Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 89

message: We all know that RFA standards are improving all the time, so our admins are just getting better and better. Right? So, by edit count, would you support these users?
==== John Doe #1====
Username	John Doe #1
Total edits	2823
User groups	<hidden>
Image uploads	6 (3 cur, 3 old) (browse)
Distinct pages edited	1098
Edits/page (avg)	2.57
Avg edits/day	1.28
Deleted edits	103
First edit	2001/03/27 20:47:31
Edits by namespace 	Namespace	Edits
(Main)	585
Talk	420
User	168
User talk	1185
Wikipedia	283
Wikipedia talk	114
Image	13
Image talk	3
MediaWiki	12
MediaWiki talk	7
Template	8
Template talk	2
Category	4
Category talk	19
===== Comments =====
:Comment here.
*Comment - Well, is this a trick question? I ask because I note the 250 deletions, 52 Blocks, etc. I'm guessing that this person is (or was?) a current admin? - jc37 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alot of people do so, or are perceived to do so at least, in ways that can seem capricious. One user is currently opposing a candidate partly for a lack of edits to WikiProjects, for example. --bainer (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would these current admins still be accepted today?

message: Username	John Doe #1
Total edits	2823
User groups	<hidden>
Image uploads	6 (3 cur, 3 old) (browse)
Distinct pages edited	1098
Edits/page (avg)	2.57
Avg edits/day	1.28
Deleted edits	103
First edit	2001/03/27 20:47:31
Edits by namespace 	Namespace	Edits
(Main)	585
Talk	420
User	168
User talk	1185
Wikipedia	283
Wikipedia talk	114
Image	13
Image talk	3
MediaWiki	12
MediaWiki talk	7
Template	8
Template talk	2
Category	4
Category talk	19
===== Comments =====
:Comment here.
*Comment - Well, is this a trick question? I ask because I note the 250 deletions, 52 Blocks, etc. I'm guessing that this person is (or was?) a current admin? - jc37 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Doe #1

message: :Comment here.
*Comment - Well, is this a trick question? I ask because I note the 250 deletions, 52 Blocks, etc. I'm guessing that this person is (or was?) a current admin? - jc37 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Username	Jane Doe #2
Total edits	7460
User groups	(hidden)
Image uploads	85 (78 cur, 7 old) (browse)
Distinct pages edited	2071
Edits/page (avg)	3.60
Avg edits/day	4.19
Deleted edits	202
First edit	2002/06/02 17:22:30
Edits by namespace 	Namespace	Edits
(Main)	2451
Talk	1001
User	901
User talk	1703
Wikipedia	858
Wikipedia talk	329
Image	166
Image talk	2
MediaWiki	25
MediaWiki talk	11
Template	9
Template talk	1
Category	1
Category talk	1
Portal talk	1
===== Comments =====
*Comment here
**Appears generally qualified, but not enough portal talk edits. Newyorkbrad 15:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jane Doe#2 

message: *Comment here
**Appears generally qualified, but not enough portal talk edits. Newyorkbrad 15:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Username	Jane Doe #3
Total edits	44266
User groups	(hidden)
Image uploads	42 (32 cur, 10 old) (browse)
Distinct pages edited	23103
Edits/page (avg)	1.92
Avg edits/day	29.20
Deleted edits	2312
First edit	2003/02/20 20:21:23
Edits by namespace 	Namespace	Edits
(Main)	19026
Talk	1731
User	1634
User talk	6321
Wikipedia	11170
Wikipedia talk	2395
Image	549
Image talk	20
MediaWiki	282
MediaWiki talk	134
Template	803
Template talk	111
Help	14
Help talk	2
Category	56
Category talk	12
Portal	6
=====Comments=====
*Add comment here
*Storng oppsoe has bda speling and note nouhg edit smumaries. >Radiant< 16:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jane Doe #3

message: *Add comment here
*Storng oppsoe has bda speling and note nouhg edit smumaries. >Radiant< 16:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Username John Doe #4
Total edits 8125
Image uploads 13 (13 cur, 0 old)
Distinct pages edited 5043
Edits/page (avg) 1.61
Deleted edits 302 (browse)
First edit 2004-10-08 01:50:15
Edits by namespace Namespace Edits
Articles 3943
Talk 559
User 302
User talk 1070
Project 1714
Project talk 207
Image 31
Image talk 3
MediaWiki 7
MediaWiki talk 14
Template 152
Template talk 36
Category 39
Category talk 2
Portal 46
=====Comments=====
* Who cares? These random edit counts are a pointless exercise, unless you really want to say that edit count is the only factor that should determine adminship. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Doe #4

message: * Who cares? These random edit counts are a pointless exercise, unless you really want to say that edit count is the only factor that should determine adminship. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I'm not sure what has started this, but I've never used a number of edit-counts only to determine my !vote on RfA.  While they are useful to determine what areas somone is active (or inactive in) more information can usually be garnished from edit summaries! — xaosflux Talk 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alot of people do so, or are perceived to do so at least, in ways that can seem capricious. One user is currently opposing a candidate partly for a lack of edits to WikiProjects, for example. --bainer (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need more then edit counts

message: Oh great! Instead of just one vote, we now have several and, indeed an unlimited number. Discussion may occur within each voting section, but that's blatantly the case with current, sensibly-arranged RFAs. So would both i)the nominator and ii) the nominee please explain to me how this is better than before?
Once they've done that, I'd like them both to tell me how they think that presenting a series of leading questions for people to vote on (oh hush, they're discussions like its snowing in Africa) is in some way going to demonstrate consensus. Would they have people i) oppose the leading questions, ii) write opposing leading question or iii) do both? If not i) alone, then ii) is just comedic since people will oppose and support with opposite meanings both of them.
If you're going to wail at the altar of consensus, and whip yourselves on the back with a nine-tailed whip called "RfA is broken", please try not to put entertaining make-up on before you do so. (Copied here because someone invented some rulecreep where I'm not allowed to discuss this on the discussion page of the RfA. Heaven forbid we might actually have a negative statement anywhere near it). Splash - tk 23:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harakiri

message: In all fairness to the candidate, I believe we should abort the experiment before it blows out of control. Now I understand some will disagree and say it's too early but I'm not sure this is very helpful for Matt Britt. Pascal.Tesson 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the motion. It's turning into a foundering morass in here, making it very tedious to look at every view and endorsement, not only for an evaluator but for a bureaucrat. bibliomaniac15 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The amount of text in the nomination at the moment is much less than any contentious RFA in the normal format. What about this format makes reading less text so tedious? Christopher Parham (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You realise it's been running for all of about 2 hours, right, when you make that calculation? Splash - tk 00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, and comparing to other RfAs at the two hour mark, and the difference is not significant. Moreover, as time goes on the fact that there is less need to repeat similar reasons/conversations over and over may allow this format to save space; we don't really know. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) I'll pile on as being this seriously opposed to this format.  This is far worse than the Moralis format, which is itself far inferior to the standard format.  What is completely missing from the format are the sub-sections for "I think this view is reason to promote" "I think this view is reason to not promote" and "I think this view should be completely ignored because the issue isn't relevant".  And of course, since these are almost independent of whether the view is agreed with or not, everyone gets to vote again in this sub-section of each view.  This doubles the needed effort level from the horror stories described above.  GRBerry 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with GRBerry that more nuance than "support" and "oppose" is needed to avoid an excess number of views. JavaTenor 01:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: green card --- RockMFR 01:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I guess it is Matt's call although he should be made aware (if he isn't) that this is definitely an option. Sure it's nice to have a "see, it doesn't work" example but this is his RfA and he should be able to make that decision. Pascal.Tesson 01:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I favour aborting this particular experiment, but think deferring to the candidate is appropriate. I also don't want dislike of the format to be mixed with sentiments about the nominee, who is an excellent editor. -- Black Falcon 03:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abort?

message: Since it's apparently experiment week at RFA, does anyone want to run for adminship with my idea, which is an arbitration-workshop-like structure (proposed principles, findings of fact, etc) with the discussion divided into comments by bureaucrats/by candidate/by others. Anyone up for it? --Random832 02:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes it incredibly hard to analyze support and oppose, which is what bureaucrats have to do until there is a consensus to change that. If it's just intended to be an experiment, though, with no actual effect, then I'll do it. -Amarkov moo! 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *RfA is not a vote. RfA is not a vote. RfA is not a vote. Bureaucrats are not expected to count votes. They are expected to evaluate consensus. --Durin 13:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Perhaps RfA should be a vote, though. It is very hard to get consensus about a "yes"/"no" answer, and we should think about promoting based on numbers in non-consensus situations with 66-90% support. Kusma (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Go ahead. But I can say that it's going to be even more convoluted than the current standard template, though. —210physicq (c) 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I need a victim guinea pig volunteer, though... --Random832 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Choose a suitable one from the :Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls list. Note the emphasis. —210physicq (c) 03:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am considering accepting your offer, but I would like to see an example of this method of gaining adminship first. Captain panda 03:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do suppose it could limit the amount of obviously unqualified candidates with an "opinion on hearing this request" type of thing at the beginning. bibliomaniac15 03:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, I am interested in trying out with this method. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: shudder... that sounds even more complicated than the Matt Britt experiment. And I don't mean that as a compliment! :-) Pascal.Tesson 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no harm in trying. At least we know what doesn't work so that said unworkable ideas won't come up again. —210physicq (c) 03:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my gut feeling is that this is a step in a direction which is not turning out to be too convincing. Pascal.Tesson 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also share the same sentiments, as I have indicated above, but if people want solid proof of the unworkability of this proposal, might as well show it to them via hand-on experience. —210physicq (c) 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: RFAr is an even worse format than RFC for this purpose, unfortunately. -- nae'blis 14:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  
I have an idea
 

message: i requested for admin but it doesnt show up on the page, what am i doing wrong?
The juggsd86 15:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what? 

message: Danny's RFA gives precedent for bureaucrats to just ignore irrelevant oppose reasons. To that end, I've started noting when a given oppose is irrelevant to the question "is this person likely to cause damage with the admin tools?" and suggest it be ignored.
Remember that adminship should be No Big Deal - thus, the only question at RFA is "will this editor cause damage as an admin?" 6000 edits, five featured articles or being put forward by three WikiProjects is utterly irrelevant and any bureaucrat should pay it the appropriate amount of attention, i.e. none whatsoever.
Others, e.g. you, are welcome to do so as well. This alone should help reduce irrelevant overrequirements - David Gerard 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask that you stop your highly inappropriate postings. I have looked over some of them, and they come off as disrespectful and arrogant. If your standard is, "is this person likely to cause damage with the admin tools?", then you are more than welcome to use it. Please have enough respect for your co-editors and do not call for them to be ignored just because you disagree with them. If you think a particular oppose reason is "irrelevant", then you are free to ignore it; please do not call for bureaucrats to do so. -- Black Falcon 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly.  The first things I'll be marking as inappropriate are the comments claiming that other comments are inappropriate.  It is up to each RfA participant to determine the issues they consider relevant, and the community has not placed its trust in you to determine that.  GRBerry 18:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Determination by the group that a particular opposition to consensus is not held of value by the group is fully within the purview of the process, however. "This user does not like the color blue." is not a deal-breaker. While I take issue with David Gerard's standards and don't believe they represent the consensus of the 'pedia, you are also incorrect that it is inappropriate to object to objections. -- nae'blis 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between participating in a discussion by objecting to, or questioning, an objection, and by claiming the right to tell the closing bureaucrats "you should ignore this".  Having just gone through one RfA where David did the latter, in every case he was not only unreasonably arrogant, he was wrong because the issues were relevant.  GRBerry 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: David, please do stop that experiment. Your comments come off as completely inappropriate. No good can come out of this way of doing things. Pascal.Tesson 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduce onerous requirements: note bad opposition reasons 

message: In Matt Britt's RFA, Tony Sidaway seemed to indicate that the "need for the admin tools" was not a necessary criterion for adminship.  I found this interesting as this is a very common objection to RFA candidates.  I'd be interested in hearing Tony's explanation of his stance.  --Richard 16:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not answering for Tony; whether or not a person needs the tools is not a reason to oppose. The admin rights are being treated as a status symbol when they are simply additional rights. If an editor finds they use them once a year, that's enough for them to have the admin tools. One admin action is still a benefit to the community, and is equivalent to one admin action from an editor that uses the admin rights a thousand times a day. It's all helpful. One of the editors I nominated for adminship, User:Edcolins, has since being promoted barely used the admin tools. Is he any less trustworthy, any less capable as an admin? No. Is he an inherent danger to the project because he so rarely uses his tools? No. Read Ed's RfA, specifically his answer to question 1 where he says his behavior won't change. Adminship is not about how often you might use the tools, it's all about whether you are trustworthy enough to not abuse the tools when you do use them. That's all that matters. --Durin 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks.  That's enlightening and I think I agree.  It's really hard to figure out what are good and not-so-good criteria for adminship based solely on watching WP:RFA.  I would never have thought to question this criterion until Tony made the comment.  --Richard 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would disagree.  We run a risk every time another editor is given the admin tools.  Since we don't have a functioning community based system for removing those tools, it is quite reasonable to decide that the risk isn't worth running because they won't be actually using the tools to benefit the project.  So the concern is relevant.  (On the other hand "need" is the wrong wording, "intention to regularly use the tools to benefit the project" would be more accurate, if longer.)  GRBerry 18:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please enlighten me of this "risk". Everything an admin can do is reversable, and there are almost always stewards around, should there ever be a need to urgently remove the tools - which there hasn't been iirc. Majorly (hot!) 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Always worth unpacking an argument that people miss the middle steps in.  1) Wikipedia is built by a community of editors.  2)  Administrative actions have effects on the perceptions of other editors and of readers.  3)  The ability to reverse the technical steps taken by an admin does not include the ability to reverse the effect that those actions had on other editors prior to their reversal.  4)  It is false that everything an admin can do is reversable, and they can drive away other editors and make the encyclopedia worse for a significant amount of time, at least in specific areas.  If you want relevant recent specific examples, consider Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war, and the Essjay scandal.  (Not acting also carries risks; if I recall correctly an admin that declined to take action with regard to Philosophy has probably made the philosophy section of the noticably worse by contributing to the loss of a high value add contributor.)
*It is a common exception, but also not a very relevant one. An editor that doesn't use the admin tools by definition doesn't abuse them either. >Radiant< 08:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for tools as a criterion 

message: As a follow-on to the above discussion about the "need for admin tools", would you agree that consistency of editing is equally not important?  If someone has made lots of edits but has also shown a fall-off from wherein he/she has not edited for a while, this should not be a criterion for opposition either?  The idea being that the trustworthiness of the candidate and the good use of admin tools are more important than logging on every day and being available.  I mention this because this is another criterion that is often used to oppose RFA candidates (i.e. rate of edits is less than x/day or y/month).
--Richard 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that "rate of edits" or "consistency of activity" are both poor standards by which to judge candidates. Quality of edits is far more important. However, (and this is addressed more to Durin than you) I also think that we should not try to impose our standards on everyone else. Most of the regulars at RfA are smart enough ... let's let them make their own decisions as to their standards. -- Black Falcon 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *No, everyone else is stupid and I'm the only one with the right answers! ;) If I see something that I think is wrong, I'm willing to stand up and say it's wrong. David Gerard did so above himself. This is part of how we encourage a process to evolve. I don't see anything wrong with that. I recognize that the defacto social currency system we have here actively discourages people from ruffling feathers. That's one of the primary reasons why I ran my RfB knowing it would fail, and why subsequent to that I stepped down from adminship...to intentionally remove myself from the social currency system. People might not like what I have to say, but there's little they can do to hold it against me unless I violate Wikipedia policy (and I'm not). Thus, if I see something that I think is rubbish, I'm going to call it into question. This isn't a matter of trying to enforce my own standards. It's a matter of me expressing my opinion. Nobody is forced to go along with me. --Durin 17:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's one thing to challenge arguments that you perceive to be wrong. It's another to write (and I paraphrase), "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! I don't want to listen to you. Lalalalala ... Hey everyone, IGNORE THIS IDIOT!!!". The difference may be subtle, but it's there. :) It's not particularly conducive to the idea of "discussion" when people decide to ignore what others say. If we feel that an argument is wrong, we certainly ought to challenge it. I wrote that people's comments ought to be respected, but that doesn't mean I hold them to be sacred dogma which is to be worshipped under the full moon. I'm just saying, I think our challenges of various arguments ought to consist of more than just this. -- Black Falcon 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *There's a difference between "ignoring" and "considering, rejecting, and not accounting for in decision making." If someone opposes (or supports) a candidate using a line of argument that the community as a whole rejects, the community should not account for that input in making its final decision. (i.e., the closing bureaucrat should ignore it.) This avoids the situation where community action is dictated by elements and positions that the community rejects. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Consensus can change.  The only valid evidence that the community continues to reject a particular line of argument is the people who, having seen it attempted in a particular case, nonetheless hold the opposite opinion about what to do.  GRBerry 20:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there's a question of degrees -- if I ask somebody why they deleted an article or blocked a /13 range (500,000+ IPs), I'd rather not wait six months for an answer. I personally wouldn't make too big a deal about this, provided somebody makes reasonable efforts to respond to communication, but taking an extreme example as above, I could see it becoming a deal-breaker at some point. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent availability as a criterion 

message: A question: can voting tallies be automated? Or can someone create a bot that fix them automatically periodically (30 minutes, e.g.)? I just wonder. --Neigel von Teighen 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, tallies should be removed if anything; RfA is NOT a ballot. Majorly (hot!) 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We already have a bot that does its best, but regularly is in error, so it updates a different page instead of the RFA pages.  However, Majorly is just plain wrong, with the large number of participants that RFA gets, the tallies are the best tool available for measuring the consensus of the participants.  GRBerry 18:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact Majorly is plain right. The tallies are the worst tool at gauging consensus. Majorly (hot!) 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I realized yesterday after readin this page that I regularly ignore candidates based on the bot-generated tally at WP:WATCH. That's illogical for a consensus-based model so yes, once again, remove the unhelpful tallies (I'll go through and find all the places people have objected to them later, Husond). -- nae'blis 20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is this: if we keep tallies, they're almost always wrong and should be automated (somehow). On the other hand, I think they're absolutely useless: you can easily watch the last number from the list. I remember there was an experiment to implement tallies on AfD and was a dissaster. --Neigel von Teighen 11:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallies 

message: As I see it, there are four classes of "oppose" comments:
#Obvious vandalism opposes. For instance, "Oppose. Anyone who wants to be an admin needs to get a life." I'm quite sure that everyone agrees that these types of comments, whose purpose is only to disrupt the process, may be ignored.
#Sockpuppet opposes. These may be expressed more diplomatically than the example above, but their purpose is still disruptive, and so they too should be ignored. I think everyone also agrees on that.
#Bad-faith opposes. These are cases where an editor opposes a candidate for a reason that that editor does not view to be relevant to adminship. The defining feature of this category is the commenting editor's thought process. For instance, if I think that tea-drinkers cannot make good admins, and I oppose a tea-drinking candidate, that does not qualify as a bad-faith oppose, no matter how ridiculous my standard may appear to be.
#Good-faith opposes. These are cases where an editor opposes a candidate for a reason that that editor does view to be relevant for adminship. If I sincerely believe (and I don't, by the way) that an editor cannot be a good admin until he or she has acquired 4336 edits, and I oppose an editor with less than that number of edits, my oppose is made in good-faith.
Here's the problem when it comes to ignoring "oppose"s. The first two classes of "oppose" comments can be relatively objectively identified and there is near-unanimous agreement that they should be ignored as disruptive. I believe bad-faith opposes should also be ignored as disruptive, but realise that it's difficult or impossible to identify whether an oppose was made in good or bad faith. W should always assume the former in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Now, the only argument that can be offered to justify ignoring good-faith opposes is that the standards by which editors judge are somehow "wrong" (i.e., irrelevant to adminship). "Wrong" is a hopelessly subjective word. RfA is mostly about trust; we can't just say "if an editor meets criterion X, you will trust him, damn it!". So, the only way I see that ignoring a good-faith oppose can be justified is if the editor making the argument is stupid and should not be allowed to participate. I know that this is not the intention of the various editors who've suggested ignoring good-faith opposes which they deem to be "irrelevant", but I view that to be the logical conclusion of any proposal to ignore certain good-faith opposes. Either we must allow them, no matter how much we disagree with them, or we must simply ban most editors from participating in RfA. -- Black Falcon 20:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a racist. A Jewish editor requests adminship. I sincerely believe that Jews abuse power, given the chance, and therefore make bad administrators. When I write "oppose, Jewish", I am certainly meeting your standard of good faith. How do you believe the community should react to this (obviously hyperbolic example)? I simply ask because the correct answer is plain, but it is appears to me that your system would arrive at a different one. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually not hyperbole. They tend to draw swift criticism and accusations of all sorts of violations, but I don't know if they've ever been officially discounted by a bureaucrat. Kafziel Talk 20:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hyperbolic in its directness, since usually the comment is more of the form "pushes POV on balkans article and vandalizes serb pages". Usually this requires some sorting out of the extent to which the claims are true. HolyRomanEmperor's third RfA featured some attempts to discount such votes although it nonetheless turned into a disaster. But dealing with opinions that are obviously motivated at least in part by nationalist fervor is a real problem, and a good example of one that a simple test of good faith can't really overcome. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the late reply - I've been busy. ;) I've actually seen people just say "Oppose: there are too many Indian admins already" and the like. Yes, the vote is immediately derided as racist/nationalist/what have you, and notes telling the closing crat (in boldface, of course) to disregard them, but I don't remember a bureaucrat ever showing up to confirm that it wouldn't be counted. I don't know if there's precedent for a comment like that actually being thrown out. That's all I mean. Kafziel Talk 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A few racist opposes will make their way in is I suspect an understatement.  I believe a problem we've had getting good administrators with expertise in the Balkans, for instance, is that whichever nationality they happen to be, people of the other tribe show up and oppose.  No, we should not be accepting bad opposes at all.  There is no need to do so, and doing so devalues the honest and well thought-out opinions of the rest of us.  --Tony Sidaway 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See right below? --Kim Bruning 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And how exactly do we determine what is a "bad oppose" and what is a "honest and well thought-out opinion"? The simple criterion of "is the comment relevant to the candidate's merits as a potential admin" is not enough as people will have different "honest" and good-faith interpretations of what is and is not relevant. -- Black Falcon 22:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  O RLY? I wonder what the section right below this one is about?  --Kim Bruning 22:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I commend you on the subtlety of your nudges. =) Your suggestion could possible yield positive results, but it's certain that it will result in a lot of pissed-off people. Lest we forget, that's how the French Revolution started. ... Hmm ... maybe you're onto something ... In order to implement your suggestion, you'd first need to find a willing victim candidate. -- Black Falcon 22:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Support, I don't think any of the issues brought up below are particularly serious, and the large majority are idiotic even by the low standards of RfA.
So, here's my belief. Ignoring oppose votes is, in general, a bad idea. The bigger danger in my view is not a few clueless voters, but rather voters who are firmly convinced other people's votes are worthless. If we were to start an education of the electorate, the latter class of people need to be educated first. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My thoughts on ignoring "oppose" comments