Contradicts: Gut Feeling: Need more admins.)
"We have ~23,500,000 edits, ~2,300,000 pages, ~440,000 users and ~580 admins. That means each admin is effectively responsible for 40,500 edits, 4,000 pages and 750 users. That sounds like 580 full time jobs to me~ --Alterego 15:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Raw numbers of Admins

message: (Contradicts: Gut Feeling)
"Editcountitis is particularly bad. There was a case recently where someone had been around for two years, made lots of good (and lengthy) contributions, never caused any trouble, had helped people out, but was blindly rejected because he had only made 1,000 edits or so...In short, adminship should still be no big deal. We should work at loosing the RfAd culture up. Pcb21| Pete 09:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? Aquillion 21:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why are you talking about yourself in the third person?" Well, Aquillion, it is because I am not defending myself in this post (where  I'd use first person), but, instead, defending a standard. (I am writing an article, and good writers, of which I hope I am one, speak objective third person, not "subjective' first person, to avoid being myopic or giving the impression of bias.--GordonWatts 12:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editcountitis standard used in RfA process.

message: (Contradicts: Itself)
Are RfA candidates criticized for things that Admins do all the time? - Two case examples
===The "SlimVirgin" Edit War===
(Note: The writer of this post thinks that SlimVirgin was not at fault in this example, but many others harshly criticised and reverted her; FuelWagon has alleged that three (3) editors quit on count of her, but that may be coincidence that Neuroscientist, Duckecho, and ghost all quit at that time for other reasons.)
* 22:21, 11 July 2005 Duckecho (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc, the last stable version before the attacks. Please no more reverts until proposed changes are talked out on Talk.)
*21:41, 11 July 2005 Ann Heneghan m (Reverting to SlimVirgin - can't see what was wrong with that edit)
*20:09, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon ((revert to last version by Stanselmdoc)
*19:53, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (Reverted edits by Duckecho to last version by SlimVirgin
*19:47, 11 July 2005 Duckecho (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc
*19:17, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (Reverted edits by FuelWagon to last version by SlimVirgin
*19:17, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc
*19:10, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (Reverted edits by FuelWagon to last version by SlimVirgin
*19:08, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc
*SlimVirgin had put "in use" tag on and did major copyedit
As a side note, while I think SlimVirgin was not at fault in the edit war above, my points were two-fold: She was never scrutinized like an RfA applicant would have been; Secondly: Here, in the page protect logs, SlimVirgin made these spicy comments about me, thinking I would never see them:
*10:28, 17 September 2005 SlimVirgin unprotected Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts (I'm hoping Gordon has gone to bed)
*09:46, 17 September 2005 SlimVirgin protected Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts (temporary protection against GordonWatts)
Hmm...--GordonWatts 20:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Double Standard

message: (Note: The writer of this post thinks that SlimVirgin was not at fault in this example, but many others harshly criticised and reverted her; FuelWagon has alleged that three (3) editors quit on count of her, but that may be coincidence that Neuroscientist, Duckecho, and ghost all quit at that time for other reasons.)
* 22:21, 11 July 2005 Duckecho (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc, the last stable version before the attacks. Please no more reverts until proposed changes are talked out on Talk.)
*21:41, 11 July 2005 Ann Heneghan m (Reverting to SlimVirgin - can't see what was wrong with that edit)
*20:09, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon ((revert to last version by Stanselmdoc)
*19:53, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (Reverted edits by Duckecho to last version by SlimVirgin
*19:47, 11 July 2005 Duckecho (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc
*19:17, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (Reverted edits by FuelWagon to last version by SlimVirgin
*19:17, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc
*19:10, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (Reverted edits by FuelWagon to last version by SlimVirgin
*19:08, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc
*SlimVirgin had put "in use" tag on and did major copyedit
As a side note, while I think SlimVirgin was not at fault in the edit war above, my points were two-fold: She was never scrutinized like an RfA applicant would have been; Secondly: Here, in the page protect logs, SlimVirgin made these spicy comments about me, thinking I would never see them:
*10:28, 17 September 2005 SlimVirgin unprotected Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts (I'm hoping Gordon has gone to bed)
*09:46, 17 September 2005 SlimVirgin protected Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts (temporary protection against GordonWatts)
Hmm...--GordonWatts 20:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The "SlimVirgin" Edit War

message: *05:36, 4 September 2005 Pharos (revert; see Template:Wikipedialang displayed at the bottom of the page)
*05:44, 23 August 2005 Rdsmith4 (revert - the space is much too large, plus it's not balanced with the other column)
*11:43, 20 August 2005 Violetriga m (rv. - redirect bug fixed)
*17:02, 14 August 2005 Raul654 (rv - as I already said on the talk page, this section is awful)
*16:46, 14 August 2005 Talrias (insert become an editor section - thoughts welcome)
*16:18, 13 August 2005 Raul654 (rv - see talk)
*20:12, 8 August 2005 Oven Fresh m (Reverted edits by Oven Fresh to last version by ABCD)
*20:10, 8 August 2005 Oven Fresh m (revert: html is being used becuase of the "Misc. --> Auto-number headings" option in preferences)
*16:32, 6 August 2005 ABCD (use clean wiki syntax for headers, not buggy HTML)
Comments: Can someone say "Revert War?"
*User:SlimVirgin, while innocent in this writers eyes, still made a good number of users quite angry, and generated Talk:Terri_Schiavo/archive30#Suggestion_for_SlimVirgin complaints and also a Wikipedia_talk:Request_for_comment/SlimVirgin plus a lot of heat.
*The front page revert war shown above involved at least seven (7) Admins and Bureaucrats and almost certainly one or two of them were in the wrong, since all competing "versions" could not necessarily be right; Further, even if they were all reasonable, why couldn't that talk it out on the talk page first?
*The admins and bureaucrats involved may not have done anything other than be human, but are they worthy of Adminship and Bureaucratship?
*Here, we have User:Allen3 (Revision as of 16:00, 13 September 2005)] telling me in my recent RfA application that my four reverts were out of order when I had the authority or permission to do them in three cases, and the fourth, if I were wrong, was a misunderstanding, based on the fact that Nichalp said that I had the right to have a FA-candidate.
*In this diff, Andrevan, an Admin, posts a question to the page after it was locked, and I could not answer it there: He criticized me for getting "sysop" and "admin" mixed up; They mean the same thing. It is true that I made a human error, but he does not criticize Admins and Bureaucrats for much more serious and questionable actions.
*Claim: I was the subject of a double standard: These users contradicted themselves when in my RfA application, they nit picked at me for what were possibly minor violations (nothing serious and no revert war on my part, unless I was actually justified). Even if I were not qualified to be an admin based on this behavior, why are other admins, and even bureaucrats (supposedly held to even higher standards) allowed to do this without so much as a peep from these RfA voters? Are RfA candidates, such as Mr. Watts, being held to higher standards than actual Admins and Bureaucrats?
One Possible Answer: "But [Adminship] is not a job. They are just powers. Originally, they were conceived as powers withheld, which you would be granted if you kept your nose reasonably clean. Now people are opposed because they don't vote on deletions, because they have made enemies, because they aren't "trusted" (but not "trusted" not to delete pages, "trusted" in a sense defined by whoever is using that as their reason), because you once bickered with somebody over something stupid, because someone once called you a troll and his mates piled on. Gordon should be an admin if it's no big deal. He wouldn't do any harm with it. He just blathers and tries to push his POV. If that was a crime, we'd be locking up half the editorship. Grace Note 02:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The recent [[Main_Page]] Edit War between at least <u>seven</u> Admins & Bureaucrats

message: I just wish to enquire, is there any reason why the comments part (when an RfA gets long) shouldn't be a separate section? On R. Fiend's RfA, he changed it so that it was and Ceropia changed it back. Just wish for clarification, thank you. --Celestianpower hab 22:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not separate sections so as to not spam the TOC. IIRC, I've seen they changed to separate sections when the RfA gets really long. --cesarb 22:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So is it okay in R. Fiend's case as he asked for it? --Celestianpower hab 22:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's not needed; it's not that long. You should ask a bureaucrat, since they are usually the ones to "manage" the RfA page (oh, wait, isn't Cecropia a bureaucrat?) --cesarb 03:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments as a separate section 

message: Gordon, the page is titled "Requests of Adminship". It differs from "Vote for adminship". If your vote is failing miserably bureaucrats have every right to remove it from the page. The page is created to ascertain if the candidate is suitable for further responsibilities. If the voting trends dictate a downward trend, continuation of the whole excercise is pointless. You don't gain from it, others don't gain from it either. Maybe you don't want face the ignominy of having the nom called of early, but its better than getting more oppose votes and wasting everybody's time and energy. 
* You may want the nomination to continue as you hope some of the oppose votes might get changed to support. If that's the case you may contact all those who have voted here and ask them to withdraw/support instead. If they refuse, well no point pursuing it any further.
*Current standards mentioned on the page say that 80% support votes are needed. If you feel otherwise, please get a mandate from the community that a 4-3 vote (or roughly 57%) is sufficient to gain adminship.
* Under the first section, '...The community grants administrator status to trusted users.... Instead of you proving if you are a trusted user, please find out why the community think otherwise of you.
* If adminship is no big deal then why are you still persisting? Get 1000 edits in the main namespace, get three articles featured. Participate in the Village pump, AFD, IFD; hunt and find spelling errors, copyvios etc. Prove your worth as a potential admin not by your word, but by your actions. Public opinion is notoriously myopic, and if you are civil and volunteer for the above tasks, I see no reason why you can't wait and succeed in two months time. 
*If you continue to post such large replies I shall assure you that its going to be speedily ignored, and archived faster. 
*Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Gordon Watts 

message: Hello RfA regulars - This might be just my own opinion of the matter, and I don't expect it to be held by others; however, am I the only person to think that RfA seems to be fundamentally in need of an overhaul? 
* The name itself suggests so, since "Request for Adminship" suggests a request being made for adminship, not a vote to determine suitability for granting adminship - it should be called VfA if it really is a vote. 
* In addition, civility has completely vanished in certain circumstances, leading to adminship requests being used as a manner of putting good faith users down, often for nothing more than being yet to contribute a particularly large quantity to a particular area of Wikipedia. Since the majority of RfAs appear to be nominations by others, rather than self-nominations (possibly due to the stigma attached to it) it would seem quite wrong that people should be criticised to the degree they are when they themselves have not directly requested it. It is no wonder, I believe, that users feel disgruntled with the process, since the level of animosity and unkindness involved here has far surpassed levels of decency.
* Edit counting is a key issue, in my opinion, too. At present, the vast majority of RfA votes appear to be based on numeric edit counting, via the determination of whether a user meets appropriate edit count criteria (usually considered to be around 1500-3000 edits, depending on the person voting). Let me give an example - Say I write a whole article, carefully proof read it, and save the page. I would get 1 edit. If I corrected 4 minor typos in that article, I would get 75% more edits - in short, receiving more credit for doing less work. In addition, drawing and uploading a map or diagram only earns 1 "point". I hardly think this is a valid means for determining the level of contribution a user has made, and to me at least it would appear to set a concerning example towards large numbers of trivial or low-quality edits rather than working on harder tasks and careful attention to detail. Moreover, what is to say a user who has not yet contributed a large quantity of edits is not a responsible admin? So long as they've been on Wikipedia for some time, learned how things are done, and helped out a bit, they may well make an excellent administrator.
* The method of determination of votes, and the current voting procedure, would appear to be totally silly. Why this 85% support requirement? All it takes at present is for five or six users of a like mind to vote Oppose on an RfA that otherwise was dominated by support votes, despite the fact that the majority of the votes were Support. I also hold the view that the word "Oppose" is fundamentally unpleasant to the user being considered for adminship, and it may be better to split votes into "Support / Not Support" rather than "Oppose/Neutral/Support".
* Subjectivity of bureaucrat opinion is an additional problem. Different bureaucrats appear to have different ideas according to what constitutes consensus on RfA, and I have seen some votes be closed as No Consensus that had a higher support vote than others which had been closed with a Support consensus. I think there should be some kind of more rigid criterion for determining the status of an RfA.
I would be most grateful if people would give me their opinion on the above, and possibly come together in an effort to address the above issues.
Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull 17:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Answering you, YES, it's broken. That's the "problem." I offer a solution: Let's vote on these proposeals here and at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Issue_2:_The_.22What_is_a_Fac.22_standard, a related proposal. Then, no matter what the outcome, let's follow the rules -for all.--GordonWatts 17:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA is broken, in my opinion