Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Elonka

message: Username	Elonka
Total edits	17623
Distinct pages edited	12192
Average edits/page	1.445
First edit	22:01, 16 September 2005
	
(main)	13760
Talk	1375
User	393
User talk	663
Image	96
Image talk	1
Template	135
Template talk	36
Category	279
Category talk	45
Wikipedia	439
Wikipedia talk	329
Portal	26
Portal talk	46
Elonka's editcount summary stats as of 21:30 October 17 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

message: I belive (as per Splash) that his questions are irrelvant to an RfA. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Malber has been inserting these optional questions into RfA's for quite some time, so please bring this up at WT:RFA, so a larger  group will be able to weigh in on this.  Personally, I think just about any question a participant can think of is beneficial to the RfA, as it gives the candidate another venue to voice his/her aims, goals, or opinions, and it also gives the participants more information with which to get a better sense of the candidate hoopydinkConas tá tú? 13:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Hoopydink. To expand, I feel my questions serve the purpose of revealing a nominee's temperment. An administrator must have the utmost of patience when dealing with difficult and tendentious editors. Having a sense of humor is paramount to keeping a cool head. I also think it is important that administrators not take themselves too seriously, as adminship is supposed to be no big deal. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My impression is that Malber has been bringing the first two questions up for quite some time, and may be gradually adding more. I think the last one is definitely tangential, and I have doubts that the fourth one does a good job of getting the information he's looking for. -- nae'blis 14:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree questions should be more directly related to determining a candidate's trustworthiness. Asking what their favorite joke is is just disruptive at worst and not helpful at best. - Taxman Talk 14:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I can remove that one. But I still feel that asking a nominee their opinion on the importance of having a sense of humor should stay. Do you agree? —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keeping 9 seems reasonable to me. --A. B. 14:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had to fix the numbering due to an error in my template Q9 is now Q10. Q11 was the favorite joke question. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you presumably have 10 fingers, I'd have thought you could better manage these numbers ....  --A. B. 14:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malbers Qs 

message: I thought mine was bad. Could this one be the worst ever? —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously haven't been at RfA for long. Perhaps the most divisive one of all time is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2 is another relatively recent one that deserves honorable mention. Grandmasterka 21:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One could note that they were both successful :)  SergeantBolt (t,c) 22:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I see that both were cases of adminship restoration, not just any ole RfA. Rubbing people the wrong way and gathering some enemies will be inevitable even if you used admin tools with perfect wisdom and objectivity. Therefore, a different standard should apply for restoration. (Whether stricter or lighter would depend on things like one's reasons for vacating prior admin status.) Wryspy 07:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both finished at less than 75% consensus to promote, as well. I can't think of any particularly bad first-time RfAs... Grandmasterka 08:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Carnildo's was more emotional. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might be interested in the list at WP:100#Requests for adminship:, which shows the RfAs that had the most participation. You can also get some numbers at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. --Elonka 17:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Piotrus, "avoid controvsial actions for half a year, and try again" is good advice. I would certainly strongly support Elonka then. Frequently a 2-month interval between RfA's is sufficient, but I'd suggest 6 months in this case, given the strong feelings that arose. Sadly, some of the harsher comments pro and con appeared to be motivated by more longstanding tensions between some of the RfA's participants than anything Elonka did. --A. B. 19:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most divisive RfA ever?