Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 116

message: Is  this. Discuss. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, Courage would make a wonderful admin. I think I'll make me a lovely cup of tea.    Dlohcierekim  03:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose He seems like a fine user, but he doesn't have enough Help talk: edits, and I'd like to see more participation in AFD. (he comes back a month later) Oppose Too much participation in AFD. szyslak 04:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, but he remains calm under pressure.   Dlohcierekim  05:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Not enough edits. -- Renesis (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Support -- This user appears to be two-dimensional.  I believe it would add diversity and encourage other two-dimensional editors into the project. Wjhonson (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't own any pants that tight. Please don't recall me! - Revolving Bugbear 17:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is so unfair.  I can't see youtube from my PC (corporately restricted).  I wanna get the joke.  Blast it all.  Keeper  |  76 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What're you drinking this time? - Revolving Bugbear 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Room temperature Diet Mountain Dew.  Nothing mixed in, I promise ;-).  Although, thanks for the perspective.  Carbonated drinks in reverse tend to burn a bit, I guess I can live without youtube until I get home....Keeper  |  76 18:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe in fact that carbonated drinks have on occasion been used as a method of torture. When it starts to fizz in your sinuses, you're in for a world of pain. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not been briefed on techniques used in any classified interrogation program conducted by any soft drink agency. - Revolving Bugbear 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So would that be classified as a form of carbonated Waterboarding, and if so, does it, or does it not, constitute torture?  If you don't get my allusions here, see the myriad of ANs, ANIs, and Talks about Waterboarding that I refuse to link here.....Keeper  |  76 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe this is actually a type of waterboarding. As is my understanding, waterboarding attempts to simulate drowning and bring up the fear-of-imminent-death instincts. Carbonation in the sinuses is simply extremely painful. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  <nine colons?  this is crazy>.  To steal a previous comment of my own:  "Thanks for !clearing that up".  Cheers, Keeper  |  76 19:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ZOMG, Wjhonson, if only you knew how you just hit a proverbial nail on a proverbial head.  If only.  Keeper  |  76 20:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It is? Explain, please. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't we use to have a policy that said "external links on talk pages must have no humour, blamange or trout slapping, not a bit, and no rat!"Wjhonson (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: See Linking to YouTube, Google Video section.  The clip is copyrighted to Cartoon Network and was not uploaded with their consent.  Some organizations now do upload their own content, promo clips and such, and are usually clearly identified as a "Director" or use the name of their company in the title. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay. I didn't see the copyright bit at WP:EL. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The true nature of RfA 

message: I wonder if i discussed this before. Do you think it would be easier if i set up MiszaBot? Say 100kb max per archive and threads archive are over 7 days old. Simply south (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see any reason why not.   jj137 ♠ 17:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) Okay, i've set it up. Simply south (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you add multiple archives by bot, the archive box at the top needs to be the sort that supports multiple archive links (like in other high traffic talk pages). Currently, its a list with descriptions of each manually added, might as well reform that if future archives are going to be bot added. Avruchtalk 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After it moves nto the next archive, descriptions can still be added summarising what went on in that archive. I don't really think much needs to change. Btw, I know i reduced from 7d to 5d. Should this be decreased further? Simply south (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a compromise i have restored 7. Simply south (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival 

message: Sorry, I know this has been done to death.  
I think it's pretty widely accepted that we shouldn't be having pile-on opposes in snow RfA's.  But I've been wondering, is there any point in voicing opinions in the oppose section at all?  In my mind, an RfA is about deciding whether we think someone should be an admin; in the case of the snows, it really doesn't make sense to have that discussion at all, which would be the only reason to comment in the support and oppose sections.  IMHO, for an RfA that doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell, the discussion should really take place on the person's talk page, unless they've already been contacted and have refused to take it down -- then maybe it would make sense to have a few opposes to show them that it's really not going to work.  It seems like refraining from opposing might be less painful for them, less of an outright rejection, and it'll spare them the embarrassment.  And probably for most people, once they understand the de facto requirements, they wouldn't want a discussion like we have in RfA's anyway, they'd just want to quietly take it back.  So my suggestion is this: we refrain from opposing at all (and from moral supports, because they're kind of condescending anyway), at least until they've been contacted about it and had a chance to respond, and just explain to them as nicely as possible on their talk page, or maybe in the discussion section, why it ain't going to work for now.  delldot talk 14:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know if it will snow if no one comments? Some snow closures happen after some supports get added, because the first supporters didn't find something particularly damning that the first opposers did. Anyway, solution looking for a problem I think. Avruchtalk 16:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the really bad cases, like someone with < 500 edits, I will sometimes try to break in to them gently. Sometimes, that approach runs the risk of hurting feelings or biting. I guess that's why we're letting them run longer now. There is no 100 % perfect way, but I agree with Avruch that we really need to let the consensus develop fully before declaring a "snowball". Cheers,   Dlohcierekim  00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, should have been clearer about what I meant.  I'm talking about the cases where the RfA is among their first, like, 20 edits, where we absolutely know there's no chance. Cases where nothing needs to be made clear to anyone except them. I feel like most reasonable people wouldn't want to let them run once they understand what the situation is, so it makes sense to me to hold off "discussing" the RfA until they've gotten a chance to respond to a friendly message on their talk page.  delldot on a public computer talk 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any way to stop people from opposing.  I removed a malformed RfA, with no acceptance statement by the nominee or answers to any of the standard questions, transcluded by a third party, and the first oppose was from someone who shortly after became an adminstrator.  This is an adversarial process and people are poised and ready to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down.  There is also no way to stop people from nominating themselves.  After a discussion on this talk page, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate was changed to try to get potential candidates to actually look at themselves and this process and think before creating their RfA.  I have done no statistical analysis to determine if adding that change reduced the number of (wildly) inappropriate RfA candidates, but it obviously did not reduce that number to zero!  I am beginning to think that barneca's proposal, to create a new rule establishing a (low) minimum number of edits before an RfA, has more merit than I thought initially. Darkspots (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The fault is surely that the criteria for a successful RfA are so ill-defined, and nobody very few dare define them for being accused of editcountitis, or whatever the latest craze is. Provide proper guidance to potential candidates and the problem ought to go away. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet there will still be people that read nothing or almost nothing before submitting an RfA as one of their first edits though.  To me, our best bet with these folks is not to make more rules, but to foster an understanding within the community that it's not good to be unkind, that we should deal with them with the least amount of embarrassment for the new user.  I feel like the best way to go about that is to come to a general agreement here and then point people to the discussion if we see them failing to do that. Of course, that is if people do agree ;-) delldot talk 05:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snows, once again 

message: What are the per centages on admins getting into serious difficulties and/or recalled or otherwise desyssoped, particularly for those promoted in the last year? My belief is that I can trust a user with a substantial number of edits and term of experience. Does reality bear this out?
   Dlohcierekim  23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not very high if you only count involuntary desysoppings; plenty of admins get into loads of controversy but come through OK though. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the percentages are very low.  Keep in mind, in order to be a sysop nowadays, you have to have already earned the respect and trust of the community to pass through an RfA (click on RfA to know what I mean by "recently").  In other words, if you become an admin, you are given more grace (it seems) than a non-admin user because you've already earned the community's trust, probably have allies, and probably know what you're doing.  A recent example that comes to mind is Archtransit.  Mistakes?  Yes.  Desysopped?  No.  Nor should he be, IMO.  I would be surprised if the number that you're looking for is above 1%.  Keeper  |  76 00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just seem to keep seeing oppose rationales that startle me.    Dlohcierekim  00:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find some of the support rationales even more startling. "He's my mate, of course he should be an admin." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (e/c)Oh, I completely agree that some of the "oppose" rationales are startling.  Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 for example.  That's a different topic though. The 64,000 question that I think you're asking is "Do we promote them to admin and hope they don't make mistakes?", vs. "Do we oppose their admin candidacy with the hope that by doing so will avoid said mistakes."  Personally, I think the RfA process is bordering on Absurdity  TM and is completely out of control.  I don't think it's fixable at the moment though.    Keeper  |  76 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I think it's gone beyond absurdity. It reminds me very much of a 17th century witch trial. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been compared to a trial by fire, a torture chamber, the gallows, and a public dunking chair. Some still bear scarlet letters from their RfA ordeals. So, why do you think it has anything to do with a witch trial :) Majoreditor (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In response to the original question, I would guess that most desysopping happened to very experienced editors.  In fact, it almost seems as those who end up abusing the tools (aside from hacked accounts) were those who became too comfortable with the project. So no, I don't think you should trust anybody simply on substantial numbers of edits. -- Renesis (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you quite rightly say, you're guessing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't done any sort of serious analysis, but I have noticed that many of the desysopped admins had RfAs that passed by a very large margin. Perhaps how controversial a candidate is and how likely they are to be desysopped are not so connected after all? Captain panda 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well you can see for yourself here, so actually, I misspoke, I was not guessing. -- Renesis (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There was an admin survey done some time ago I think, that measured what people want most in a candidate. I think civility topped the list, so w.marsh's claim is surprising, although certainly true. Wizardman 17:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim only makes sense if the admins were desysopped for incivility. Otherwise it's a potential false correlation. Along the lines of "Most desysoppped admins were using Windows PCs and transcluded their RfAs between 21:00 and 06:00". How close was the correlation anyway? Statistically significant? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's closer than any other RFA oppose reason correlates to de-sysopping. And a lot of admins were de-sysopped largely for incivility... usually combined with abuse of admin tools. But you obviously can't oppose a non-admin at RFA for misusing admin tools. Your comment comes off as a bit hostile... I just think we should be aware of what RFA concerns show up in people who end up getting de-sysopped. There's no need for rhetoric about Windows PCs and so on. --W.marsh 18:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Therein lies the problem with charges of "incivility". You misunderstand the point being made and/or resent anyone daring to  disagree with you and Bingo! The incivility card gets waved around. Are there in fact any admins in your sample who were desysopped for incivility, as opposed to abusing their admin tools? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I remember why I don't watch this page any more.. sheeeesh. --W.marsh 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You made a very bold claim "But I think it shows we should really take most seriously the RFA concerns about civility... that's the strongest predictor of eventual desysopping" which you now appear to be unabe to substantiate. Sheeeesh indeed. BTW, I found your comment to be a "bit hostile". ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a particularly reason you are so concerned about incivility being taken seriously at RFA? It seems there might be. -- Renesis (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where have I said that incivility ought not to be taken seriously at RfA? Look back at what I have actually said. I am complaining about poor statistical analysis. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The very first thing I said in this thread was that I'd like to see a better study done. Then you attack me over not having perfect statistics... I started out by saying I didn't! --W.marsh 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not the one who made the very bold claim that civility was the "the strongest predictor of eventual desysopping". That was you. And to point out that your conclusion has no basis in verifiable fact is hardly an attack. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I said that is what I think, based on the study I did, which I fully explained was not thorough. I wasn't publishing my thesis and standing ready for a defense... I was just making an observation. That people get jumped on whenever they say anything here is why it's the same people here and nothing ever gets accomplished. --W.marsh 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Um, I'm not going to argue semantics, since you are obviously willing to take every argument to a pointlessly technical level, but it's pretty clear that you are objecting to arguments for the use of the "incivility card," as you call it. -- Renesis (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is clear to me is that you have now descended to the level of making personal remarks, which really is unworthy of you. I am just as entitled to express my opinion as anyone else is, without having you or anyone else extrapolate what I have said into the realms of fantasy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (unindent) An example that comes to mind immediately of an admin being desysopped for incivility, as well as abuse, was Alkivar. In all of his RfAs (with the last one being Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alkivar 3), civility was the biggest factor for the opposition, including in the successful RfA, and in his arbitration case, incivility while being an admin contributed greatly to his desysopping (as well as, of course, the abuse). I think in this case, civility concerns raised in the RfAs were an indicator to a future desysopping, as the candidate did not appear to address the civility issues from the previous RfAs, and the problems continued, ultimately contributing to the desysopping. I think that W.marsh's finding may have some weight. Acalamari 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I appear to be unwilling to stoop to this level of discourse. WT:RFA is a place where you could say "the sky is blue" and quickly get a condescending "I oppose! You're ignorant!" comment... it's been that for a while and doesn't seem to be changing. --W.marsh 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: W.marsh, you make a good point, but you are missing one fact: the reason that other "RFA concerns" don't show up prominently in those who have been de-sysopped may be because RFA is fairly good at catching other concerns. After all, it is an extremely strict process and I think it errs on the side of failing more users than it should than passing too many users. -- Renesis (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, W Marsh, I think you gave me something i can use as I assess my own assessment of noms. Thanks.    Dlohcierekim  18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, i took some flack for opposing a nom I considered incivil from his nominator-- a fairly powerful admin at that time.   Dlohcierekim  19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think I did address that, though. That people aren't de-sysopped for incompetency probably means we're catching candidates who just don't know what they're doing, for example. --W.marsh 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, you did say that. I read too quickly.  However it is probably also things other than incompetence which are caught. -- Renesis (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And now another sysop trying to make fun of us... that's hardly a step in the right direction. --W.marsh 19:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You have a curiously all-embracing definition of "incivility". On the other hand it is a word that very few on wp appear to have much understanding of, to be fair to you though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "You" is an ambiguous pronoun - are you (Malleus Fatuarum) referring to me (Keeper) or him (W.marsh?)Keeper  |  76 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I was actually replying to you, Keeper, as I intended the indent to show. But having said that, I do believe that my comment applies equally to both of you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And PS - Oh come on, I said I was laughing hysterically!  That means I thought it was funny!  You should both go "fight it out" on your talkpages.  Shoo. :-) Keeper  |  76 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure incivility here on WT:RFA really matters much. It's incivility combined with abuse that leads to desysopping, the Alkivar RFAr is a prime example of that. If you're around long enough you make some bad deletions and blocks, I'm sure I'm no exception. It's just that we don't desysop for a few mistakes... we desysop for a pattern of mistakes and an attitude of not caring, which is often most visible through incivility, and many people who ended up being desysopped in such situations, including Alkivar and Freestylefrappe also pops to mind, had RFAs where the big concern was incivility. As before, this is just my opinion based on my experiences here... I do not have empyrical data in charts ready to back up my observations. Sorry. --W.marsh 19:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just to wrap this up, I'd say that there is a world of difference between incivility and abuse, and if you'd said that a history of abuse was a good indicator of eventual desysopping I'd likely have agreed with you, even without any empirical data. But "incivility" is such a floppy concept on wp that seesm to cover everything from a mildly expressed disagreement to outright abuse. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you can't abuse admin tools before becoming an admin... I settled for things people actually can be observed doing prior to adminship. Maybe with the new rollback thing we'll have a new thing to look at. --W.marsh 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) You're obviously quite right, and an abuse of the rollback tool would certainly be a legitimate cause for concern at an RfA. But when I mentioned abuse above I meant personal remarks, cussing, bullying, that kind of thing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Analysis of the cultural relevance of 'civility', its various measurements and definitions and the precise impact on editors at Wikipedia is forthcoming. I expet a Nobel in something. Avruchtalk 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The foregoing discussion does not meet my definition of "incivil." Testy, maybe. Don't know who refactored the heading, but I concede it is now more on topic then the one I used. Thanks to everyone for helping my understanding of RfA. cheers and (happy) editing! <slides quietly out the doro>   Dlohcierekim  20:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No big deal? searching for the Holy Grail, the perfect nom evaluation tool 

message: If what I read there is true, then success should be automatic for any respectable admin candidate, yet this is not so.  Requests for adminship is totally rigged in that who gets in or not is not based on skill, policy knowledge, etc. but based upon a popularity contest. 76.29.116.172 (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He said that 5 years or so ago, times have changed. It isn't a big deal, but factors such as desysopping being nearly impossible contribute to RfA being difficult for some. Wizardman 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If you say so. What gets one popularity in Wikipedia? If the people who have had good interactions with you in the past vote for you, and the people you've pissed off vote against you... This isn't a playground, so perhaps these feelings are relevant? Avruchtalk 14:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You say it isn't a playground, but you sure make it sound like one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a collaborative project - you can't be an administrator if you can't effectively collaborate with others. If your track record demonstrates that you consistently burn people, and they vote against you in your RfA, then in that sense the 'popularity' votes represent an actual problem. Its like politics: Some people think politics shouldn't be about popularity, but no matter how smart and able you are you can't get shit done if people don't like you. Avruchtalk 15:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have strong feelings about this one. :) Being an admin does not make a person "OMG special" (and even in my short tenure I've seen enough admin misbehavior to feel very, very sure of that), but adminship in itself is a very big deal, given that an admin has the ability to make onWiki life miserable for other contributors through misuse (intentional or otherwise) of the tools. In my opinion, a respectable admin candidate needs to be one the community can trust not to make unfortunate choices more often than reasonable human error can excuse. Unfortunately, there's no objective test of that, and different RfA responders seem to have devised widely variant criteria for determining it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact that editors' criteria are widely varied is a good thing -- if an RfA candidate passes, it shows he fills a variety of functions adequately and is capable of dealing with and balancing many tasks at once. Of course, some of the criteria themselves approach the land of silly, but in my experience opposes on those kinds of grounds are generally infrequent and are usually outweighed by reasonable supports. - Revolving Bugbear 17:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.  Well said. Keeper  |  76 18:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Not bad.  Although it should perhaps reference the other common topic.  Difference in bold: 
Important Notice	Important Notice                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   	Important Notice
                	Everything you could think of saying here has already been said at some point or another, thus all discussion about adminship is futile. Please read through and outline our 114 archives to understand how the community reacts to certain proposals, and if you're bored, start a new thread to see if they react any differently. Suggested topics: location of the tally; how many RFAs are currently open; omg there's an RFB!!!11!1!; adminship is no big deal; the closure of an RFA you find controversial (please split discussion between the RFA's talk page, here, and WP:BN); new threads stating that these other concurrent threads have been threaded before, how to prevent biting at newcomers' RFAs; the esoteric nature of consensus, !consensus, and variations thereof; people exercising a sense of humor on this most serious process; etc. Thank you for your cooperation.	
Keeper  |  76 19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Could we maybe get a left-right flipped version of wikipe-tan shocked so the template is more symmetrical.<just say no to flashing sigs>.    Dlohcierekim  19:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No we can't. Bring it to ArbCom.  Any more questions?  Keeper  |  76 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. What is the airspeed of the European swallow?   Dlohcierekim  23:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, Laden or unladen?  Red, no blue!!!!Keeper  |  76 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a big deal 

message: Ultraexactzz made himself a test subject for the tally relocation. As the person who updated the tallies a lot, may be I'm just not used to it, but I felt that it really didn't belong in the bottom "general discussion." Any thoughts? bibliomaniac15 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I sometimes go around updating the tallies, and it seemed out of place. Could be that I just wasn't used to seeing it there, but I like it at the top. Useight (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I preferred it at the top as well: it seem out of place in the "General comments" section. I have no objection to the change that put the tally at the top again. Acalamari 02:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having two tallies made things a little interesting, until people got into the habit of updating both. For its purpose here, I agree that it's probably best at the top of the page - but, I think it might not be a bad idea to revisit the idea of moving it if the process (or format) changes dramatically. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I liked it better where it was. Cheers,    Dlohcierekim  03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tally relocation, part 2 

message: Slaps everyone in here with a large wet trout. It is however a very civil trout, and any contrary mention shall be ignored by all right-thinking people.  And now for something completely different.Wjhonson (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest removal of this comment in violation of WP:NOLARGETROUTSLAPPING. You have been around long enough to know only small catfish are acceptable IAW WP:SLAPPINGPROTOCOLSFORWIKIPEDIA. — BQZip01 — talk 03:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only a bit of rat in it 

message: Yes. Perhaps a course in How to approach intense snarkiness with humour instead of tit-for-tat, dog-pile and bite.  I recommend all admin candidates should be peppered with impersonal-abuse to see how they handle it in RfA. If they respond with Stop wasting my time you fathead then they're out, if they respond with But you're so cute when you're angry they're in.Wjhonson (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's maybe not such an altogether bad idea. But I'm struggling with your notion of "impersonal abuse". Can you give me an example, to make it clearer? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it will actually be harder to keep the nominators from throwing around the fatheads when snarkiness pops up.  Some nominators seem more like mother bears who feel their cubbies are being threatened. Keeper  |  76 20:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They do indeed. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "I recommend all admin candidates should be peppered with impersonal-abuse to see how they handle it..." Why not simply make it policy? There seems to be enough support for it... — BQZip01 — talk 03:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to go with the territory. If you've been around for a while, making substantial additions to the encyclopedia, as you obviously have, then you're bound to bump into few disagreements with other editors. I have never been convinced that the incivility card is anything other than the first resort of a kiddie that has lost the argument. Whatever happens with your RfA I hope that you will continue to kick ass. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda meant that sarcastically, but thanks for the positive reinforcement. — BQZip01 — talk 05:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I would have to say, in all honesty, that does look like very personal-abuse. So maybe not such a great example. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one, would love to see that posted by a well respected editor (not a spa, not an IP, not anything like that) on a RfA just to see the fallout.  I ♥ Drama. (or should I say !Drama?)  Of course, posting such would be prima facie evidence that the opposer is clueless... Keeper  |  76 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility part deux! 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VivioFateFan 2 - can someone with more experience check I've closed this/archived/added to lists properly. Ta. Pedro :  Chat   10:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me :) CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double check please 

message: This is why I've stopped working so hard to weigh a nom. Unless someone can come up with glaring evidence of unreadiness, I support. I review the tak pages and contribs. If I find evidence of readiness, all the better. And I usually do. And if there is a problem, someone comes up with it. Unfortunately, there is no litmus test.    Dlohcierekim  19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My basic criteria for supporting is time.  If someone actually is sadistic enough to stick around long enough to become an admin, then an admin they should be.  The fact that someone wants to clean up vomit, mop the floor, and lock the doors at night, for free, with all the abuses that come with it, is enough for me.  Keeper  |  76 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, Dloh. Unless there's a big reason to not support, I support. нмŵוτнτ 19:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No big deal revisited 

message: Has this been proposed before? Apologies if so. 
I would like to see a system where candidates can choose to pledge to binding recall, making a clearly defined set of requirements for it to happen (for example, 5 editors, 3 of them admins, all with at least 10,000 edits). Recall as it stands is almost completely meaningless and serves as a political tool to make a candidate look more accountable without actually making him or her more accountable. Recent recall requests that have succeeded caused a lot of drama (I'm thinking of Mercury and Durova, but I'm sure there are others) which could have been helped some by the recall being more straightforward. Obviously we don't want to make recalling admins too easy, but they always have the option of submitting themselves for RFA again, no? 
As volunteering for binding recall is exactly that, voluntary, admins who don't like the idea would be free to ignore it. Perhaps there could also be an allowance for removing your pledge to recall, as long as a recall request has not been initiated at the time?
Just a thought. At present I am more disposed to be distrustful of people who claim they'll be open to recall than I am to trust them, as the current system has no guarantees whatsoever! CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a recall process for all admins. Like RfA, almost anyone could nominate, but it would require a solid 80% consensus to de-admin. Otherwise, it would run under the same rules as an RfA?   Dlohcierekim  02:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost forgot. It would also require notice placed on the recalled admin's talkpage and at WP:AN/I.   Dlohcierekim  02:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Recall that is not breakable has been suggested too many times to count. The general view is that it would be quite impossible to hold anyone to it. Although, many people do list such circumstances that they would relinquish their mops. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) I'm not clear on how a voluntary recall provision with uniform criteria would be any better than what we have now, a voluntary recall provision with criteria that vary by admin. Could you elaborate on what you see as the advantages? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really couldn't help but laugh out loud when I read that. I agree that the present recall provisions are nothing more than a sham. But c'est la vie, the administrators and bureaucrats are in charge of the asylum, so shall it be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious to why you think it's a sham.  My criteria include a provision that any version of my recall criteria remain in effect for fourteen days after I make any change, which prevents me from modifying my criteria to suit my immediate personal needs.  I guess the question is whether bureaucrats will recognize a recall if the admin who signed on objects; I see no reason to believe that they wouldn't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: (Note also that I'd welcome any suggestions as to what my criteria should be - just create User talk:Sarcasticidealist/Recall if you have any criticisms or suggestions.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do I think it's a sham? Because it's been demonstrated to be a sham many times in the past. Admins changing the rules that they had apparently agreed to, to suit themselves. You might as well ask me why I don't believe in Santa Claus. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: Only some of the admins who have been recalled have made it a sham, but they were desysopped anyways. I hate to dredge up my RfA, but some admins wouldn't have accepted that, my point being that there are some of us open to recall who will entertain requests in an honorable manner. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the more important point is that those of us who are not admins have lost all faith in the recall process, and now realize that once an admin always an admin. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's too bad.  Hopefully someday I'll screw up royally, and a successful recall campaign against me and subsequent de-sysopping of me will help restore your faith. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Malleus, I will be an admin as long as the community has faith in me. I assure you, that if I royally screw up, I will be recalled and desysopped. Hopefully your faith will be restored sometime. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, don't hold your breath. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binding recall 

message: An analogy by Keeper76.  Sure to be longwinded, likely edit conflicted...
There is a classroom full of students that are well behaved.  So well behaved in fact, that the teacher learns through experience to trust the class of students.  Trusts them enough, that he in fact will leave the students to work independently, even leaving the room for brief moments because the students will behave.  One student acts disruptive with this trust.  The student does things without explanation or reason that cause the teacher not to trust said student.  Two solutions:
1.  Stop trusting the whole class.  Don't allow them to work independently, never leave the room.  Impose tedious amounts of homework to stifle the students into conformity and "good behavior".
2.  Stop the rogue student.  Remove him/her from the body of students temporarily.  Bring the issues to the parent (s) of the student for involvement.  Continue trusting the rest of the class that has done no wrong.
It's an easy analogy really, but I'll spell it out completely.    
There is an online community full of admins that are well behaved.  So well behaved in fact, that the community of editors learns through experience to trust the admins through RfA.  Trust them enough, that the community will leafe the admins to work independently, even unwatchlisting them because they will behave.  One admin though acts disruptive with this trust.  The admin does things without explanation or reeason that cause the community not to trust said admin. Two solutions:
1.  Stop trusting all the admins.  Don't allow them to work independently, never leave them unwatchlisted.  Impose tedious amounts of bureaucracy to stifle the admins into conformity and "good behavior."
2.  Stop the admin.  Remove him/her from the body of admins temporarily.  Bring the issues to the 'crats and mentors of the admin for involvement.  Continue trusting the rest of the admins that have done no wrong.
Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 19:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, precisely. нмŵוτнτ 19:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sometimes analogies fail because they don't scale - in this case, your 'classroom' has 1500 students and a constantly evolving cast. The students are chosen in a somewhat haphazard process that can easily miss salient problems, its extremely difficult to assign any students to detention (let alone expel them), they are all anonymous and they can expel younger students or delete desks at will. Avruchtalk 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it still works, though. In my mind the scale strengthens the analogy.  We are a constantly evolving cast (kids change grades), chosen haphazardly, (kids change towns)  hard to expel, (even more true in real schools) anonymous (teachers can't remember the damn names anyway, so they just call them all "Brittany" and "Jason".) and (gasp!) wielding the power to expel and delete.  Out of the 1500, 1499 of us don't (to use your 1500). Why would we punish (with added bureacracy) 1499 admins (or future admins?)  Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Fully agree with this analogy.  Fully disagree with this discussion.  Can't we just accept bad eggs, de-sysop them, and move on?  <Insert audible groan here> dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Abitrary break