Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 40

message: I've brought this up numerous times before, and have always been told that it's not my right, but I'm removing PHDrillSergeant's nomination. If PHDrill or a bureaucrat chooses to overrule me, then fine. But I think common sense is the best route to take in this case. Acetic'Acid 03:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought there was some agreement on the idea of a trial of instead of totally de-listing a pile-on nomination, you simply replace the tranclusion with a simple link. That way, if the nominee wants it to stay open (for comments on what they could do better or something), it is, but doesn't take up too much space on the page, but if they want to withdraw, then delist totally. I know a few people had said they thought it was an okay. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I remember two or three people sounded enthusiastic when I proposed that. We can try that for PHDrillSergeant, or wait for the next case. Owen× ☎ 16:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That way, even if they were a self-nom who realised that they had not much of a shot, but still wanted to learn what they could do better, they could still have it open, but just not so prominently displayed. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. And it upholds the principle: no decision on consensus (however obvious it seems) unless you are a crat. No one can simply remove a nomination. Marskell 22:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless they withdraw. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, unless they withdraw--but removing a withdrawal is not a decision regarding consensus. That's part of the point. Marskell 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Before, I recommended giving users the option of voting for 'remove nomination', in especially bad cases.  Of course, I was referring mainly to users with only a few score edits, not necessarily to Dr Sergeant
No, it's not about a non-crat determining consensus. We say that in the case of it being 70/25/0 and some jerk calls it failed. It's up to a bureaucrat to determine consensus, but consensus isn't a factor when the guy's 0/6/0 and he has like 70 edits. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed - the need to avoid forest fires is a more important need than the need to defer to a bureaucrat on cases that a monkey could figure out. Phil Sandifer 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: haha Redwolf24 (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When we have at least one bureaucrat one hand 24 hours a day, by all means stop non-crats from delisting. Unfortunately, we only have about what, 17 bureaucrats still at wikipedia? and how many of them watch RFA? Redwolf24 (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: A link? Why? People will still follow and oppose, and oppose reasons are VERY rarely constructive criticism, unless you think advice on when to run again is constructive. And re: bureaucrats again... Yes, we have a watchlist, but we don't have a giant NEW EDIT TO WATCHLISTED ITEM! banner like we do for talk pages. EVEN IF WE DID, they wouldn't notice it because we don't edit RFA, we edit RFA/Foo. We'd be lucky if the bureaucrats checked this page once an hour, and look at WP:BUR. Our bureaucrats are no longer our most active people, most of them have been less active than they once were (with a few exceptions) which again would probably be a reason I recommend more bureaucrats as there seems to be a decline in activity for most (not all) of them. The inactive bureaucrats were also very active at one point, but just slowed down. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: And we should try to let nominees clearly going to fail know that withdrawal is a possibility. Recommend that they withdraw, but don't remove RfA completely. What if they want to keep it open? --LV (Dark Mark) 15:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *This is a neverending debate. It keeps cropping up, over and over and over again. Right now, the RfAs for Guanaco, KuatofKDY, Halibutt, and Niz are all failing badly. Why haven't they been removed and others do get removed? Where do you draw the line? --Durin 16:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: ** The line should be when it is certain that a nomination is in bad faith, it is clearly WP:POINT, or the nominator asks for it to be withdrawed. Add a line to the instructions indicating that nominees have the right to withdraw a nomination if they feel it is going awry. Titoxd(?!?) 17:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: ***I agree with Titoxd, lets give them the withdraw option, unless it is just a silly nomination, such as a two day editor running for admin.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Pile On Nominations 

message: I've noticed something of a trend in recent RfA's, where an voter will vote "Neutral, until you answer my new question(s)", accompanied by the posting of some number of new questions in the comments section (in Ianblair23's RfA, for example, Aaron Brenneman posted 5 such questions). For some reason, I find myself irked by such statements - as though the voter is demanding that the nominee jump through an extra hoop just for that voter. Additional questions may be appropriate, but I feel a more polite thing would be to just ask the questions, and then vote neutral without putting a condition on your vote. Obviously an editor who asks a question is looking to clear up some point that may effect their vote (and perhaps others). BD2412 T 03:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I do not see the problem. If the user does not feel like answering, the vote will simply remain neutral, which by definition does not hurt or help a user's chances. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 03:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but it does become an issue when people say oppose until the person answers the questions. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 04:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I would hope that bureaucrats would ignore oppose votes made for this reason. Guanaco 04:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral votes are generally ignored by bureaucrats. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But not oppose votes. Guanaco 02:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I stangely feel the need to defend myself here.  This user's contributions were extensive due to the nature of the area they focused on.  I found it very difficult to seperate out anything that showed more about what this guy was about, so after looking over like 3K contributions I posted some questions in the comments section, and made a note on the user's talk page saying "take your time".  When he really took his time, I then placed my name under "neutral" with the comment "Just waiting."  I'm not sure what the problem with this is, and I'd hope that other voters would pay attention to the answers (or lack thereof) to questions as well, so this isn't about "just [...] that voter".  brenneman(t)(c) 06:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, well you probably feel the need to defend yourself because I (rather unfairly) singled you out as an example, since yours was the most recent instance. And you did ask five questions. Actually, I commend you for quickly adjusting your vote to the responses once the questions were answered - I am irked even more when a voter votes "neutral [or opposed] until nominee does x", and then nominee promptly does x, and then the voter who made the demand seems not to notice for a day or two. I probably wouldn't even be complaining about these kinds of questions at all but for that aggravating factor. BD2412 T 14:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course some questions would be appropriate, but where is the limit? If 20 people all want to ask an additional question, is that okay? I just see some questions that really could be answered on a talk page, not the RfA page. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Rx StrangeLove's statement that he doesn't think neutral votes are useful in general, with a caveat. I think neutral votes are not particularly useful, unless they can be read as "undecided."  Stipulating what exactly makes you undecided, or what you'd need to see to make a decision, can at least tell the nominee what that person would like to see answered. I don't think it's necessarily bad, then, to pose a question and say "neutral until I see the answer to this question," although I suppose it's all in the phrasing -- how you say something can be as important as what you say when it comes to ruffling feathers. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Why no mention of the Comments section? It's there for a reason--post questions in it (of course questions aren't actually comments, but you know what I mean...). I did two days ago and got a response. Marskell 20:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Neutral''', until you answer my new question... 

message: --Durin 21:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Did you research the success ratio too? — David Remahl 21:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Durin, where do you come up with that stuff? Excellent. Also, in addition to the possible comparison to success rate, how does it stack up to the volume increase of registered editors over time....more work for you:)--MONGO 21:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible to compare the number of successful nominations with 30+ support votes or find the average number of support voters per nomination per month? That would be some interesting data... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this would be even more interesting if you could compare the rate of nominations with the rate of Wikipedia's user growth. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart showing growth of RfA nominations 

message: Special:Contributions/208.1.137.98 -- this anonymous user has been adding apparent nonsense votes and decievingly signing them as "User:Dubya". Coffee 18:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by his/her comments on Rx StrangeLove's talk page I doubt it will make much of a difference. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed. But, better to treat neutrally first. I've seen vandals turn around and become productive editors. --Durin 19:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course and hopefully he/she will create an account and become a productive editor including voting on RFA's. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to have an issue with Tony (he started an article about him, since speedied). Probably not a long term issue. Rx StrangeLove 20:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, probably not but still something to keep an eye on. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous votes 

message: Is there anywhere on English Wikipedia where I can request this sockpuppet check feature?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 21:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the new policy, only the ArbCom has the ability to set who is a CheckUser, and there were 5 CheckUsers just promoted, so I doubt it is possible right now. Titoxd(?!?) 21:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The assignment of CheckUser rights on en is the sole responsibility of the Arbitration Committee.  At the moment, the Committee is not currently looking for additional people to give CheckUser rights to; if and when the Committee feels that more are needed, the Committee will (presumably) recruit additional candidates by whatever means it feels are appropriate. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check User Status 

message: There are some votes I have noticed that are based on people's feelings towards each other, like "wikifriends" would support other "wikifriends" even if they would completely abuse powers, and people that are "wikienemies" would not support even if the user nominated was God(just using as example, if you don't believe in God then make what I'm saying whatever you want) him/her(some people say her, who? I don't know)self, they would still not support their RfA based on the fact that they dislike the user. I'm wondering if these votes should be counted or are the reasoning behind them wrong enough not to count them? Fahrenheit Royale 19:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Users are welcome to choose their own stanards - always have and always will. --Celestianpower hablamé 19:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I know what we should do. We should discount the votes of anyone who's reasoning we a)disagree with b)think is wrong or c)generally don't like so much. Then, we can ask for people to submit their votes to this talk page for vetting before making them to ensure they will not find themselves ignored. That way, anybody who feels a bit miffed by the vote won't have to try to think of a new rule for why it should be ignored. They can just veto it outright. That'll fix it. RfA does not need any restrictions, and attempts to impose them will harm the process. If we are not free to control how we hand out admin powers, then the process of doing so will be meaningless. Why impose censorship here but nowhere else?. -Splashtalk 21:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote for God. Really, I'd just vote for him without looking at contrib's. God wouldn't have to convince me. It's no big deal right—being an admin? But it's a super big deal—being God. So I'd just vote for him. I don't have any wikifriends, but he'd be, like, my first one. Marskell 22:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would oppose God, for being too unilateral. (Not to mention the fact that he's reluctant to help those in trouble...) -Splashtalk 22:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: #Support - per RfA chiche #1. --Celestianpower hablamé 22:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oppose - does not respond to email in timely fashion FreplySpang (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmmmm, God appears to be registered to AOL. Martin 23:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I was just wondering because I think its just unfair to the person running if they get oppose votes just because a group doesn't like them. But alright, I understand. Fahrenheit Royale 23:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd support God via St Anselm's principles of what's good. Celestianpower is a good admin. God is the greatest Celestian Power, therefore he'd have to be a greater admin that a standard Celestianpower. God would therefore be an excellent admin. QED. Grutness...wha? 07:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to let you know, God is the greatest Celestial power. Celestian isn't a word :) --Celestianpower hablamé 17:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Fahrenheit Royale 19:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basing Votes 

message: Can an editor be voted and promoted even if he doesn't want the job? There is a very senior member in fact pioneer of one of the groups here but is just happy being an editor. Metaphor: A policeman has to have a badge to do his work. The Janitor has to be apointed. I'm just asking.  --Jondel 05:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Any even if they could be they could ask to be deadmined over at meta.Geni 05:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't vote for someone who said he/she didn't want to be an admin. —Cleared as filed. 05:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Note that nominations aren't put onto the voting page until the nominee has accepted, so the answer's no. In any case, it would be an insult to the nominee for the nominator to say "I don't care if you don't want the job, I'm nominating you anyway".  Grutness...wha? 06:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Gruntness; while nominating someone without asking them would be rude, nominating someone you knew didn't want to be an admin would be a massive breach of the WP:CIVIL policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: there's that extra N again... sigh. Grutness...wha? 07:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, sorry about that. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: S'aright. My fault for having a silly user name (it's a place in Scotland, BTW). Grutness...wha? 08:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we're just accustomed to your air of grunting ;) --Durin 17:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And he is often one to take on the grunt work (as opposed to Grunt work)... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: ) Back to the discussion's topic, folks! Grutness...wha? 00:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I personally think people shouldn't be promoted to admins against their will. I just can't see any reason for it. I've nominated two people for adminship who declined the nomination, and that's fine with me. If someone is promoted to admin against their will, they could drop a quick note to a steward or a developer asking to be de-adminned immediately. — JIP | Talk 20:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually if coffee was forced upon me I'd just drink it so they'd leave me alone. But yeah, if they don't want it, they don't get it, it is very simple stuff. Quentin Pierce 05:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Promoted even if nomination is not accepted