Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 102

message: What valuable information does a person's CV provide that indicates whether they are acceptable for adminship or not? How does a CV show the person to be any more trustworthy than a guy off the street, given that it can be easily forged? How does a CV show that someone is more or less capable of performing administrator actions and behaving as an administrator should, both by themselves and given they can be easily forged? How does a CV show the quality of a user's contributions, given that we have plenty of young editors that can make great contributions-- and again given they can be easily forged? --L-- 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that it is relevant to adminship at all. As I said to Hmwith, it may be relevant to article writing, and that's great, as long as you don't violate WP:OR, but it has very little to do with janitorial duties. If I may use Anonymous Dissident as an example, he is 12 years old, and is an excellent editor who will make an excellent admin. He does not have a college degree (to my knowledge) and is still a great editor. That proves something to me. Good question, L! Neranei T/C 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question from [[User:L|L]]

message: For some reason, this discussion does not sit well with me. Since this entire project is voluntary, I don't think anyone would really appreciate being dissected nor put under a bright light. I'm happy to answer questions on my talk page, but even my tacktoos drew a few commentaries and raised eyebrows - and that would be a mere drop in the bucket compared to the scrutiny of my wonderfully eclectic CV (or whatever we are calling it these days). My education, my leisure activities and my resume wouldn't really make my understanding of copyvios nor AfD procedures any stronger (nor weaker). AGF is thrown around here, but maybe it should be less a colloquial term, and more an adhered to practice. In pertaining to RfA, unanswered 'optional' questions, such as these, can and have been a reason to oppose. I don't want any user to feel he/she must reveal personal information in order to convey goodwill and transparency. Life is either work or play. Since we are all volunteers here, wikipedia must be play, and therefore is for fun, correct? Yes it's important, serious, and productive - but it's still fun. Since I have fun here, and you are my playmates, I see no need to ask for credentials, as I will have fun regardless, as long as your editing is in good faith, your knowledge of procedure is forever getting better, and your interest in the project is the same as mine - to build an encyclopedia. the_undertow talk 06:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well stated. Lara♥Love 06:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant! Neranei T/C 15:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:the_undertow]] 

message: I have blocked Vodak indefinitely following confirmation that this account is a sockpuppet of User:Malber, who is presently blocked for using a sock to disrupt RfA with Harry Potter spoilers. Malber previously put similar questions to RfA candidates, asking them to disclose their age and/or qualifications. He appears to be trying to make the same point now that he was then... WjBscribe 17:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. I am glad that this issue is closed. Miranda 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aha! An honest attorney could never post his or her complete C.V., which normally now includes such personal information as an attorney registration number, business email, direct extension, sample client information, and notary public license number. Now all of this, combined, could be used to steal a client's identity.  I wondered why someone would want that information, and know we all know, i.e., to invade privacy. Bearian 15:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Vodak|Vodak]] blocked

message: Instead of spamming the talk pages of everyone who voted participated in my recent RfA, I think it would be better to simply post my thanks here. I'm very happy to finally be an administrator. Over the last couple of years, Wikipedia has truly become an important part of my life. I feel so lucky to be able to work on something like this. Now, I feel humbled that I have been granted the "mop and the bucket" so I can hopefully be a bigger help to the community. I assure you that I do not take my new role lightly. I truly want to thank each and every person who voted participated. It was an interesting process and I feel that I, in a way, was able to meet many other users that I otherwise wouldn't have encountered. I hope to see you guys around in the future. If anyone out there ever needs an admin for whatever reason, don't hesitate to drop me a message. Thanks again! --MatthewUND(talk) 07:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, have Husond's mop and bucket - you deserve them!  Remember though, I'm watching you :P Giggy Talk 07:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, probably not, since people rarely watch this talk page. Just post it on your user page and people will see it there. Miranda 11:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could post it on the talk page of the RFA itself. That way everyone who commented should see it. Majorly (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is probably the best place to put the thank you notice. While this page is widely watched by people interested in RFAs (contrary to what Miranda says), posting notices like this worsens the signal-to-noise ratio here. Anyway, congratulations, and happy blocking, deleting, protecting, and editing! Kusma (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds like a good idea to me. It's a little hard to know exactly where to thank people. For what's it's worth, I think I'll also put this on my RfA's talk page. --MatthewUND(talk) 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm amazed.  Someone tries to find a "better" and less intrusive way to do things, and people tell him off for it.  By the way Majorly, that assumes people watchlist all the RfAs they comment on - I don't know about others, but I don't always do that ;) Giggy Talk 22:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. By the way, congratulations! Neranei T/C 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds like a good idea, though one probably better suited for userspace than project space (though it's a bit of a toss up). If you're curious, my RfA thank you can be found at User:EVula/admin/thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You can try blocking yourself, and deleting/protecting/etc a user subpage. I was considerng making a admin sandbox on the toolserver, but per rules I can't. I might ask sometime. Note that blocking yourself isnt permanent, you can just unblock yourself again. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can unblock yourself while you're blocked? --MatthewUND(talk) 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get any ideas.  That's the quickest route to becoming a WP:FORMER administrator :) -- Renesis (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yep. Blocking an admin does not remove their ability to perform admin actions, so yes you can unblock yourself. Caution: If you should ever find yourself blocked while you are an admin, do NOT unblock yourself. Extremely high likelihood you would lose your admin status if you did so, for abuse of admin privs. --Durin 23:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well, I can.  Try it for yourself. I've also messed around on User:WiIyD, which is a nasty sockpuppet of mine.  WilyD 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Take a look at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/New admin school - it's not quite finished yet, but worth a look. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're looking for sockpuppets to block, you can try User:Bishzilla and User:Iana-ray Zasta-day.  Just don't tell User:Bishonen and User:Riana that I told you to do it. :) Shalom Hello 05:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: When I was first given my mop, I created a little guinea pig page in my userspace to delete and have my way with. No specific space is actually needed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How embarrassing, I rarely forget to sign. James086Talk | Email 08:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My successful RfA 

message: If you're going to close an RfA for a valid reason (such as a candidate withdrawing, which doesn't require a bureaucrat's involvement at all, or a painfully obvious case of snowballs), please be sure to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions. There are several things that need to happen for failed noms and not all of them are happening to the RfAs I've been watching (which is all of them).
I'm not pointing fingers any anybody, and I certainly don't want to come across as pissed off by any stretch of the imagination, but if you're gonna help out, first of all thank you, but just make sure you're taking care of everything, not just slapping a template on the RfA. Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not talking to me, right? :-) I suggest editors just leave closing RfA's to you, a bureaucrat, or someone of equal experience with RfA's. --Boricuaeddie 23:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies - I know I closed one today after the user asked me to and untranscluded. I didn't use a template though - I couldnt remember it, and ended up copying from another RfA. In future, I think i'll just leave it for others. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did one of these last night, and I think I closed and archived it correctly.  In general, if I miss a step, please let me know. Shalom Hello 05:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a reminder about closing RfAs 

message: Do Neutral !votes count? Looking at the 'crat noticeboard, It shows no sign of counting these !Vs. Why do we have Neutrals? J-stan TalkContribs 03:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do not count in the percentages, but, as some b'crats say, they take a look at the neutral votes when dealing with borderline cases. —Kurykh 03:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how'd you count a neutral in percentage-wise anyway. But yeah, it's mainly for borerline cases, I'd think. Wizardman 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as i can see, Neutral !votes are really pieces of text that should be part of the comments section, but that want to gain more attention and express their inability to decide "which way they should lean" -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they have a purpose even if they don't "count" per se. Sometimes I have concerns about a candidate which I want to express in definite terms, but I don't think they're strong enough to merit an Oppose. For instance, if a candidate was experienced and hardworking, but their answers to the questions had indicated excessive willingness to use IAR and "common sense" instead of following the policies and guidelines, I would vote Neutral; it wouldn't be a fair reason to Oppose, but I'd want them to take note of my concerns. Waltonalternate account 15:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I pretty much agree with Walton about the role of the Neutral section in RfAs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So how many 80.0001% or greater RFAs have you closed as no consensus? --W.marsh 15:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I recall an RFA where 3 people supported and 3 opposed based on the same comment of mine. If that doesn't indicate problems, I don't know what would. Then again, I was pretty borderline myself. Prodego talk 05:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Neutral comments can however change the course of an RfA at times... I seem to recall at least 1 RfA where I made a comment in the neutral section and there were at least 7 opposes because of the point I brought up. The power of neutrality shouldn't be knocked :) ~ Riana ⁂ 16:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The power of neutrality shouldn't be knocked"  sounds like the national motto of Switzerland  New England Review Me! 16:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use the "neutral" section mainly when I've changed my !vote (generally when someone I've supported then does something that's not quite bad enough to change to oppose, but that makes me no longer comfortable supporting. Moving it to Neutral with a note is IMO less messy than a strikethrough —  iridescent (talk to me!) 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral 

message: Can someone please sort out Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies? I was planning on doing it myself but I really don't have the time. There are 30 RfAs there. --Deskana (banana) 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Majorly (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Would it perhaps make sense to convert it over to a system similar to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies, in that everything is dated and noted (rather than just a "here's everyone promoted in <month> of <year>")? EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that would be a lot more useful. I think NoSeptember has a page of dates and stuff on one of his subpages. Majorly (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I converted the rest of the transclusions to links, though EVula's suggestion may prompt everything to change soon anyway. Oh well.--Chaser - T 05:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This may help. Singularity 23:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EVula, both those things you suggested are fine. Although you might have to look in the rfa history to see who did the promotion pre. Feb 2004. Majorly (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly off-topic, but close enough to the general theme about records of adminship candidacies.  I was wondering, Majorly, if you had any plans on updating Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA stats/Stats - the thought occurred to me that if people are looking for guidance on whether they might be "experienced" enough to stand, a handy link somewhere more prominent to this page of yours would be very useful. Potential candidates could then see how long it had been since someone with a similarly "low" edit count or "few" months of editing had been mopped, and it might be a useful guide for them (and for those commenting at RfA) for how their candidacy fitted into recent trends.  BencherliteTalk 00:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, no. I'm too busy in other places to be updating it, but anyone is free to do it themselves, if they are interested (including the main stats page which is about 3 months out of date...) Majorly (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. BencherliteTalk 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In the interest of "EVula Doesn't Want To Go Batshit Insane", I think I'll instead list whoever closed the RfA; much easier to figure out and, in about 99.9% of the cases, it's the same person as the promoting 'crat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A much fuller example is Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies#August 2007. I'm gonna keep going, since nobody has cried out that the existing format is preferred. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies]] 

message: Did anyone besides me and J-stan notice that their RfA's were surprisingly similar (almost identical answers and very similar nominations). 53180's and luvcraft's. T Rex | talk 08:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I figured User:53180 did a copy/paste of luvcraft's, though I could be wrong - Alison ☺ 08:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems to have a vastly different contribution focus. It would be pretty unlikely that they will be socks... 53180 probably just saw luvcraft's RfA and thought to have a go, copying luvcraft's statement in the process... --DarkFalls talk 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is the possibility that 53180 started out as an SPA (I never know whether to use "a" or "an"), and then turned into a sockpuppet. J-stan TalkContribs 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 53180 is flirting with an indef block; I've already had to block him for disruption when he made another RfA (four failed RfAs in one day), and he then proceeded to leave uncivil comments on a relatively unrelated editor's talk page. SPA or sock, I honestly don't care; we've got better things to do with our time than to humor bull-headed and rude editors who can't take a clue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I noticed the similarity as well, but came to a similar conclusion as Alison. EVula // talk // ☯ // 12:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did see it as well. But as was posted above, User:53180 probably saw User:luvcraft RFA, and just decided to copy it. I don't think it has anything to do with sockpuppets. Politics rule 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:luvcraft]] and [[User:53180]]

message: Any one here think this talk page could use an archive bot(i.e. MiszaBot?) --Chris   G   09:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Discussions here vary in length and the amount of time spent on them greatly. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever the time spent be, my bot archives based on the last timestamp in a thread, so moves only discussions that noone has commented in for a while. I think you can safely set the treshold to, say 14 days (no thread qualifies for that currently). Миша13 13:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been doing it personally for the last few months. Sometimes the page balloons to over 200Kb in one or two days, and sometimes things should stay up for a while longer than mandated by the bot when they are significant and/or the page is shorter. Since it's not a problem for me, and hopefully my brainpower is an improvement over the bot, I have no problem with continuing to archive here manually. Dekimasuよ! 14:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive Bot 

message: Is it just me, or is there a lack of Rfa's recently?  I mean, usually there are between 8-12 ones running at any time.  But we only have 4 right now.  Not weirding out or anything, but just curious if I am the only one finding that odd. Jmlk17 09:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember correctly, someone said this happens every year. There's always a decline round about this time of year, I think. --Deskana (banana) 09:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  I'm well into my third month as an admin, so I'm a little behind ;).  But thanks Deskana :) Jmlk17 09:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I could put one of my socks up for RfA, if you'd like. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm struggling to find more people to nom, I'm sorry. I'm temporarily out of candidates and Ryan's on wikibreak, so there's a nice chunk of missing rfas. Wizardman 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been always curious... how easy is it to pass RfA with a sock (when you know what you're doing). Maxim(talk) 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I like the way this topic is going. --Deskana (banana) 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...yeah, as interesting as this conversation would be, I don't think much good will come from it. Suffice it to say, my socks will remain un-RfAed (though it'd be fun to submit one on April Fool's Day...). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Our 2 RfA nominating machines, Ryan and Majorly, are getting slack, that's all :) ~ Riana ⁂ 20:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, we're not exactly lacking for admin hopefuls. Anyone can nominate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Super Ultra Mege Bob of Waverly Drive from Mars146366 is on the way now...seriously though, we only have 3 RfAs up.  Let's hope Deskana is right and it goes away. Giggy Talk 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: On a serious note, I'm also looking through :Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls for some potential admins. Giggy Talk 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of RfAs has increased again, but I've not given a support to all except one of them. They're all at this time (except the one I gave my support to) of very poor quality, and two have been that bad they've been prematurely withdrawn. Dark days for RfA... Lradrama 10:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Rfa's