Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 99

message: Hello everybody I just thought I needed to bring this to attention, and if this is just a repeat of what someone else has said in the past (which it probably is) then I'm sorry to have caused you pain, I know what it feels like... Anyway, I just wanted to enforce the point that these requests for adminship must be taken seriously. There are two cases on my request responses that clearly show people have not taken an in-depth look into my past/record.
Now I'm not just saying this because my RfA is crashing and burning in spectacular fashion, I know any hope has been obliterated by a foolish mistake I made yesterday, but I was only trying to be nice, and I'm sorry that I brought that user under the hammer too. :-(
But, one Wikipedian said I had very few edits to articles (Ozgod), which is completely false. Thankfully there were others as well as me who thought this comment as rather odd. And then another ((aeropagitica)) said I needed to do more of a variety of article editing such as adding references. Well, listen to me and look properly, because all of my edits to Fred West have been adding references, and all of my recent edits (i.e. edits in the past 2 months) to the Toyota F1 article were adding references. It was also me who added the references and the corresponding references section on the articles for Lancashire United, John Howett and Blackburn Drama Club.
Once again, this comment is NOT because my RfA has spectacularly bombed, but because I think the two people I have mentionned above have shown laziness and who've not made the effort to look into my past edits properly. This is unprofessional, and behaviour that shouldn't be allowed on something as important as this. And if hundreds have said this before me, I'm sorry for the repetition. With regards, Lradrama 08:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its sad when this happens on rfa, but there not much you can do about it apart form telling the people that they're wrong. --Chris g  08:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Ozgod hasn't replied to any query directed to him, and isn't looking into it further. Lradrama 08:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesnt really belong here - this post I mean. The part about consideration may be post-worthy, but specific details about your RFA doesnt belong here. Sorry. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait! Don't get rid of it! Which parts do you want removing? Lradrama 09:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No no! I would never remove soemones posts. That would be rude. Nothing need even be removed. I'm just observing that this should probably be discussed at your RFA. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I do have a life outside of Wikipedia, Lradrama, and I am sorry you have taken to be so upset with my opposition to your RFA. Firstly, you transcluded it to the page without having fully completed it, which I had to do for you . Secondly, I compared your katewannabe's results with the last thousand edits you made to Wikipedia and saw a lot of RV'ing but not a lot of article contribution. I did not check your block log at the time, but based my comment about you block based on this , which I realize now was an accident. I will strike that comment from my opposition statement at your RFA, my apologies. However, snarky responses like this  did raise an eyebrow with me. I felt with that situation you were a little more heated than should have been which makes me doubt your ability to handle the responsibilites of being an admin. Again, I am sorry for the block comment, which I will strike. --Ozgod 13:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, I forgive you and I hope you forgive me for getting heated-up. :-) I was just surprised at the comment that hinted at only a few article contributions from me, after all the work I'd put in on the articles I've mentionned. That's all. Oh, and thanks for completing the request and mending what I messed up. Cheers, Lradrama 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper thought and consideration needed 

message: I had a few ideas for a more advanced RfA format, that allows it to be more structured, while reducing the number of votes for useless things, or voting a certain way because another user they know did. See User:TheFearow/RfA for a draft RfA.
Any comments? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. While it seems this a much more structured version, there will be many comments on what is good and bad about this idea. I think that if this becomes standard, you need to make the comments in referral to yourself neutral, in referral to your contributions, and your views. Your POV is not important here. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it. It's a nice thought, but it's overly bureaucratic. RfAs having different phases lasting different amounts of times is unnecessary, as it appears to be a solution looking for a problem. --Deskana (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I cant see this getting consensus, it has taken and it still is under discussion whether or not the tally should be removed from RfA's; completely changing the format would take an enormous amount of time, so I'm not to keen anyway. Rlest 11:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm no fan in saying this, but it really sounds like m:instruction creep. And 2 days is way too short for editors who don't pop by RfA once a day. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat creepy. There is no reason why this can't work, esp. if stages 2 and 4 are increased to four days. A good proposal but one which would need fine tuning. GDonato (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the POV about me - that's some random stuff I put in as an example. Users would not be allowed to place pros/cons on their own RfA's. Also, it's a basic proposal, so I am going to be changing around, so any suggestions are welcome. I am going to extend 2&4 to 4 days, as I know some are not online a lot, but I don't want to make the whole process take weeks. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I am in support of a discussion stage, but not the other stuff.  --Iamunknown 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA Ideas 

message: Would it be possible to hold a RFA for someone without letting them know, then after the RFA let them know that they have the option of becoming an admin?--Cronholm144 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --Deskana (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People accept nominations. Also, its quite hard for someone who is nominated for adminship but doesn't know it to answer questions. I don't consider it appropriate to simply copy-and-paste answers to questions from a previous, unsuccessful run if the user in question. In short, no. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec'd x 2) Er.... No you can't have a hidden RFA - as per the process the candidate must accept first. However I seem to remember some bloke mentioning once about going round and randomly sysoping some editors who've been here a while. 'Till that happens no way. Plus not everyone actually wants to take on the admin role / burden. Pedro |  Chat   20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. The way a candidate reacts during RfA can be an excellent indicator of their possible demeanor later on in their wiki-career (e.g. whalloping oppose commenters with a confrentational manner). Sean William  @ 20:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (conflict)Given that the mop is given out as a demonstration of trust, I thought that in very few cases it would be a nice thing to honor someone with the community's trust without them having to ask. @Sean, the candidate I have in mind would probably be immune to that.--Cronholm144 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the main problem is the sheer impossibility of trying to hold a hidden RFA. There'd be no way to keep it secret. --Cyde Weys 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: +1 for involuntary appointment. -1 for hidden RFAs. --Gmaxwell 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't he happy sysopping a user that had the process carried out behind their back. An important part of RfA is getting to know the candidate. --Deskana (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:CANVASS and WP:BEANS :) (bought a smile that one - cheers Hiberniantears) Pedro |  Chat   20:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess that's that, thanks for the input. :)--Cronholm144 20:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is random, but there is really an essay called don't stick beans up your nose.  When do we get to read WP:Don't eat that red crayon, or WP:You drink Milk, not Glue?  New England (C) (H) 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Be Bold! Hiberniantears 20:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep. Not a good idea. Worse that this - how would they answer the questions? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hidden RFA 

message: Dear, admins i would like to become an admin too i know that i made less articles but i've only been here since May 2007 i would stop vandalism and do whatever it take to stop it and help other users--Physik 20:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not likely at this time.  470 edits and less than 2 months experience is less than most people's thresholds to consider granting adminship.  I encourage you to keep contributing to Wikipedia.  To prepare to become an admin, read the RFA page and follow the links to pages providing more information.  If you need more assistance, you are welcome to ask either here or on my Talk Page.  --Richard 21:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Alas unlikely at the moment. 1) Start using the edit summary 2) Keep up the good work 3) use and abuse the generous offer of Richard above and the identical one that I offer you as well. Thank you for your contributions so far, and I look forward to seeing your around and interacting with you. My talk page is open!! Pedro |  Chat   21:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeh, the only thing that kept this from resulting in a block was that it happened before the warnings that were left on the user's Talk Page.  Anything more like that should result in a block but I'm hoping he's got the message finally. --Richard 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I let myself down by not reviewing his contribs fully before commenting. I claim WP:AGF in defence! Seriously, this is pretty much trolling by Physik. Let's move on and archive this rubbish away. Pedro |  Chat   22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adminship 

message: can i become one--Physik 21:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not likely at this time.  470 edits and less than 2 months experience is less than most people's thresholds to consider granting adminship.  I encourage you to keep contributing to Wikipedia.  To prepare to become an admin, read the RFA page and follow the links to pages providing more information.  If you need more assistance, you are welcome to ask either here or on my Talk Page.  --Richard 21:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Alas unlikely at the moment. 1) Start using the edit summary 2) Keep up the good work 3) use and abuse the generous offer of Richard above and the identical one that I offer you as well. Thank you for your contributions so far, and I look forward to seeing your around and interacting with you. My talk page is open!! Pedro |  Chat   21:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeh, the only thing that kept this from resulting in a block was that it happened before the warnings that were left on the user's Talk Page.  Anything more like that should result in a block but I'm hoping he's got the message finally. --Richard 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I let myself down by not reviewing his contribs fully before commenting. I claim WP:AGF in defence! Seriously, this is pretty much trolling by Physik. Let's move on and archive this rubbish away. Pedro |  Chat   22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:Admin 

message: I noticed that several users tried to close this RfA as unsuccessful, but they were reverted for some reason. I don't understand what's not obvious about this RfA: more users opposed than supported, and they all had legitimate concerns. There was no problem with a non-bureaucrat closing that RfA. Andre (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bureaucrats have in the past asked non-crats not to close RfAs unless they are (1) snowball fails or (2) the candidate has withdrawn. There is a logic for non-crats closing unambiguous fails as well - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there is no discretion to be exercised etc. However similar arguments come up to those about non-admins declining unblock requests - in those case, however unlikely the request is to be granted, the user is seeking review from an admin. Where a candidate does not withdraw their RfA although a consensus is clearly not present, they are really asking for a bureaucrat to make that determination (however certain that it will be unfavourable). So although there doesn't seem much harm in non-crats closing obviously fails (the only problem is if by increment non-crats start closing RfAs that are less clear-cut), it does seem to me a courtesy to the candidate to leave it for a bureaucrat to close. There is no rush to close these; a failed RfA (unlike a successful one) entails no change of status and there is no cost that I can see to the community of these being closed later. WjBscribe 08:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering I was the first one to close the RfA, I can honestly say that I don't see a problem with closing RfAs that are so far out of discretionary range (the RfA report listed the numerical support at 42%). I understand the argument of "it doesn't hurt anything to leave it open", but the equally valid counter is "it doesn't hurt anything to close it" when it such an obvious result (that's not bold because I'm trying to prove a point, but because I draw a clear distinction between <50%  RfAs and >50% RfAs; the former I see no problem with non-crats, or at least admins, closing, the later I'm uncomfortable about, and have noted as such on my talk page). I understand that the bureaucrat's position in the community is to determine community consensus and have been entrusted with the tools to execute that consensus, but that doesn't make them a group of magical editors that are the only ones that can do regular editing; the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" bit traditionally applies to project-level stuff as well, and as long as common sense is used (which I think it was, though very rarely do I not think I use common sense...), there's no problem.However, in hindsight, I certainly do wish I hadn't done anything; for such a trivial matter, this has gotten blown way out of proportion. *sigh* EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with your final sentiment, EVula, tho about me reverting you! Anyway, I think WJBscribe made a good point above about creeping non-cat discretion. I've seen a lot of unclear AFDs closed improperly by non-sysops.--Chaser - T 15:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide some examples (three or four of your "a lot" would be useful) of where a non-sysops, (which, I assume also means a non-'crat) has improperly closed an unclear AFD?  Thanks Bielle 16:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see some examples as well. I think generally non-bureaucrats close RfAs when it's appropriate, as EVula did in this case. Andre (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too.  I've closed snowball fails in the past and always provided feedback to the candidate as to why I performed such an action and what they can do to improve their performance on a subsequent attempt. (aeropagitica) 23:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You all did notice I said AFDs, not RFAs, right? I meant AFDs, because the window of proper non-crat closures at RFA, if we create it, could well be improperly extended in the same way it's sometimes been by non-sysops at AFD. Tell me if you still want those examples and I'll dig them up.--Chaser - T 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with EVula closing this RfA. Below 50% isn't even considered "no consensus," it is "failed," the RfA ran its full course, there was no discretion involved and there were no buttons to be pushed. So those circumstances it was OK by me; moreso even than "snowball." However, some admins had in the past gotten too frisky in judging "live" RfA as not being capable of passing. This ended pretty much after someone was WP:BOLD and decided that a candidate had failed and left Wikipedia halfway through the RfA. Since no one could offer a direct statement by the candidate that he had left the project and/or withdrew, the nomination, I restored it, and some criticized me for it--as most of you know, the candidacy went on to win comfortably. If there is any chance (not just "almost no chance") an RfA might be revived, leave it to a bureaucrat. -- Cecropia 23:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one good result of all this would be some clarification. Redux's earlier post on this issue was not the same msg as this comment (he saw withdrawal, clear, disruption, and a clear failure to understand what a sysop does as reasons for non-crats to de-list). I'm fine with what Andre and Cecropia suggest, but I would appreciate it if the various 'crats were all on the same page on this.--Chaser - T 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any great conflict between me and Redux on this point. You will note two things about the nomination that Redux cited: it was more than 50%; if it were above, it is a consensus issue, and should be looked at by a bureaucrat, just for the stability of the process; and it was for the position of bureaucrat. Under 50% is failed, plain and simple; and I believe that since bureaucrat is considered more sensitive by the community, a current bureaucrat should close just to emphasize that the RfB was properly reviewed and closed definitively. And I'll repeat what I said above: If there is any chance (not just "almost no chance") an RfA might be revived, leave it to a bureaucrat. to which I'll append, if you have to ask yourself whether or not it is proper to remove an RfA yourself, it isn't and, if there is the slightest thought that a reasonable editor might challenge your action, don't do it. I see no problem in admins doing housekeeping at RfA if they choose to, just as clerks on WP:CHU vet renames for the 'crats, but the keyword is housekeeping. If it can be called a decision, leave it be. A little more work for the 'crats is preferable to a Wikibroil.  -- Cecropia 03:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Cecropia. I have no problem with EVula closing that particular RfA, given the fact that a bureaucrat would have been garotted by the community for promoting from that RfA. --Deskana (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caldorwards4's RfA 

message: As you will all knowm, Kmweber has been making extreme violations of WP:POINT, just looking at his contributions you can see he has made several !votes in RfA's within the space of minutes, one time he !voted in two within the space of one minute, solely because of his little phrase: I see self noms as being power hungry. What is proposed we do and would it be acceptable to strike out all of his comments as he is clearly not even taking the time to review the user. Rlest 09:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be reported to ANI instead of here, IMHO. Miranda 09:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll leave it here and move it there too. Rlest 09:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you tell me what's wrong with his oppose reason? Other than you disagree with him. Please also remember that RfA is not a vote (adding an exclamation mark does not change the word's meaning). Should your comments be struck? Matthew 09:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes but look at his contribs, between 00:55 and 01:10 he commented on 11 RfA's, thats approximately one every fifty seconds, he couldn't possibly have reviewed the user and made a decision in that time, he clearly just copied and pasted his own little personal and frankly stupid reason to oppose, if he continues Jaranda commented on his talk page she would block him, although not a requirement it is generally considered good faith and polite to actually explain your reason for oppose/neutral but if you support and you have no comments to make you dont have to make any, why you're opposing should be made clear if you are polite, serious WP:POINT violations by him and his silly little reasons :) Rlest 09:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't matter if he doesn't read the comments and questions etc (note: I don't read the questions when supporting or opposing a candidate, either. Rarely do I read candidate statements.) The user has given a perfectly valid reason to oppose, you just happen to disagree with it, that doesn't make his reason wrong, though. If anybody is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point it's you, not Kirk. Matthew 09:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How exactly, by commenting here and at ANI — ::I dont think so. I seem to remember at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Qst you left a weird poem which was striked out pending an explanation, disruption - I dont think so mate. Rlest 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what makes you think I opposed your RfA with a poem (actually part of a song...) It was actually me trying to be civil, without being uncivil, because I couldn't describe my strong feelings nicely. Anyway, isn't this subject about Kirk? Not your RfA, so why are you shifting the subject? Matthew 09:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry if I appeared uncivil here and I think we'll have to agree to disagree, what makes you think its me? Rlest 09:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have a habit of dropping the apostrophe in don't. Matthew 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you're completely right Anonymous Dissident :). Rlest 11:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Pedro is right; sure its annoying but its the poor people or RfA who didn't want any opposes and dont deserve opposes who I feel sorry for. All the best — Rlest 11:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  If people truly think he's a troll, he should be blocked until he agrees to stop. Why would we allow someone to be disruptive? The idea that some people just get to go on merrily trolling is disturbing. Not that I'm not sure it constitutes trolling exactly, but some people apparently are. --W.marsh 13:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would everyone agree that it would be acceptable to remove all comments about self noms made by Kurt from RfA's as he left that same comment at four users RfA's within the space of 1 minute, he wouldn't even have had time to type that messages out let alone actually reivew the user — he copied and pasted it clearly. So would it be considered acceptable among you guy's to remove all his comments from RfA's which are unjustified as the poor people on RfA who dont deserve oppose votes are having to put up with this because of one users ignorance. — Rlest 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, absolutely not. Although I strongly disagree with Weber's stance on these issues, he is nonetheless expressing a legitimate point of view in the correct forum, which does not constitute disruption by any reasonable definition, and is not a WP:POINT violation. The only way it would be disruptive is if his comment were to tip the balance between a pass and a fail - and in such circumstances, where the case fell within the bureaucrats' discretionary range, I doubt his view would be given much weight. So I strongly object to the idea of removing or striking his comment. He has a !right (OK, a conditional privilege, but a "right" that is enjoyed by all Wikipedians in good standing) to express his opinion on an RfA. WaltonOne 14:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the correct forum? The correct forum would be here, the talk page. Wizardman 14:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (undent) How many times do we need to discuss this?  Are we going to keep on it until someone gets the decision that they are looking for or can we just move on to more important matters?  Please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 7#Kurt Weber for at least one prior discussion.  In particular, I ask you to read my post on that thread about the meaninglessness of this topic. --After Midnight 0001 14:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I find his reasoning plausible and probably in good faith, although I don't find enough "power" in being an Admin that being "power-hungry" would be a reason for self-nomination.  (I haven't looked at his history, but this particular set of !votes shows only a lack of knowledge, rather than bad faith.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is this one ... Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Karmafist 2 .... ELIMINATORJR TALK 19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  This maybe some may of taking revenge on us </sarcasm>, I suppose I made too much of a big deal out of it, never midn if he wants to continue then thats fine but its not giving him a good name. — Rlest 17:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion has changed somewhat after noting that he had a previous self-nom RfA; his views begin to look less like strongly-held principle (which I respect) and more like sour grapes. And some of the stuff brought up in that RfA was worrying, albeit a long time ago; adding controversial unsourced and dubious info to articles, using "spelling corrections" as the edit summary in order to mask his actions? Doesn't leave me thinking highly of his character, even if it was 2+ years ago. WaltonOne 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I just wonder what Kurt Weber hopes to accomplish, and whether his chosen tactics actually advance his goal. If his goal is to convince others of the dangers of self-noms, then not only is he failing to win hearts and minds, but he's having the opposite effect and pissing people off. If his goal is to influence individual RfA's, then it should be noted that his votes are highly likely to be discounted by the closing bureaucrat. If the goal is just to say, "Hey, look at me," well, then, mission accomplished. MastCell Talk 22:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Running around naked would be a much more effective way to achieve that mission. And he wouldn't have to receive continuous threads here because of it.  Yo, Kurt, what's your actual aim? Giggy UCP 22:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, running around naked is generally useless in terms of garnering attention on Wikipedia. Take my word for it. MastCell Talk 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) Well, not literally naked...but the online equivalent.  Take my word for it. - Er...*shudder* Giggy UCP 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, when RfA was created, all admins were self-selected (thus "requests" for adminship). Soon enough another section called "nominations for adminship" was created, but these nominations actually came after so-called self-nominations. Check the page history of RfA if you don't believe me. I don't know exactly when regular nominations overtook self-noms as the predominant form of admin selection (this was already the case when I arrived at RfA in 2004). Andre (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I'm using the phrase quite properly.  Kurt Weber 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a prima facie case ceases to hold in the face of contrary evidence.  Since you refuse to consider any contrary evidence, you don't seem to understand what a prima facie case is. -Chunky Rice 00:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said earlier, in principle I completely agree - there's nothing disruptive about expressing a reasoned opinion at RfA, even if it's miles outside community norms. And I respect and understand his reasoning, even though I disagree with it. I'd also like to take this opportunity to apologise for accusing Mr. Weber of "sour grapes", since he's correct that views can change over time, and there's no evidence that he holds a grudge over something which happened two years ago. WaltonOne 10:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't we have a similar situation several months ago when a certain editor decided to start opposing RFAs pending evidence of involvement in a Wikiproject?  If  wants to oppose for that, it's his prerogative; I somehow doubt that as a lone oppose reason is going to be given much weigh by the Bureaucrats.--Isotope23 talk 20:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes we did. It wasn't just involvement, it was endorsement. What was unusual is that the Projects as a collective would not endorse individuals, so the standard was pretty much unattainable. the_undertow talk 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right... it was endorsement, spawning the ever popular Wikipedia:WikiProject Endorsements.--Isotope23 talk 04:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen that. Those comments are priceless. the_undertow talk 18:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disrpuptive editing by [[User:Kmweber|Kmweber]] 

message: The title bar of the main RfA page appears to have been hacked to include spoilers to Deathly Hallows. Espresso Addict 20:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it, and there's nothing in the history. Perhaps a transcluded page? Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed it too. It says on my RFA page too --AW 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange, because I don't see anything... — Moe ε 20:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A-ha! Stealth vandalism. See  . Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Never mind! Tjstrf took care of it. Nice work! the_undertow talk 20:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And I've now indefinitely blocked the editor. Good times. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers all! Espresso Addict 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I must say that was a fun distraction and a very interesting form of vandalism. the_undertow talk 21:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fun eh? Not for those who came late to the party and wonder what on earth y'all are talking about, and cannot find out because the evidence has now been apparently obliterated. At least someone could'a copied to WP:BJAODN *sigh*  :/ dr.ef.tymac 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would have been a WP:BEANS violation. —Kurykh 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to nitpick, but there is no such thing as a "WP:BEANS violation". It's a rationale for explaining a course of action, not a prohibition or a requirement in itself. That's why it says "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline" ... Besides, there's already enough evidence in this discussion thread to constitute a "beans violation" as it is, if you wanna look at it that way. Are you gonna obliterate all evidence of this thread, including the "A-ha stealth vandalism!" bit? dr.ef.tymac 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you take sarcasm a bit too seriously. —Kurykh 21:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. I've just seen so many strange statements regarding WP "violations" that it's difficult to distinguish instances of "wit" from instances of "wtf" from contributors I haven't edited with before ... sorry if I misinterpreted the humor, irony, sarcasm or intent of your remark <- not sarcasm. Cheers. dr.ef.tymac 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm late, aren't I? Suppose I'll have to go buy the book/force a friend to spoil it for me.  Damn :( Giggy UCP 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just rent The Crying Game. Same ending, only different. the_undertow talk 22:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you could RTFW. ;) --tjstrf talk 22:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woot.  Ending ruined. /me goes to edit 100000000 articles in rage. Giggy UCP 22:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I never would have guessed that Ron was actually Voldemort all this time. The ending came as quite a... crap, forgot to toss  up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank God I read the book already. :) —Kurykh 04:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when was Ron Voldemort??? You trying to pull our legs EVula? Luck I've already read it. :p -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, EVual is Voldemort ;) Giggy UCP 05:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... I can see that. It's believable, considering the large variety of insults EVula a.k.a Voldemort has received. :p  -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would have been an incredibly funny comment, but you misspelled EVula. Ahh well, it's still funny! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Deathly Hallows'' spoilers in title bar 

message: What is moral support? I've seen this on a few RfAs, and I don't know what it means. J-stan Talk 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The admin candidate has no hope of passing, but the person is giving a support. Flyguy649 talk contribs 02:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is synonymous with encouragement. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of a new Wikipedian requesting adminship, this is a nice way not to say oppose. Greeves (talk • contribs) 04:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  sums it up nicely with his comment here. Giggy UCP 04:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Moral support, which isn't the most complete article, but it hopefully explains a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If ever you are looking for a definition of a term used on this website, it is best to first look it up - it is an encyclopedia after all, perfectly demonstrated by Luna Santin there. Lradrama 08:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can just imagine wiktionary having something like: Moral Support - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheFearow. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I took it to mean that J-stan wanted to know what a 'moral support' vote means as far as RfAs are concerned. The first time I saw it, I was curious about the connotation myself. the_undertow talk 08:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is a bit confusing. They're a bit weird, because they are basically a positive neutral (if that makes any sense). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see, thank you everyone! J-stan Talk 18:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: TheFearow: I don't see any moral support at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheFearow? Giggy UCP 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Giggy: By that I meant as a synonym for a RfA that had no chance of succeeding. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral Support 

message: When someone gives faulty reasoning to oppose an RfA, I have seen some users saying "I too agree that it is faulty reasoning but why pester the opponent, (especially if it is the only oppose and say, 100 supports). That oppose is not going to hurt anyone." But please note that ideas are infective, more so with bad ideas. If an oppose with faulty reasoning goes unchallenged, who knows how many users new to RfA think it is perfectly acceptable to oppose for silly reasons? To illustrate this, not taking any names, I saw one user's (rather premature) RfA being opposed with a comment "Wicked strong oppose" and later that user went and used that exact wording at some other discussion. (Point here is not that wicked strong oppose was bad wording, but that new users tend to follow what more established users do.) Like User:Carcharoth says above, it is not necessary that a silly oppose should be removed to get the appearance of a 100% support; But we shouldn't just ignore such comments either. - TwoOars 14:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unrelated to your larger point: "wicked" as used above, is simply the Boston, Massachusetts vernacular English for "extremely". Just thought I should put that out there as a proud Bostonian. :-) Hiberniantears 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also should point out that I (editing then as Black Harry) didn't mean to do harm by using "wicked" (as Hibernian mentions, it means very around here).  I also should point that I have also given candidates a "Wicked-Strong Support" (though I eventually stopped the practice altogether).  New England (C) (H) 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I do not know the various connotations of "wicked"; I know it only in the context of "Snow White had a wicked step-mother". :) I just thought it was bad wording at that point of time. But like I said, I just used that example to illustrate how new users may take up ideas from more established users. - TwoOars 15:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know where you are coming from TwoOars. What concerns me more than anything is that an incorrect Oppose, or for that matter support tends to generate follow on comments. My concern is that a few (not present company of course!) commentators at RFA seem to spend very little if any time actually reviewing all the information provided (e.g. count, contribution history, nom. statement and answers to questions). Instead I have seen people jump on a reason without forming their own opinion. In one RFA I noted that the orginal opposer changed their mind (and !vote) but there were other comments following, based on the original oppose, that were never changed. If a reason is clearly faulty it should be "callenged" in a courteous fashion. Possibly a nominated candidate would have their nominator(s) refute, but I see no reason why the candidate cannot either - indeed the way the candidate handles it sometimes shows positive (or negatives) that may not have come out previously. Pedro |  Chat   15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Boston Rules! Sorry. When I see bad reasoning such as "not enough admin experience", I just politely ask what they mean. Perhaps instead of calling people out on bad opposes, we should just ask what they mean. As you said, new users follow what experienced users do, so in doing so, we could teach them good faith. J-stan Talk 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that vehemently arguing is counterproductive. But my point is, one should question silly / ridiculous opposes not just to try to make the opponent rethink and reconsider. Even if someone has been making the same silly oppose on every rfa for a while, we shouldn't just leave the oppose comment alone, saying "lets leave it. we can't convince him/her anyway." There should be at least one well reasoned rebuttal to such an oppose, so that anyone looks at the RfA realizes that it is not the "norm" to get away with silly opposes unremarked. - TwoOars 03:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is exactly why I argue against editcountitis opposes (or even editcountitis supports). When people see many others voting based on editcountitis, it gives the impression that it's a good idea, or that it's only expected for voters to look at the edit count instead of the contributions. Other bad reasons have shown up as fads as well: balance across namespaces, rate of editing, whether they have ever taken a Wikibreak... It's important to question stupid reasons, even if they don't change the outcome. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  06:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Questioning and discussing stupid opposes (or, indeed, stupid supports) is good, because a point of view that can't stand up to logical scrutiny is of very little value. However, we should never strike or ignore votes (or !votes, if you prefer) on the basis that they're stupid, only if they are blatant trolling. So a vote like "Oppose, candidate does not have 2000 projectspace edits and 1000 projectspace talk edits, which are my minimum requirements" is pretty stupid, and should be disputed, but should not be stricken. Basically, it's not for the bureaucrat or other members of the community to decide what constitutes a "valid" reason; it's for each individual voter to make their own decision. Otherwise we become a mob-rule dictatorship. WaltonOne 11:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Walton hits the nail on the head. As I said above I think that a candidate should be able to refute opposes in a civil and fair fashion - sometimes this helps define the character of the candidate better than anything else. If they can provide reasoned and logical answers / arguments (I'm using arguments advisedly) this often demonstrates admin skills that may not be clear otherwise. Equally, an excellent looking candidate who then badgers opposers without reason or become uncvil when opposed may end up failing their RFA because of it, and rightly so. Pedro |  Chat   11:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas are infective 

message: Anyone else notice that Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TomStar81 isn't showing up on tangobot's RFA report?  New England (C) (H) 05:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it old and done? Andre (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still going, no? the_undertow talk 05:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Previous RfA. the_undertow talk 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is this only 9 days later? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, the first one ended with a very public and unnecessary spat between New England and Oldwindybear regarding reciprocal RfA nominations. TomStar decided to start the nom over with a clean slate, I guess, forgetting (or not knowing) that that doesn't really happen. —Kurykh 06:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You trust a bot, you pay the consequences.  Not really, we love you Tangobot! Giggy UCP 08:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hagerman bot you mean? :P Giggy UCP 08:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TomStar's RFA 

message: Per WP:ANI#Sockpuppets_of_Oldwindybear and User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying it appears that OWB who was recently given adminship was apparently severely sockpuppeting. This is not the first time that such an event has occurred (as people may recall from the Pegasus incident). Furthermore in this case there had been previous concerns that the nominator was a sockpuppet as well as accusations of plagiarism. I'm concerned that neither of these issues came up in the RfA and that he passed at 66/0/1 at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oldwindybear. Now, while one might argue that given that we have over 1000 admins the number of problem cases has been very small, but this issue still needs to be discussed. JoshuaZ 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what manner do you want this discussed? An isolated incident like this is not something to spend endless pages of discussion over. —Kurykh 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hence I noted that this wasn't the first time such an event had occurred. In any event, I'm disturbed that no one who looked at the RfA notice that the nom was a sockpuppet. The sockpuppet evidence is not subtle. JoshuaZ 19:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps people were more interested in examining the nominee rather than the nominator, which is common sense until this thing comes along. —Kurykh 19:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, I think the sockpuppet evidence was fairly subtle, though the excellent job done by Proabivoauc and Barneca in putting it together obscures that fact a bit. It's also a fairly explosive allegation, and not one to be made without all one's ducks in a row, which may have inhibited people somewhat up front. However, I agree with JoshuaZ that we should think about that RfA a little more. What's concerning to me is that OWB had significant baggage (including prior sockpuppet allegations, heavy content disputes, storming off the project at one point, etc) which was not discussed at all in the RfA. Personally, I think we should look at Q3 a little more closely in the future. Answering this question with extreme vagueness (e.g. "I had some conflicts in the past and learned from them. Next question...") is a potential red flag. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I did notice that there were sockpuppetry allegations on OWB, and I intended to ask a question regarding that but I had to go on a wikibreak. Anyway, I think it is a rare case, and quite subtle as MastCell says. No point getting all worked up about it. But this further reinforces the importance of looking through the contributions, not just going through the Wannabekate report and commenting on more X-space edits or edit summary usage. In this case, I found the previous sockpuppetry allegations by just going through OWB's talk page. - TwoOars 19:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be ideal.  I personally do not comment on RfAs for candidates I am unfamiliar with (unless I have sufficient time to examine their contributions, interactions with other editors, etc.).  It would also make the whole process less vote-y.  --Iamunknown 19:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very good suggestion. From what I've seen, many people just don't provide evidence that they have read through a nominee's edit count/contributions, which leads one to believe that RfA is a rather corrupt operation. Some folk often avoid a lengthy summary when assessing a user to avoid repetition, but these can be identified by a regular participation on RfA. Some just don't bother, and in some cases, it's clear to see. Lradrama 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea, but there's already something similar (a warning to familiarize oneself with the contribs before voting), and it's often disregarded, just like our standard warnings about GFDL, not spamming, notability of new articles, etc. Involving the bureaucrats is a good idea, but if someone writes "Support per nom", then it's hard to know: did they exhaustively review the contribs and find themselves in agreement with the nominator? Are they just being lazy? Somewhere in between? I do think this episode points up that we should apply some gentle scrutiny to the nominator as well as the nominee, as that might have raised a red flag sooner. MastCell Talk 20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm....the fact that a sockpuppeteer can pass RFA unanimously, where a well meaning user that helps the project but is rejected because they have too little edits to x, shows how the RFA system is really flawed. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: System, or some people participating in it? I blame the latter more than the former. —Kurykh 21:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People are the system. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought "system" referred to technical process itself, not the participants of the process. Or are we just subjecting ourselves to a whirlpool of semantics? —Kurykh 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that people are the system, that means by defenition the system is, and always will be, fundamentaly flawed. That is not, however, an excuse to reject the system. Merely that we accept the inherent problems and seek to work through them to achieve the aims of this work. This whole sorry affair has left me sadened but at the same time ever more commited to contribute here. Pedro |  Chat   22:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ya, R, that is disappointing.  :\  --Iamunknown 23:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I am glad this was noticed, but disappointed that we as a community didn't notice sooner. Are there any ways in which we could change things, to avoid this in the future? Aside from the singularly unappealing option of keeping "dirt" pages on people who might someday run, I'm at a bit of a loss. This sort of thing is one reason I like to see evidence of commitment to the project (time and effort invested, whether over a few years or a few months) -- in this case, though, OWB had been editing since 2005, so I can't say whether I'd have been fooled. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin candidates, sockpuppeting and other issues.