requests For Adminship/Archive 167

I really don't think DougsTech is acting in good faith, and I'm going to take this oppurtunity to persaud those of you who disagree with me. Doug could easily go to WT:RFA, WP:VP or any other of our many forums, engage in reasoned debate of his views, and try to get something done, which would be much more effective than what he is doing now. Instead he has chained himself to the railings and continues to spam every single RFA with an oppose he has refused at every oppurtunity to clarify [1] [2] [3] [4]. Anybody who questions him is either ignored or linked to somewhere else where he "explained" his opinion (Claims Ryulong's criticized behavior is a rationale to not have any other administrators) [5] [6]. Some are even told to stop wasting their time because he's not going to discuss it [7].

Doug has even claimed that administrators are some kind of abusive cabal dedicated to...well, "abuse" [8].

By now, Doug must appreciate exactly what effect his oppose has on RFA participants. Still, he persists in making it even though he knows the bureaucrats ignore it ([9], "Votes based on too many admins were immediately thrown out, of course.") The only conclusion I can draw from this is that he opposing like this just to upset people.

Couple with this his attempt to insert his opinion here, and subsequent edit warring to try and keep it there (The page had to be protected), I don't think anyone can disagree with me; he is being plain disruptive. If he really wished to change the RFA page text, he should have gone to the talk page after he was reverted in keeping with the bold, revert, discuss cycle. He's been here long enough to know that. Something needs to be done, though I'm not sure what that is. DougsTech, can you please just stop opposing RFAs like this? Patton^t/c 10:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we not just leave it please? This page is full of stuff on him. We need no more thanks.  GARDEN  10:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yet people like A Nobody seem convinced he's acting in good faith.--Patton^t/c 10:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
What happened to freedom of speech here, not to mention common sense? Doug has a valid opinion which none of us agree with, but it's a valid opinion nonetheless. Every registered user who isn't blocked is permitted to place a vote here, regardless of their opinion on a candidate. If he wishes to oppose everyone based on his valid opinion, let him. As already mentioned above, his vote won't be taken into account by the 'crats, but he's still allowed to make that point if he so wishes. Let's just leave it, because it makes no ****ing difference either way. Good faith, bad faith, it won't affect the outcome of any RfA. —Cyclonenim | Chat  11:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes but it does efect the atmosphere of RFA. And if he is doing to be disruptive it isn't a valid opinion--Patton^t/c 13:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
No one has freedom of speech here. Keegan^talk 05:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody is something of a single-issue campaigner on RfA himself. It's in his own best interests to oppose this, lest it sets a precedent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Huh? Every one of these in my most recent RfA arguments are different with candidate specific reasons to support: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. As indicated at User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards, I look for four different areas as positives (reasons to support) and sometimes take into account others such as WP:AGF and seven different areas as negatives (reasons to oppose). Please do not mischaracterize my edits. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It's obviously not your supports I'm talking about. If you'd like to discuss this further, feel free to drop me a note instead of replying on here (as I think everyone would rather this discussion were brought to a close). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE let it go. I've yet to see a single RfA, including my own, where Doug's opinion made the blindest bit of difference either way. He's clarified it before, it's his view, let him have it and leave him be. --GedUK  15:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it goes to show that I am not a single issue voter, because more often than not I support candidates rather than oppose them, and yes, even when they don't always agree with me, just as I consider multiple things when not supporting. Given that no one could honestly accuse me of copy and paste stances in RfAs or not actually considering the individual candidates in each RfA, suggesting I am a single issue "voter" is ridiculous and frankly insulting, especially when in many instances when I do oppose as in your RfA, I still think of something nice/positive to say and in several cases have even changed from oppose to neutral or from oppose to support after being persuaded by the candidates that they are worth getting a shot. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, my comment was nothing to do with the 'A Nobody is a serial opposer' claim, just that i wish we would just leave Doug to his view. --GedUK  15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• For Doug to be acting in bad faith he has to not believe what he's claiming to believe. I see no evidence of that. Is there any? Or are you just assuming bad faith of him, because you disagree with his evaluations? WilyD 13:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Dear. God. Can we just stop this? How about this... if we as a community can refrain from starting any more DougsTech threads on any of these dramaboards until the end of July, I'll donate $200 to the Foundation (not much, I know). But I'm sure others would offer similar "bounties", and some further good can come from shutting the hell up and moving along with 'business'. --Ali'i 14:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll probably be able to keep that $200... it seems pretty safe to me.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Shhhh... don't give away the odds. We want people betting on the hard 8. ;-) --Ali'i 14:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just my 2¢ guys. Regardless of DougsTech's intentions, their comments/votes do never exceed more than 7 lines a week (+/- 28 words a week). Discussions like this are far more exceeding that 'limit' (mine included). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with just letting this go because it shows we're willing to tolerate stuff like this. We're shouldn't tolerate disruptiveness at all, doing so opens the door to all kinds of other blanket opposers, who we will also have to put up with. If someone started pasting "Delete too many articles" into every single AfD ther'd be uproar, even though no sane admin would take that comment into account. But there isn't here, in fact, we're actively suppressing critism of his comments! Why?--Patton^t/c 17:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wily_D that's ridiculous. He cold easily start a proposal somewhere. By your logic I could replace every Wikipedia: namespace page with "This shouldn't exist" and it wouldn't be disruptive because I really believe it.--Patton^t/c 18:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I have encountered one account that has declared that we have too many articles, asserted he will never argue to keep, and in fact never has argued to keep and does basically copy and paste "delete as cruft" across many Afds (or "delete as unreferenced" even when the articles are referenced...) and for some reason this is tolerated. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, deletionist bogeymen are great fun, Elisabeth. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Who is this user?--Patton^t/c 23:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He's likely talking about me, although, if so, I don't consider it an accurate statement. G'day, Jack Merridew 10:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure this talk page is really the appropriate place (hence, why I didn't single anybody out above), but for the sake of clarity, see Wiki: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive412#AndalusianNaugahyde.27s_sock_accounts and yeah, we’re still left with made up nonsense terms like “Buffycruft,” dishonest calls of WP:JNN and plot summary when the article contained two out of universe sections prior to merger, use of WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC rather than any kind of policy or guideline based reason for deletion, etc. The editor in questions said it’s his mission to delete because we have too many articles and “wouldn't participate in an AfD where I would vote 'keep' since my primary goal is to trim down Wikipedia and I have only finite time”. Indeed, even in cases where drastic improvements have been made to articles under discussion since nomination, he still won’t change his mind. So we have someone with an uncompromising and closed minded “goal” and “mission” to try to get as much deleted in AFDs as possible and goes about it in an obviously indiscriminate manner. If that is acceptable, than “oppose as self noms are power hungry” and “oppose as too many admins” ought to be acceptable too. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See here and here. Is the official policy that it has to be transcluded for votes (but not questions) to come in? rootology (C)(T) 05:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that I did not know there was an actual rule against early comments, or I would have held back. There is now no dispute on my part. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hang on -- we've gone from "there are too many admins" to a nomination? Is anyone else as confused as I am? GlassCobra 12:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, me. But let's keep our opinions to ourselves for now... we don't need to start a fire here. Chamal ^talk 12:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, when I commented on there it was live. One suspects the same goes for the others; we can't be expected to foresee that someone will come along and de-transclude it. – iridescent 12:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah the commenters probably saw the transclusion and went to vote and when they did it was de-transcluded, and I too am surprised to see DougsTech, nominate somebody.--Giants27 ^T/C 12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't suppose anyone stopped into DougsTech's talk page and read the conversation between ChildofMidnight and Dougstech where one asked the other for a nomination? It happened the normal way, through dialogue. Anyway, help an oldtimer out, what exactly is preventing Dougstech from transcluding the RfA now and CoM accepting the nomination and so on and so forth?--Tznkai (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
COM plans on accepting it overnight. I must say that I find the 'case by case' approach to 'too many admins' a tad confusing! Still, it is COM's RfA not DougTech's. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The way Doug sort-of explained it in that thread, when he says "too many", he means too many of a certain type, i.e. of the type he opposes, whatever that may be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've never complained about DougTech's !votes because I figured he kind of voted oppose on only users of a certain type. Ceranllama chat post 00:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Technically, for Neurolysis he said "Neutral" rather than "Oppose", while making the unqualified statement that there are too many admins. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I know I've seen stats before on how many admins are actually active, but I can't remember where I saw them. Could someone point me in the right direction?--Aervanath (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Most recent update. Skomorokh 07:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I totally missed the lengthy discussion up at the top of the page. Fishslap!--Aervanath (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
And who could blame you :) There's some more in this vein at WP:ADMINSTATS. Regards, Skomorokh 20:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone ever thought of making a bot that updates these tallies? It seems a huge waste of editors' time to be updating the !vote tallies for every RFA every time someone !votes. Timmeh! 02:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been proposed several times in the past, and the general consensus (at least the way I see it) is that updating them manually is just as effective. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
They should just be done away with, since I thought it was supposed to be a discussion, and have nothing to do with numbers. But... --Ali'i 14:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Law#Put on hold?. Apparently Law will be incommunicato for a few days so I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to put the RfA on hold somehow; some more input would be appreciated. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd do it but I think this is something the crats should decide as the ones caring for RFA questions. I have posted a request for crat feedback at their noticeboard. Regards SoWhy 22:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You might want to contact their mailing list, as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, nevermind;   Done by Rlevse. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I decided to go and bother him directly once I realized he was online.^^ Hopefully Law's RL will turn well again. Regards SoWhy 22:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is really bogus, there is no satisfaction to ramble about useless ideology that basically leads nowhere. South Bay (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather see extraneous opinions on this page for the regulars, than have that stuff on the RfA itself. --StaniStani  05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You know I think I'll stop posting to this page. Who cares what DougsTech does here? He has some solid anti vandal work. One of my articles just got promoted to featured status, and I realise now how easy it is to write FAs, so I'm gonna go and write some more. Sorry for any hassle I may have caused anybody (A Nobody, DougsTech).--Patton^t/c 13:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
South Bay, congrats on adding a really constructive discussion to set an example. GlassCobra 03:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A page is as useful as what is written on it. Oh wait... --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 03:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The "usefulness" of subtopics discussed here has varied widely. Going through the old archives, it seems our forefathers were generally better able to stay on topic. Useight (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Forefathers? o_0 Some of us must be going senile then... bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 04:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The automated report for vote count in the Orlady RfA, now open, shows #5 Oppose as being by Rumbletree, when it is by me, Doncram, instead. Don't know if that matters. More seriously, the vote count of Supports includes voter #2, who cancelled his/her vote and converted to "abstain" instead. This appears to throw off the vote total for supporters in the RfA itself and in the automated report. Could this be fixed, please? doncram (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "automated report", but I have removed the paragraph breaks in your initial comment (oppose 5) and Garden's original comment (support 2) looks to be correctly struck. I've also updated the vote tally manually, so that it is now consistent with that of SoxBot (talk · contribs) transcluded at the top of this page. Kosher? Skomorokh 09:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I assume that Doncram is talking about this, but it appears to be correctly discounting Garden's vote, and counting Doncram's at the moment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC).
Yes, that was what i was referring to, and yes it now seems to be reporting correctly about Garden's and my votes. Thanks. doncram (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that we already have a lot of RfA's up ATM, but I thought I'd suggest adding more fuel to the fire; we're seeing excellent candidates recently (i.e. Law, Neurolysis (who recently withdrew), Closedmouth, SpinningSpark, etc.), so I'd like to suggest a few.

• Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Majorly (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)
• A Nobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Struck per this. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
• Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thoughts? I'll notify each user of the discussion. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to research them? Checked their block logs, asked if they want the bit? Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Erm, this should be discussed with them before you put them on the spot and post their name. I don't really see a need to push through as many RfA's as possible because we have a load up currently.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, I would suggest a slightly more thorough background check first. Relatively few editors pass RfA six months after indef blocks for sockpuppetry, for instance. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) What Shappy said. If you did the most basic research, you'd see that two of those users have some of the longest block logs of any user on Wiki English. – iridescent 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Whatever, I've seen people with longer block logs run. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why was I missed off that list? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Because you are already an admin in everyone's heart and mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, Malleus stole the joke I was going to use, and on the research front one user, was blocked over a year ago for sockpuppetry not six months ago like Chris said.--Giants27 ^T/C 20:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If we're talking about the same user, he's had three blocks for sockpuppetry, all for socking in AfDs, and the last was exactly six months and four 22 days ago. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yep, you're right I was talking about Neutralhomer, and I'll assume you're talking about A Nobody.--Giants27 ^T/C 20:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody wasn't blocked for sockpuppetry (unless if you count April 2007, some two years ago...), but he was blocked for an inappropriate username (as User:B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0, but that was fixed about a month later. He got blocked by mistake back in February, but aside from that the username issue was his last block. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 20:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, this was rather unexpected :P but I'll go along with this and see what happens. Cyclonebiskit 20:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong block log. (admittedly I also counted the months wrongly; now corrected.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't matter though, mere facts. Dylan likes him is all that counts. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate the nomination for adminship, but with my previous blocks I doubt that anyone would ever consider me for an adminship. If you want to go through the paces, that is fine. But with my block log, I kinda doubt it will be anything but negative. But thanks for considering me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 9, 2009 @ 21:12
  • Au contraire! Rootology (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) an admin, and he used to be banned; and that was a rare ArbCom indef ban. NH, you got banned for less than what Root was banned for, so I'm pretty sure you'll pass RfA someday. :) --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that it really helps, but the above comment Neutralhomer is of the kind that would make me support irrespective. Insightful, honest and clear. And yes, Malleus should have been on the above list as well - a John Smith... - the best admin we never had. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, but I am not interested at this time. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW...

Here's why I suggested each user.

• I suggested Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because of his prolific content work. At this time of writing, CB (if I may call him that for short) has some 10 DYK's, 5 FL's, 2 FA's, 1 A-Class article, and a nice healthy 38 GA's (one of which I reviewed myself); see User:Cyclonebiskit/Articles for more information. Even if he won't be regularly active in classic admin areas, such as WP:AFD, WP:UAA, WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, etc, I still feel like CB could use the tools to aid him in writing content when they see fit. I've seen Hurricanehink (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) use the tools for the same reason.
• Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Pedro pretty much summed it up, NH is insightful, honest, and clear. His attitude – a former hell – is now IMO perfect for adminship. He's all-around helpful around the wiki, and for that I have fairly recently given him his own day.
• Majorly (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights) is an all-around helpful user, long-term experience, checkuser at simple-wiki and a 'crat at Meta.
• A Nobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an all-around help who is extremely insightful and displays excellent judgment despite his rocky past. I gave him his own day once, FWIW.
• User-multi error: "Cyclonenim's" is not a valid project or language code (help). adminship has already been brought up to him by other users, so why not by me?

--Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As commented above, you really should have discussed this with these users before posting it here. However, if there are any of them that you think would make a good admin and are willing to run, then go ahead and nominate them. You don't need to get anyone's permission here first. Robofish (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
CB definitely wants the mop, he has a userbox on his userpage saying so. I'll do him first; Wiki: Requests for adminship/Cyclonebiskit should be up momentarily. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Offline for a few hours and I'm confronted with this! To be quite honest, I'm not sure what's holding me back, but I'm still making certain mistakes here and there and last month my temper flared up in a civility issue (diffs available if you so please). Even though it turned out that my point of view was that correct one, I still didn't deal with it in the best manner possible, and therefore I'm not sure if I'm suited just yet. If someone could help settle those issues in my mind, I'd be more than happy to run again. —Cyclonenim | Chat  23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I call dibs on Majorly. Synergy 23:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Majorly is the user out of the above list that really strikes me as a good administrator. I know it's unlikely to happen, but nonetheless he's my top choice from that list. —Cyclonenim | Chat  23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Right. I just want to see him back in the role he's good at. I think his break is over. Synergy 23:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the three posts directly above mine. I also think that Cyclonebiskit sounds like a good choice, and Cyclonenim himself is someone who's RfA I've been looking forward to again. Acalamari 23:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Acalamari. :) Dlohcierekim 23:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
@ Acalamari; I'm glad you think that CB sounds like a good choice, because he has now been nominated for adminship. Now all we have to do is await his acceptance. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Majorly was a former admin, you know. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 04:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I know, but I still feel he'd make a good admin at this moment in time. —Cyclonenim | Chat  10:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Whether he'd make a good admin or not he'd be exceeding unlikely to get through an RfA right now. RfA has very little to do with choosing good administrators in any event. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Malleus...I find myself agreeing with you more and more each day. Synergy 15:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Me too actually. There isn't a chance in hell I'd pass RFA. Not that I particularly want to pass RFA - I wouldn't mind being an admin again though. It would be utterly impossible though, consider all the terrible things I've done, and what a disgraceful person I am. I mean, I've only slaved away on this project for nearly 3 years solid, day after day after day, creating and improving hundreds of articles, discussing and improving policies, working on things from RC patrol to GA reviews. Let's face it, someone like that would make a terrible admin. To be honest though I'm actually enjoying working on articles - something which many of the RFA crowd should try doing some time. I prefer that any day to slaving away deleting crap pages, blocking idiots who vandalise, and discussing stupid policies. It's an encyclopedia. Majorly talk 16:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Most excellent. Well said. Synergy 16:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Here, here. —Cyclonenim | Chat  16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Since the mechanism for RFA is deemed to not be broken, but the mood has changed such that the process isn't producing admins fast enough to replace our losses, let alone build up numbers to the normal ratio for a wikipedia; Perhaps the time has come to reduce the threshold for success to a more attainable 50% plus or minus 5% for crats discretion? ϢereSpielChequers 16:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should reduce the pass mark, but instead encourage more users who we think are fit to be administrators to run through the process. Most people who run and who are suitable do pass. It's only the controversial users such as Majorly, Ottava etc. who (unfortunately) won't. —Cyclonenim | Chat  17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm struggling to think of any recent unsuccessful candidates who scored over 50% who I would really have thought a nett negative if they'd had the mop. I wonder if anyone with longer memories of RFA is aware of anyone scoring in the 50% - 75% range who subsequently went rogue or otherwise proved untrustworthy? I wouldn't want to continue with this line of thought if there was reason to think that we need RFA to be such a tough test. ϢereSpielChequers 18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I should point out there's a factor that you don't seem to be considering: adminship itself. There might be users who would only show clear problems, go rogue after they've got adminship for whatever reasons (bullying "lesser" users, et al.) Just for consideration that what they do after RfA isn't exactly representative. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, fair point, thats partly because I think a pure AB test would be hard to arrange. But I'd be interested in a comparison of admins who failed with 50-75% on their first RFA but subsequently succeeded, v those who either succeeded first time or whose unsuccessful RFAs were below 50%. Another way to test the validity of the process would be to chart the RFA scores of admins who have subsequently had to be desysoped against typical RFA success scores, if RFA is predictive of whether candidates would make good or bad admins I would expect to see a negative correlation between pass margin and compulsory desysops; Though I doubt we have the sample size to get very good confidence levels. This can't be the first time we've discussed reviewing recruitment procedures in light of results, does anyone remember the previous times this has been done at RFA? ϢereSpielChequers 00:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What happened to that list?

Of users with tons of contributions/old timers that weren't admins? Go by that for long-standing prospects. rootology (C)(T) 05:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The list, Wiki: List of non-admins with high edit counts, was marked historical because of this MFD discussion. Graham87 08:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A number of people, even a few who had opposed, felt I withdrew too soon. My reason for withdrawing was because I did not want a successful RfA (in the event it did succeed) where a number of editors in the community opposed my candidacy. Basically, I didn't want to succeed from a discretionary range. After multiple conversations, I have decided to reconsider. I understand that this is unusual, but I'd like to ask that it be reopened and let it run its course (with the time amended of course). If this is objectionable in any way, shape or form than no harm done and it can remain closed. If it is acceptable by the community, I'd like to ask that an independant editor or crat reopen please. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thank you. Synergy 17:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be anything irrevocable about withdrawing. (I personally feel it would be the worst sort of process wonkery to insist that a debate or decision-making process should not be allowed to run its normal course.) The only difficulty I can see is figuring out the new closing date. I hope there won't be any unnecessary drama (or any smart-alec comments about necessary drama). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Done  Y, if anyone objects feel free to revert.--Giants27 ^T/C 17:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
@SheffieldSteel To be fair, I had asked Lara to reopen it. I felt asking an independent editor might be unusual, since what if they !vote later? She opposed me, and I thought that might be acceptable. She has told me she would rather a crat do it. This sounds fine too. Synergy 17:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
In my honest opinion, this is a bad call. You did indeed withdraw prematurely, which reflects poorly on you to begin with, as well as your ability to take constructive criticism; however, to re-open it now shows poorly for your judgment, especially since you had already stated that you would not run again. The fact that you were persuaded otherwise so quickly is troubling, and smacks of even more IRC caballery, which was already a problem. You also posted here, then wasted almost no time asking for it to be re-opened instead of waiting for comments here, as you supposedly desired. Your reasons for withdrawing in the first place, as stated above, are also troubling and don't exactly speak well for your decision. No one's passed RFA unanimously in months, if memory serves, and given how hostile an environment it is, it's pretty unreasonable to withdraw just because you don't want any opposes. GlassCobra 17:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
IRC caballery? I'm not sure what the problem here really is. I was prompted to just reopen it, so I asked Lara if she wouldn't mind doing me the favor. There was no harm done in asking her, as I wasn't trying to sway. I noted my bad call to withdraw, so we will have to agree to disagree. At the end of the day, I was the only one effected by my actions. If others were effected, I'll apologize right now. Synergy 18:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"IRC caballery?" Well, where did these "multiple conversations" take place? Not on wiki, that's for sure. I get a worse and worse feeling about all this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Why does it matter where a conversation took place, so long as it is accurately depicted on wiki? Who is to say I did not have a phone conversation with another editor, or used yahoo im, or aim, or even skype? None of this matters. Just because something is not on wiki, does not mean it has an ominous feel to it, and there is caballery. You guys get way too paranoid over this IRC issue, where a number of well known, and respected members of the community go to have decent to lame conversation. You do realize these venues existed prior to wikipedia, correct? Synergy 23:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, these "multiple conversations" haven't been "depicted" at all. You merely stated "After multiple conversations, I have decided to reconsider." Again, as I commented on your RFA, the problem is the lack of transparency. I'm quite aware that these venues existed before Wiki English. That has nothing to do with it. However, I'm especially concerned (and I know I'm not the only one) about admins or potential admins who rely on such conversations off wiki, all the more so when those conversations influence decisions and actions on wiki. I'm not arguing that there is anything sinister about this. Just that is is opaque, and for that reason problematic. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops. I think I explained this on my talk page. I assumed you seen my explanation there. Synergy 01:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Considering the apparent vehemence in your statement that you weren't going to run again, I was personally very surprised to see you change your mind and re-open the RfA. I would be very much interested in seeing the conversation that persuaded you, an option which has been removed. GlassCobra 23:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Right. I meant another RfA, which would be Synergy 3, or RfA 5 for me. I think 5 would be too many, and not something I wish to look forward to. Reopening after 3 hours is not running another RfA altogether. So I'll have to disagree. As to the conversation, I can only say that I believe Lara, Ryan, Peter, Rjd, and a few others had said it was a bad idea to withdraw so early. And since I respect their opinions, along with others in pm, I decided to request that it be reopened. The only thing that was discussed, was why I chose to withdraw and that they disagreed with it. So basically I would point you to Iri's comments on my talk. Respected admins disagreed, so I asked for it to be reverted (basically how an admin should act). Synergy 01:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Whether the withdrawal was premature or not—I think it displays integrity to withdraw when there is significant opposition, regardless of the percentage—I agree with GlassCobra. All that will happen now is that your (Synergy's) judgement will be called into question. Which you probably don't need. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There was hardly significant opposition, he was still easily exceeding 85 percent when he withdrew. GlassCobra 18:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the percentage. If Jennaveccia, for instance, had opposed me I'd certainly have withdrawn on the strength of that alone. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to note that GlassCobra is also a member of the IRC channels, so any "IRC Caballery" would see to be pointless, as there are plenty of people with differing views. I, as a former member of the IRC channels, have not noticed anything untowards from Synergy before I left. My experience with Synergy was not the best and, if I was going strictly off of personal opinion (especially in regards to heated conversations that happened between us on IRC), I would have opposed him. However, I did not. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I frequent only a few other channels that Synergy does, most of them official WP channels. Further, he and I have very little contact and speak to very few of the same people. "IRC caballery" doesn't mean "all IRC is bad," and one IRCer is not necessarily like another. GlassCobra 22:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Time amendment?

I was a little surprised to see that when Synergy's withdrawn RFA was reopened, the time was amended. I can understand the reasoning, I suppose, and in this case it didn't make much difference--it's just a matter of three hours. But on the other hand, it doesn't seem an obvious decision; in other cases, it may lead to what would be in effect a significant lengthening of the RFA process. Is there precedent on this? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In the past, requests on hold have resumed with an ending time adjusted to give the standard length of time for participation - i.e., requests are presumed to be open for the full 7 day period unless withdrawn or closed otherwise. Avruch ^T 18:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call 3 hours significant... I've seen RfA's closed 3 hours early and 3 hours late. I don't think the time adjustment was necessary, but I don't think it was unnecessary. 3 hours is a judgement call on the 'crats part.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. No, as I said, I don't think that three hours was significant. But I wondered what would happen if the break had been for a couple of days. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I too wondered about this (but figured what the heck). I assume that RfAs are usually put on hold by a bureaucrat (at least one was recently) and then it makes sense to adjust the time accordingly. However, this was a withdrawn and un-withdrawn RfA. Of course, that brings another RfA that was withdrawn and resubmitted (and is re-re-going on now!). I guess we'll have to wait for the 'couple of days' break to figure out how to handle that. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am slightly disturbed by this oppose by A Nobody on Foxy Loxy's RFA. In it, A Nobody appears to at first concede that the candidate makes acceptable judgements at AFD more often than not, which is standard fare for A Nobody, before citing that the candidate was a poor judge of character, and offering Foxy Loxy's Support !vote on Kww's RFA as evidence of this. A Nobody goes on to say that the candidate is "not persuaded by overwhelmingly convincing arguments". Perhaps unsurprisingly, A Nobody has also opposed on Kww's RFA.

Now don't get me wrong, there are legitimate reasons to oppose Kww, and I suppose that someone being a serially poor judge of character might be a legitimate reason to Oppose someone. In this case though, the oppose seems to simply be based on Foxy Loxy offering an opinion in an RFA that A Nobody happens to deal with. Seeing as at time of writing almost two out of every three people to comment on Kww's RFA have expressed a "Support" opinion, I hardly think that "overwhelmingly convincing arguments" can be shown to have been made. It appears to be more of a tit-for-tat opposition rather than serious concern over Foxy Loxy's ability to do the job. I asked A Nobody for clarification on his opinion on the RFA, fearing that I may have been simply misunderstanding something innocent, to which he replied that the user had "demonstrated poor judgment that could influence having a potentially disastrous admin by not being convinced by overwhelming evidence".

I know that in all probability this Oppose will be glossed over or not considered by the closing bureaucrats, and Foxy Loxy's support range is high enough that this one Oppose vote is likely not going to make any difference. But I feel that if we open the gates to these sort of comments at RFA, the already sometimes combative atmosphere could well degenerate even further. I also note that I am not the only one to have called A Nobody out on this topic in the RFA, but I felt it best to bring it here to avoid derailing that particular RFA and generate some discussion over whether this is considered unacceptable more generally.

Full disclosure: I have had my disagreements with A Nobody before, and he was one of the two people to oppose my own RFA this year.

Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

................ um....... why not just disagree with him and state it on the RfA like everyone else? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
"I felt it best to bring it here to avoid derailing that particular RFA". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

Today, I will only comment to support the idea that discussion of this really should take place outside of Foxy Loxy's RFA. I'll feel freer to comment in greater detail in 18 hours or so.—Kww(talk) 04:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm tending to think that A Nobody's comment regarding the !vote are a bit over the top. Except in extreme cases, I do not believe that an editor !voting on an issue should be held against him or should be an issue. By the by, that includes Kww's !vote against Casliber when he was an ArbCom candidate.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

have to agree ... not a proper convincing argument to use, but to each their own. — Ched :  ?  05:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is overdue; Wiki: Requests for comment/A Nobody. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reexamined the candidate's edit history and will WP:AGF with the candidate's support in the other RfA as I am if not persuaded that the candidate has more positives than negative. As such, I have switched to neutral pending how the other nine opposes are addressed. It's a holiday after all, and I'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt. So, Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

... yes, but what about the other 364 days of the year? I'd like to hold this open to allow Kww the chance to comment when his RfA closes later today, and then see if we should adopt Jack's suggestion to procede to a RfC concerning A Nobody. I'd have some comments in that RfC, but will withhold pending Kww's contribution, if he sees fit.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
My god, is WT:RFA's only function to be a three-ring drama circus? Let the closing 'crat take it into account, complain on the RfA if you must but this constant whining about opposes really gets old. They are opinions—last time I checked, everyone was allowed one, poorly informed as they could be. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It's part of a disturbing trend. I thought, when Kurt Weber was banned (primarily, if not only, for his opposition at RfA) that we might see more concerted effort to bar controversial opinions here, and it seems we are. DougsTech, A Nobody, Friday (ageism) etc. There are structural problems with RfA: the tendency for huge amounts of questions turning the request into an examination, the fact that actual discussion is discouraged, and the general problem that lack of any common criteria makes the process about popularity more than anything else, etc. These unpopular opinions should be treated as the ripple they are. When they are brought here, whatever the intention of the initial poster, censorship and banning are where the discussions seem to lead. The best response is to just ignore them if you disagree and move on. Avruch ^T 15:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) IMO, A Nobody usually makes very pertinent points in his !votes, both when he opposes as well as when he supports. I don't always agree with his conclusions but I always read his opinion and am disappointed that we seek to comment on one !vote that was perhaps not kosher or just not well explained. Regardless of the quality of his !vote rationale, I remain convinced that picking on oppose voters is detrimental to the RfA process because it scares away oppose !voters and leaves only crudmugeonly editors opposing an RfA and we lose valuable information in the process. An image of a squalling pink thing in a large puddle of soapy water on the sidewalk leaps to mind. Let people !vote anyway they want and, unless they are impolite, stop worrying about what the !vote says. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

very well stated. — Ched :  ?  16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If an editor votes for a very bad reason, it will fail to convince others to vote the same way. If it does convince them, then it wasn't such a bad reason after all. If an oppose reason is bad enough, it may even generate some support for the candidate. I will say that I have responded in such a way to one or two of A Nobody's opposes--voted neutral or support to make clear I do not share his opinions. Badgering someone about how he votes is like beating up on voters coming out of the polls who make it clear they've voted against your guy. It's every bit as much intimidation as beating up on them ahead of the election. To bring a RfC based on any polite RfC vote is interfering with the RfC process -- and thus disruptive. DGG (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My RFA is closed now, so no one can accuse me of making statements here in an effort to sway the result. First, mine went 76:49:9. That means that neither opposing nor supporting me for adminship is an obvious sign of bad judgment. Even so, A Nobody is allowed to believe that it is, and, if that was the only thing he had done in connection with this, I'd agree wholeheartedly with just letting it lie. The real problem is that it is misbehaviour from my RFA spilling over into Foxy Loxy's. Every one is allowed to oppose me, and there are some legitimate reasons to do so, primarily concerns over whether my perspective on inclusionism will have an undue effect on my judgment. A Nobody, however, went well beyond the normal behaviour of simply opposing, and went to the point of grandstanding. Hell, he used my forbearance in commenting here as evidence against me. First he opposes, then mischaracterizes my block log (a block reversed as "my error" by the blocking admin can scarcely be described as being blocked for edit warring). He then added a legitimate, albeit strange link to his argument. He then demands a pledge, asks me if I've stopped beating my wife, badgers too many times to create links for, revamps his arguments again. Then, in order to get a new spot to argue against me, he claims to be "stunned" by one of my support votes. This claim is hard to take seriously, given that A Nobody has obviously been reading every support vote, and it took 5 days for him to be stunned.

People should feel free to oppose at RFAs, to oppose for any reason that convinces them, and should feel free to explain those reasons to others. DGG, for example, opposed my RFA, and made several edits in support of his opposition, and several other edits questioning other editors' reasons. From all appearances he did so in good faith, trying to make his point accepted and understood by others, and did so within the bounds of my RFA. There's a style, and a structure, and a timing to A Nobody's opposition that deserves discussion: from the above description at my RFA, from spilling over into Foxy Loxy's, to mentioning his opposition to an ongoing RFA at ANI. It's not a matter of just having his !vote use questionable logic.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

So now that your RfA closed as unsuccessful and as my oppose was agreed with by multiple editors (if it was really baseless, it would not have persuaded anyone), you go after me here as what revenge? I really hoped you would reflect on the RfA's failure and realize, hey, maybe if you were more conciliatory and understanding with your opposition you would not have received such determined opposes. I have changed stances in several RfAs. I have argued to support candidates in a subsequent RfA after opposing them in an earlier one. If you hope to suceed a third time, I strongly urge you reconcile with those who opposed you rather than retaliate against them and perpetuate the tensions, because I for one am whole-heartedly welcome to reconsidering my thoughts on you should you take the proactive path and I'm sure many others will look favorably on such an approach as well. Don't prove me right about holding grudges. Be the big man here and show me and everyone else that you would rather agree to disagree or maybe even destroy enemies by making them your friends as Abraham Lincoln once said. I'm always receptive to good faith and I believe many others would be as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious about the fact that A Nobody's updating the tally on Kww's nomination followed an oppose in almost every instance (I think it is 18 our of 19). Given the fact that Kww's candidacy attracted about 60 percent support, this seems statistically unlikely. Not sure how this advantaged A Nobody's militant oppositon of Kww, but it is interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Interesting how, because you updated the tally after many of the supports: [21], [22], [23], [24], etc. So, someone who supported him and seems to take issue with the main opposer was quick to update after many supports. Perhaps its statistically unlikely because you beat me and everyone else for that matter to the punch with updating the tally following the new supports. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I updated after opposes, as well [25], [26] and even after a neutral [27]. I merely updated when I saw it wasn't up to date, and the majority are probably supports because Kww got majority support. Why would you only update after an oppose? I can't figure out what the advantage is, and yet you did it. Very strange.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Because every single other time somebody else updated first. One editor actually updated by discounting an oppose (DougTech's) from the tally. You'd think that would be a bigger concern. And in any event, I didn't update after every oppose because I think there's an advantage (and after all as you say above, I literally didn't update after "every" oppose), because as you ask, what would that be? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea. I was just struck that you seemed to always update after an oppose, and thought it odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, at worst it was subconscious, because it's not something I thought about. Anyway, though, I do hope that the results will persuade the candidate to take a different approach with the opposers, because even with as adamant as I was there, if I see a much more proactive and understanding approach when dealing with those of opposing wikiphilosophies, I would gladly reeevaluate my opinions of him as I have in the past when I either changed stance during an RfA or decided to support someone I had opposed in a previous RfA. My oppose focused on a grudge-like combative attitude. The way forward is to reach out proactively so that I and others can say that he learned from the RfA and in fact wants to move forward. I am absolutely receptive to that. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Still an amazing coincidence, akin to having a coin land heads a couple of dozen times in a row. I'm afraid I disagree iwth you; Kww has nothing to apologize for. Judging from what I have seen crawl out from the woodwork during his RfA, he is to be applauded for his self-restraint, if that is typical of what he has to deal with on a daily basis in his work. Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Not really as I did upate the support and neutral numbers in [28] (I increased the support number by 3 versus the oppose only by 1, so not sure what I could possibly be suggesting there), [29], [30], [31], and [32]. If you're assuming some kind of bad faith, you'd think I wouldn't have bothered to also increase the supports and neutrals ever, let alone multiple times. Anyway, take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You mean if you were truly intending something nefarious by it, you would have given a false count? Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, what are you implying by this line of discussion anyway? Who cares who updated and when? If the count is accurate, does it matter? Let it go. Avruch ^T 13:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think discussion here will prove very fruitful. I implore folks to just use the dispute resolutions chain. We are unlikely to come up with some satisfactory (to all parties) outcome here at WT:RFA. Protonk (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This whole thread has gotten out of line and in some places crossed the line of civility. The RfA in question has now been closed thus I see no further need to keep this thread open here at RfA. If you feel that you need to continue to discuss this, please take it to WP:ANI or another more appropriate venue.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)