Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Rmrfstar 2

message: I note with intetrest that Kelly Martin has placed a noted under several of the oppose votes here urging the closing Bureaucrat to disregard the vote becuase the rationale provided was that the user is unlikely to use the admin tools. Is there in fact a Wikipedia policy that people voting on RFA should ask themselves "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools?", as Kelly says, or is this just Kelly's opinion about the question voters should ask themselves? Zaxem 23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's basically the policy, as it is supposed to be, as I understand it. "There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than a basic level of trust from other editors. However, some users set a variety of standards on a personal basis. The nomination statement and responses to questions should indicate that the user is familiar with the tools and roles of administrators." (from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship). She is alluding to the "basic level of trust" we are supposed to judge candidates on. --Guinnog 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But given that the policy as stated on the RFA page says that "some users set a variety of standards on a personal basis", is it really fair of Kelly to say that oppose votes should be disregarded by Bureaucrats if they refer to standards of how much the user is likely to use the tools? (I ask purely out of interest and not with any intention of swaying the outcome - I personally voted support on this RFA, but can see that many others have genuine concerns about this user.) Zaxem 00:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone must vote as they see fit. I think the problem here is that the candidate (as he acknowledges himself) gave poor answers to the questions, many voted against on that basis, then he improved his answers. My own take on it is that one must be very careful to evaluate carefully before voting (ie don't just pile on), and then come back often in case the situation has changed. This isn't meant to be a criticism of anybody, just trying to answer your question. Best wishes --Guinnog 01:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (partly copied from User talk:Kelly Martin) Many of the votes Kelly said should be discounted cited other reasons, the first one in particular starts with "Weak answers to the questions, low wikipedia namespace edits, less than 3,000 total" - all of which are perfectly valid reasons to oppose, yet Kelly "encourages the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote" anyway. Some of the them also say "oppose per above", which as far as I can see means "all of the above" rather than the single preceding vote. While I think Kelly is absolutely right that not overusing the admin tools is not a strong reason to oppose a candidate, I do think that she pasted her response to too many votes. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Kelly Martin could have gotten her point across by saying her comment once and not pointing out particular editors; saying it repeatedly under every !vote she didn't deem fit was quite annoying, and to some degree, quite insulting. I would have much rather preferred if she omitted the part about asking the bureaucrat to actually disregard the !vote and simply stated that the question should be blah-blah instead of blah-blah. Additionally, I do agree with Sam that not all the !votes she responded to were just "no need for tools". I sometimes oppose when the nominee's intended uses don't match current activities (that's what I originally went for here, given my misreading); I don't see what's wrong with that. RfA, in my opinion, is also about experience and making sure the nominee will know what (s)he's doing when (s)he gets to work. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

message: Should this page be moved under the title Requests for adminship/Rmrfstar 2? This would be consistent with the other RfAs who had been nominated twice and more. Comments would be appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a pressing need for consistency? --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, of course! But don't you think that if there is some level of consistency here, the titles of all the RfA pages would be much pleasing to the eye? What do you think? But, allow me to repeat that this is indeed not a pressing need. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then, if there are no objections, I am willing to move this page to Requests for adminship/Rmrfstar 2 for greater consistency. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is done! --Siva1979Talk to me 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move page?