Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 178

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 175

Archive 176

Archive 177

→

Removing message box at the top

I propose removing the notice at the top of this page saying that you shouldn't nominate yourself here. Anyone nominating himself here is clearly not ready for adminship and we can point him in the appropriate direction (whether that's WP:NOTNOW or elsewhere), rather than having an RFA page that stays around for all time. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I said much the same thing about an edit-notice that was proposed recently (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_176#Request_2). And I'll support the removal of that box too (I almost suggested this myself back then). There's a link to Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship on the RfA page, I don't feel there is a need for one on here. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the message box is quite useful for those new users who want to become admins but are able to read pages that intend to help and inform new users before asking questions (i.e. the kind that probably will make good admins someday). It's quite possible for those to come to this talk page rather the project page because they have already understood that talk pages are for discussions but who have not understood the (for newbies) rather complex system that RFA involves. As such, the message box probably spares us some unneeded requests here. I'm against an editnotice though because someone who ignores the box at the very top will not heed an editnotice anyway. But I'm sure some do see the message box and subsequently do not post requests here, thus sparing us unneeded sections here. I rather prefer to have a RFA page that stays because they usually contain helpful tips for failed candidates that they might want to review later. Regards So Why 08:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the message box, and I agree with SoWhy that it's actually very useful for new users. I think it goes a long way toward not biting them, for one thing. RFA is very simple for those of us who've been around for a while and who understand how the system works, but to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia and the constantly-shifting ways things work here, it can be somewhat daunting. It's not a very obtrusive message box, either, so I don't think it hurts anything. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of you think it's better that they go through a lot of trouble working out how to create an RfA, only to have 10 opposes within 5 minutes, all of which consist of "Per User:X", except the first one, which is "Sorry, but per WP:NOTNOW. You don't have enough experience. Try taking part in WP:AIV, WP:CSD, WP:AN/I etc. Hope to see you here in a few months, Don't let this put you of :) - X (talk)", and then have their RfA closed? And regret it in a few months time when they are actually ready, but it makes them appear "power-hungry". Whereas when a message is left here, someone goes and talks to the user, explains pretty much what "User:X" has, and then, if the user still wants to go for RfA, it is explained how to after that. Or that's my view anyway :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone reads the instructions, which tell them exactly what they need to be careful about and they decide to go with it anyway, then yes, I think it's good for them to experience it. I'm all for not BITEing newbies and everything, don't get me wrong. But if someone ignores all advice they get from the very detailed instructions and goes for RFA anyway, can we really expect that they will heed it if they are told here? Those who come to a talk page are usually a bit more experienced already, seeing that they are going to a talk page to discuss things. Those users will not jump into RFA before reading some advice usually and having a message box above that actually gives such advice (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate does not only explain how to nominate after all but also when) will help those users. The others will ignore the message box and still ask here anyway or still go for RFA (the instructions are on the main page after all), so the box will probably not make more people go for RFA than they would anyway. Regards So Why 10:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. And you've now left me completely neutral, there's strong arguments for both sides. I'll go with keep the page notice, don't add an edit notice :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

RfB section name

I think it would be clearer if the RfB section was titled "Requests for bureaucratship" instead of "About RfB". The way it's written now, a new editor following a WP:RfB link somewhere might be left wondering what "RfB" actually stands for. Jafeluv (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first section includes the sentence "This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected" but I agree that both "About RfA" and "About RfB" are a bit confusing and we can change both to a better heading (like "About requests for adminship" or "About requests for bureaucratship"). Regards So Why 10:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, someone following the WP:RfB link doesn't see the lead section. The link points directly to "About RfB". Jafeluv (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jafeluv that the page could be confusing. Perhaps in there should be a link in the sentence...maybe like this:

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
-FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done[1] I made it match the verbiage we have at the top of the RfA page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's clearer now. Jafeluv (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Claims of trolling

Resolved

– Make teh drahmaz stop. Pleez!!! Srs. Start an RFC on the user or take up the discussion elsewhere. This is not a productive discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See comments like this and this. The user who is up at RfA, Davemeistermoab, falsified references as demonstrated on the talk page. This is academically dishonest and violates many of our policies and guidelines. I will not tolerate being called a troll for pointing this out. Not only is it against NPA, it also shows a condoning of such outrageous and egregious behavior. We are an encyclopedia and we need to have integrity. Such things need to be exposed and dealt with. I cannot stand such accusations of this kind in standing up for our foundational principles. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I struck my concerns as they seem to bother Mitch's state of mind, and I would rather not have this continue. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Clearly, neither you nor David Fuchs is trolling here. You may want to start a thread at WP:AN/I as necessary. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I don't entirely agree with you two about the seriousness of the referencing problem, but it's undoubtedly a valid concern. – iride scent 17:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I agree that there is no reason for you to be verbally abused with labels of "trolling" for expressing your opinion. I've left notes for those editors asking them to refrain from such rhetoric in the future. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

So I am not allowed to tell them that there is a problem. Its not ANI worthy, and I can remove my comments you know.Mitch/HC32 17:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely what I didn't say. Try again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am only trying to say there is a problem. I wasn't trying to call him one, I said he and Peter are about to get the TROLL award, which I think a few people would care to see is a problem.Mitch/HC32 17:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem? Wouldn't describing the actual harm caused by the problem be more effective and direct than making a quip about "the TROLL award"? If you weren't trying to call him a "troll" by suggesting that he get "the TROLL award", then you have some very strange ideas about language.

Most of us, particularly the bureaucrats who close RFAs, know how to ignore ill-founded votes. Neither they, nor anyone else, needs you to hold their hand and lead them through a primer on who is or is not trolling. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Reiterating the comments is unlikely to defuse the dispute. Please reconsider before doing so again. Dekimasuよ! 17:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps people need to grow thicker skin - if you're called a troll, just brush it off. What is the point of bringing it to light at WT:RFA? ANI is also superfluous and overkill. Just ignore him. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want the throwing out of the term "troll" to stop. I stopped responding to RfAs for a while because of the mob attacks on opposes which culminated in DougsTech's block. I only respond to a few RfAs and those of who claim to be major content contributors where I can check to see if they are abiding by all of our policies and guidelines. Why? Because people game content to try and get adminship, which is detrimental to the encyclopedia as an encyclopedia. This is serious work and I will not be run off this encyclopedia because someone is upset that their friend was exposed. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Then put a gun at my head. That's all I have to say.Mitch/HC32 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And yes, these are valid editorial concerns - although I disagree with the severity of them. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

^What Wisdom said. Please let's not add drama by going to ANI. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Too late. iMatthew ^talk at 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I brought it here for a reason - I want the name calling to stop immediately. Disagree with me, fine, but I will not stand those accusations in an RfA. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How many times have you been called a "troll"? (with diffs obviously) But if its just this one time then don't let it bother you.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It was in a support. If it is on my talk page, sure. But not in a support. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't get these threads. The bureaucrats know which arguments to disregard, and which to give more weight to. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Thank you for your vote. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Julian - this thread is saying that I will not take the accusations of trolling that proceeded the incidents around DougsTech or Peter Damian. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, an ANI on the incident has been opened, in which you may want to comment. Law_{type! snype?} 17:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to nore that Mitch is both an admin and frequently misuses sources. Obviously Dave should get it by 55/6/2 (Actually, I looked at a few of the examples cited here and it looks more like "I know this is true but I need a source" than "the sources aren't giving a complete picture so I'll fill in the holes by guessing".) --NE2 19:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Oppose/support per answer to QX"

How do we feel about these sorts of comments? They're becoming increasingly common, yet nine out of 10 times I'm left wondering, "What about QX, exactly"? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a valid reason to oppose/support; and if you don't think it's obvious from the question answer, I'd say just ask them. I for one am just happy to know the flood of questions are actually being read by someone! ~ mazca ^talk 19:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

They're fine. That's the idea of these questions anyway I believe. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine, and in most case the reason is apparent. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Although Julian raises a valid concern, if the "wrongness" is not apparent, it would be nice for people to specify (I for example usually elaborate why I think something is wrong). That said, I doubt a thread here will help, you need to do it like Mazca and ask those opposers/supporters to clarify - usually people get the hint and will be more elaborate in their next RFA !vote. Regards So Why 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that people should be specific. I also agree that discussing the issue here is not going to make any real change. The only suggestion I have is to perhaps make a short list of points which will appear at the top (above the edit box) when someone edits any page beginning with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/. If the list was very short (perhaps three or four concise points) some people would read it and it might make some difference. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I might support or oppose based on the same reason stated by someone else, so why restate the whole thing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For me personally Julian, it makes things difficult in the cases where I'm not sure what the "oppose" or "support" is driving at. The conundrum is that those who request some clarification are often saddled with "harassment" accusations. I guess if it's a "one-of" !vote, it's probably best to just let it go, but if there are multiple !votes per A to Qx, then we seem to be stuck with 1.) ask one of the voters, 2.) post a request in the discussion section (which often gets ignored), 3.) go to the RfA talk page - which I think is VASTLY underused in many cases, or 4.) go to a persons talk page and ask. I know I've seen many RfAs head south because the candidate has wanted to discuss "why" an opposer felt the way they did. I think that's where the nom (or other supporters if it was a self-nom), need to do the best they can determine the meaning of those !votes. The 'crats are experienced in determining consensus, but they aren't mind readers either. Perhaps a "request for clarification" under the !vote, which links to the RfA talk page where you can lay out a discussion. It's definitely a tough thread to put a definitive answer to, and one of the better questions I've seen asked on WT:RFA. — Ched : ? 04:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Ched's idea of trying to start a discussion on the RFA's talk page. The discussion section is for other, general discussion imho, not for discussion specific to a certain !vote and going to a user's talk page might be interpreted as trying to carry the discussion away from the RFA (of course the person can and should be notified of arising questions to their !vote - they just shouldn't be discussed there). If we use the talk page for such things, we can keep the discussion on RFA without cluttering the !vote sections or the general discussion area or, to say it with other words, keep specialist discussion that only some people might find interesting from the main RFA page while not banning it completely. I do not think it's "badgering" to do so (as Julian fears it might seem) because asking for clarification is not the same as attacking someone's !vote. If we take up Ched's suggestion, we might also change the way some people !vote to be more elaborate with their !votes from the beginning in future RFAs. Regards So Why 06:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominating yourself

If you want to be an admin candidate, do you just add yourself to the list on this article? If not, where do you do it? --154.20.94.116 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The instructions are on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate. Basically you make your subpage and transclude it onto WP:RFA. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

But to have any chance of success, you'll need to have made a few thousand edits after creating an account. Looie496 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained opposes

Several commenters above have said 'RFA is a discussion, not a vote' (or 'not just a vote'). If that's true, I have to wonder: why do we allow people to just write Oppose without any further comment? If RFA is supposed to be a discussion, then such votes are entirely unhelpful to it; they tell everyone else you don't want the candidate to be an admin, but they don't give any reason why. (Support without any further comment is less problematic, since it can be assumed to mean 'support per nom'.) If we're not prepared to make RFA a pure vote (and I think that's clear from the discussion above), then why don't we insist that all opposes have at least some rationale? I would advocate that all opposes of the sort 'Oppose, signature' should be struck through until the opposer is prepared to actually contribute something to the discussion. Robofish (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always taken 'Oppose signature' to mean 'Oppose per concerns raised above' in much the same way that you take 'Support signature' to mean 'Support per nom'. -t'shael^chat 22:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with T'Shael. To apply one rule for supports and another for opposes is a ridiculous double standard. Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

...OK, fair points. Maybe 'Support, signature' shouldn't be allowed either. The point is, if RFA really is a discussion and not a vote, then why do we allow contributions that don't contain any actual discussion? Robofish (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't allow people to just write Oppose without any further explanation. Support means "Yes, I agree with the nomination statement", whereas oppose means "I disagree with the nomination statement". Therefore the opposers must provide an adequate rationale. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a support vote without a rationale is any more helpful than an unexplained oppose vote. It offers no insight into the voter's thoughts, it doesn't confirm that the voter agrees with the nominating statement. Even if it does, so you agree with the nominating statement? All of it? Why? Hell, at the very least it's not masses of effort just to type "agree with nominating statement". Nev1 (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It is for the crat to take call on this and the crat will take into consideration opposes with no reason and give them less or no weightage normally.We cannot remove any oppose of any editor in good standing.Further a oppose saying per someone alse is okay.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a very dangerous road, and it's quite clear from recent events that bureaucrats don't uniformly display the good judgement that popular wikimyth attributes to them. A bureaucrat has no more right to ignore an oppose vote without rationale than to accept a support vote without rationale. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just ban all oppose votes, and cut all this crap? That's obviously the way things are moving here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Support per noms or supports without information are more problematic than any oppose - we are not sheep nor a democracy. If you cannot provide your own answer or contribute to the discussion then there is no reason to be here. An oppose without an answer at least says that you cannot agree but you don't necessary know why. Humans have instinct to disagree, but not to agree. That is our survival mechanism. We are not a naturally trusting bunch. Adminship requires trust. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So it's ok to instinctively feel mistrusting about a candidate, but it's unacceptable to have a gut favorable impression? Unexplained or unrationalized opposes are detrimental for the applicant as they are basically "no's" without any kind of feedback. It's akin to a slap in the face. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What's unacceptable is to discriminate between opposes without rationales and supports without rationales. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What should be done is require a rationale to be given with each vote, whether support, oppose, or neutral. This would at least require thought from the voter, even if it's just "who's reason should I copy". Nev1 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point MF, but, historically, it is the skeptic who vehemently disagrees with a proposal that is expected to enumerate the reasons for the distrust and doubt. And let's be realistic here for a moment - it is the opposition that typically cherry picks or targets one or a few missteps/shortcomings. Would you propose that a supporter provide a link to a helpful comment? There is a plethora of examples for positive work in a candidates contributions, but usually only a handful of offenses that are harped on. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wisdom - yes. A natural mistrust is a safety mechanism. A natural trust means that you are a sucker. We need people who are willing to question, investigate, and actually care about a candidate's performance. A blank support does not show this. Trust has to be proven beyond a doubt. Mistrust does not. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily I agree with you, if presented with a blank slate. But RfA is not an uninformed decision. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it would be reasonable to expect any voter to at least make some rationale, such as "I've worked with this guy and I trust him" vs. "I've worked with this guy and I DON'T trust him". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd be all for making it necessary to provide a rationale. Nev1 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The inconsistency evident in Wisdom89's argument is of course that those opposing on the basis of "I've worked with this guy and I DON'T trust him" would be required to provide diffs, whereas those supporting with "I've worked with this guy and I trust him" wouldn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be instructive for a voter, either way, to provide an example diff in support of their viewpoint - demonstrating cases where the poster worked with the user and had a good or bad experience. Although it might be hard to provide one single diff. It would probably take a series of diffs. And would the deciders read them? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, of course they wouldn't. The day I see an RfA pass at 55% or fail at 85% is the day I'll maybe start to believe that it isn't just a vote, for all of the huff and puff about "consensus", "trust of the community", and the other trite nonsense that surrounds it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've heard there's a threshold of some kind. Maybe if the tally was hovering right around that threshold is when they would pay more attention to the individual comments. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

... and maybe the Moon's made of green cheese. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... more like bleu cheese, I think. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I thought you didn't watch this page anymore? :-) Keeper | 76 01:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't. Something brought me to it yesterday ... can't remember what it was now. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

←Reigning this back from discussion of Malleus' wiki-stomping grounds, I think people have to accept that as it currently functions, RfA is a vote. A vote where people can discuss, change their minds, move their support at any whim or as a result of more information, yes, but ultimately a vote (as long as we allow people to strategically support or oppose a candidate to cancel out "bad" votes made by "the other side", it will always continue to be that way.) So I think a more pertinent question is: What can we do (if we feel we don't want RfA to be a vote) to make it less of one? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Requiring an explanation for each !vote may be a good first step. Tim meh 02:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I say get rid of, completely, the "tally" and the percentages that are constantly bot-updated and color coded like some kind of terrorist threat ("oh my, that RFA isn't pale green anymore, it's orange, I should go and vote!") Keeper | 76 02:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's alleged not to be a vote, yet it actually is, it seems. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's not a vote, why are we tallying? That's all I'm asking. Keeper | 76 02:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad habit, that's why. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So if it's just a bad habit, why don't we quit? Someone should update the template with some bold red editing.... Keeper | 76 02:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't ask me, man. If I were in charge, such comments would have ceased long ago. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Just reply to bizarre "oppose" votes with a simple WP:TYFYV. This is very easy, and until we've actually tried it, nobody seems able to say that it doesn't work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Who should post that, though? The nominee? I got yelled at for daring to respond to the opposers. I figured I had nothing to lose, so I ignored those tut-tuts. But if someone actually wants the job (or more than I did, anyway), would that post be seen as confrontational or drama-generating or something? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think if the nominee responds with a simple, "thank you for your vote," then that's the best-case scenario. If the nominee won't do it, then someone else might, assuming they can pull it off without compromising tact. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing I wonder about is the point of the "neutral" votes. It's like, "Well, I don't care one way or another; I just like seeing my name on RFA pages." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't see the point of them, ignore them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Which I mostly did. The question is, why do the deciders pay attention to them? Or do they? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that, no, the b'crats don't pay attention to votes that make no sense. Why is this a sticking point for so many people? Is the perception really that our B'crats are developmentally challenged children who can't tell a vote that matters from the other kind? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Do they ever discuss their methods or actions? Or do they operate in complete secrecy, like the College of Cardinals selecting a new Pope? If it's the latter, that probably accounts for much of the apparent anxiety over this issue. Maybe if they walked through the votes and struck the ones they considered to be irrelevant, that would send a strong message. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Or, we could just trust that they're not idiots until evidence comes to light that they are. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)If pass-fail is dependent on a vote count, how well-placed is that trust? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, has it done you wrong yet? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would have gotten adminship, if it hadn't been for all the oppose votes. :) So maybe the other poster is on to something: Only allow support votes. Require a minimum number, with rationales. If a guy runs and gets like 3 votes, obviously he's not well known enough. This is not an original idea, by the way. This approach is patterned after the last election that Saddam Hussein won. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, your not winning adminship is hardly a wrong. Do you have any idea how much less happy you'd be now if your request had succeeded? Seriously. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Very much so. My favorite admin asked me, "Why would you even want this job?" And he was right on the money. Being an admin would have forced me to drop most of my sense of humor. And you wouldn't have wanted that. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

...Which brings the conversation full circle. Do we inherently "trust", or inherently "distrust", barring evidence? Isn't that where this whole thread started in regards to admin candidates? WT:RFA, you bedeviled mistress. You always do this to us! You run us in circles, you entrance us with your sirens, you draw us close to you, and then you show us your true colors. I love you WT:RFA, and I despair....Keeper | 76 03:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

...or, you could use them to oppose that editor's future RFA: "candidate !voted neutral too many times at RFA, indicating that he liked seeing his name on rfa's but can't make his frickin mind up about anything." Keeper | 76 02:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no question that a non-admin voting one way or another could put himself at risk (for 1 vote, anyway) for his own future RFA. I have a long enemies list now. However, I very seldom vote in RFA's, so for all I know, they might all be admins by now. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole etiquette about RfA votes seems to set up a big game, and people act like it isn't. Objecting to unexplained opposes is just pointless. Any half intelligent editor who doesn't want someone to become an admin for personal reasons or other reasons likely to be unacceptable to the crat or the RfA regs can just find pick from among the excuses available to them, not enough content, concerns already mentioned, hasn't done enough x, and so on. It's just a percentage vote anyway, crats only getting de facto discretion within a certain range. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Or "creates too much drama", as if that had anything to do with doing admin tasks properly - especially when half the ones who say that are bigger drama queens than the nominee. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The tally, coupled with sig supports, and added to a discretionary range has always led me to believe this is nothing but a vote. Either way, there should be no more burden on a supporter than an opposer. If someone opposes without a reason, why does it matter? As far as I can tell, you don't need a reason to oppose, because an oppose is a reason in itself - it is simply saying that you don't want that particular editor to become an administrator, just as a support with no rationale asserts the opposite. Law_{type! snype?} 07:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In theory, except when you get users who vote "Oppose" just because they oppose anyone becoming an admin, rather than judging the merits of the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But I don't think there is anything wrong with anyone who does not want more administrators. I'll vote oppose on every new addition to the US Internal Revenue Code because it is far too bloated. Law_{type! snype?} 07:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that contradicts what you just said, "it is simply saying that you don't want that particular editor to become an administrator." In the case of someone like DT, that's not a true statement. He didn't want any editor to become an admin. It had nothing to do with that particular editor. If he hadn't decided to nominate CoM and reveal what a hypocrite he was, he might still be here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That was hardly contradictory. I could have said it means you may also believe that no other editors become admins. Either way, I'm not concerned. Law_{type! snype?} 07:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

DT said there were already enough admins, hence it supposedly wasn't personal - until he nominated someone for the post, demonstrating that his previous assertion was a lie. But he's gone now, so that's fine. In any case, saying you don't want any more admins has nothing to do with opposing a particular nominee. Two different things. But as I've said before, it's only 1 vote, and if it's really that close that 1 vote makes a difference, it's a questionable nomination anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of a word game though. I don't want any particular addition to the IRC. I don't want any additions to the IRC. Either way, I just vote no. Law_{type! snype?} 07:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The IRC is a weak analogy. A better analogy is the local police department. Criminals would naturally oppose more police, as it would make it more difficult for them to get away with things. Even at that, they can still end up in the Phantom Zone, as DT found out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that if someone writes only that they oppose, and give no reason for it, their !vote is severely discounted when the closing bureaucrat is reviewing the discussion to determine consensus. An oppose like that shouldn't carry the same weight as one expressing an actual reason and providing diffs to back it up. As for support !votes needing specific reasons for supporting, it's generally accepted that someone !voting "support" without going into any details about why is basically endorsing the nomination statement (which should always give good reasons why someone is a good candidate for the job). Neutral !votes, being neither in support of or in opposition to the candidate, should be read to determine if there is good reasoning behind the apathy. I tend to read all three sections (after reviewing the actual contribs of the candidate) and then make my !vote. I sometimes will reference information already posted by someone else in their !vote as well. I do think, however, that regardless of where someone's opinion lies in the discussion, a rationale for their opinion should be included when they add their !vote, even if it's a short one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bad evolution of the system to assume a support vote, without a rationale, is 'support per nom.' The same could be inferred from any oppose that followed an oppose with a rationale. Law_{type! snype?} 07:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what it would take to get the deciders to come over to this page and end all this speculation. Or would they rather keep their methods a secret, as with the College of Cardinals? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would expect that since crats are humans, no matter what matrix may be 'revealed' to us, they still do a cursory glance, as one would see at an XfD. If that doesn't satisfy their personal criteria, they would audit further. Law_{type! snype?} 07:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, guesswork, totally - just like trying to guess the rationale behind a bare "Support" or "Oppose". I wonder if they would deign to weigh in on this discussion, which has been going on for quite awhile now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume that each crat has a different methodology, as do admins when using tools. I doubt there is a Masonic algorithm. Even if they weigh in, I think that they are very neutral when opining, and probably wouldn't confirm or deny any of our musings. Law_{type! snype?} 07:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha. So it is like the College of Cardinals. More to the point, some might disregard stupid votes like DT's, and some might include them. And hopefully it would balance out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Brother Bugs. One crat will pass an RFA that another will not. There is no spoon. Law_{type! snype?} 08:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The main difference being that 'crats don't get to wear those cool red silk robes and cap. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe

Are you sure? :) ... So, the original premise of this section, which was to try to guess how the deciders operate; along with everything after it; are futile, because no one except they know the answer, and they ain't talkin'. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Malleus. The management has sent a clear message: a bunch of oppose votes (apart from harmless SNOW pileups) will result in a so-called "community" ban. The whole voting process became irrelevant, redundant, a false decoration. What's the point of retaining it? NVO (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a poor inference. I agree with MF here, as is unusual as that may be. It will not result in a ban. Consecutive opposes, nor supports have ever resulted in a ban. Law_{type! snype?} 10:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In the case of DougsTech they did. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. We bickered about banning DougsTech for that reason but never really reached consensus to do so - he ended up settling the dispute by extending to trolling and harassment in other areas ([2]) and got banned for general bad behaviour rather than just serial opposing. ~ mazca ^talk 23:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In short, he gave you a better reason and got you off the hook. If it were only that, and if he hadn't proven himself a liar about his premise that there were "too many admins", maybe he would still be here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you provide a link to that comment as I thought DougsTech was banned for Grave Dancing (celebrating when you shouldn't really, but you can't help yourself.) (Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Who are you asking? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

One act of grave-dancing generally doesn't warrant a perma-ban, does it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Exactly, Bugs. People don't get indeffed for one episode of personal attacks. If we didn't ban DT for saying "too many admins" too many times, then we gave him a block that was worlds out-of-proportion. If his grave-dancing outburst was indef blockable, then a lot of us should be indeffed for comparable outbursts. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was asking GT.. But I know the answer now. I should have added ..edit con. As this is as well...edit con .. For which he actually deserved not more than a few hours ban, however the situation was used as an excuse to get rid of him as people were bothered about him saying..too many admins..which should actually just have been ignored .. as regards .. Don't feed the trolls (Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

If he had been consistent in that assertion, maybe it wouldn't have been such an issue. Then he reversed himself and said there were too many admins "of a certain type", presumably meaning those that might actually do their jobs. Even so, banning him just for that seems excessive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I think he was young and just needed bringin on, rather than rejecting. Never mind, he is gone now, or at least he has been reincarnated in a higher form. Regarding the issue under discussion here, I think it is ok ..for the moment.. to allow people to comment as they wish , and an experienced Admin can easily filter out the rubbish..In the majority of cases I would think that this filtering by the closing admin would fail to alter much at all. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

I would just like to point out that DougsTech was not banned for his RFA votes, nor was he banned for one act of grave dancing. He was community banned because he celebrated Ryulong's desysopping, on Ryulong's talk page, then edit warred to keep his celebrating there, when policy is clear that people have the right to remove comments from their own user talk pages. However, that wasn't all. At that point, I was still in favour of the one week block that had been placed on him, but not a ban. What did it for me, personally, was when he continued to use his own talk page to soapbox and rant about how unfair everyone was being, and how he should have been allowed to do the grave dancing. He was given quite a few chances to apologize, accept the short block, and move on; he refused. While there were undoubtedly some people who supported the indef ban on the basis of his RFA votes, not all of us who supported did so for that reason. Firestorm ^Talk 00:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The original block was good. The scrutiny to which he was subjected after it would never have been there if not for his habitual RFA opposing. Nobody would have cared about his talk-page soapboxing - the equivalent happens all the time. People who are far less civil than he edit Wikipedia every day, and we all know that. DougsTech was held to a higher standard because he was disliked. He was disliked because of his RFA contributions. I don't see this as a remotely controversial claim. Whose 1 week blocks are attended with that much unforgiving attention? No one's. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict..::Thanks for that link to DougsTech ANI case. [here] It makes excruciating reading , it is one of the worst, if not the worst attack pack incidents I have seen here. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

Mazca had actually posted that earlier, which is why I asked who you were asking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, and to be fair (sort-of) his reaction was consistent with his "too many admins" viewpoint. Presumably, in his perfect world, there should be no admins at all on wikipedia. It would be an interesting experiment to declare a moratorium on all admin activities for a day or two, and see how things turn out when there's anarchy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, his reaction was consistent with his viewpoints. However, his action was not consistent with Wikipedia's goals, and in fact only created more of a toxic environment than had already existed. That is why, in my opinion, he was banned. Of course some of those who supported the ban did so because of his votes, but it would be unfair to paint all supporters with the same brush. My own thought process at the time is indicative of this. With regards to your experiment with a moratorium on admin actions, sysop tasks are needed to keep the place running. Closing XFDs, taking care of RFPP and CSD/PROD, AIV, etc are all vital parts of keeping the wiki running more or less smoothly. If we went without for a few days, things would fall apart. Firestorm ^Talk 03:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No argument. He was basically begging for a ban, and he pushed it far enough that he got it. About the moratorium, I just think it would be an interesting experiment, even if only for a few hours; and the next time (if any) that somebody gripes there are too many admins, you would have a practical rebuttal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're misreading DT. I think he felt wronged by an admin abusing his powers (in DT's views) in the past, started opposing because he thought there were too many abusive admins around, and later did the grave dancing when the admin who he felt wronged by got desysopped by ArbCom. Just my 2 cents of course. MLauba (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know just how he thought he was "wronged". Was he issued a short block for rules violations? I've seen some users go ballistic over even a 1-day block. My guess is that users like that have never had anyone say "NO" to them in their lives. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

shrug* No idea, and I'm not sure I even care TBH, but I dimly remember DT alluding to one or several incidents when he tried to defend his grave dancing. MLauba (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it not part of what the ArbCom case had been about? Was the de-sysopping related to a complaint of DT's? From my conversations with him, I gathered it wasn't an isolated event, and that in involved more than just one sysop. The sysop who lost the bit was desysopped, so someone must have had legitimate complaints about them. Whether DT was that someone, I don't know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In an ideal world, we would weight votes according to informativeness. When people always support or always oppose, their votes carry no information about the candidate, and should be discarded. Only votes that depend on the properties of the candidate are meaningful. Looie496 (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Informativeness is not the same as weight. One could oppose every candidate that crosses RfA while being (arguably) justified. Someone might have a good reason to support or oppose, but it could be uninformative. Judging by strength seems a better ruler. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you call it, the bureaucrats know what it is, and they don't need editors to identify and label the low-weight votes for them. In particular, oppose votes that are clearly absurd: they're clearly absurd, and the b'crats can see that without editorial comments from any of us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

RfA IS (mostly) a vote

It seems to me that we've had this discussion at least once before, but I'm not going to be bothered to run back through all the archives looking for it. The reason why we demand rationales from opposes but not supports is simple: opposes have three times (or more) the impact that supports do. It has generally been the rule that bureaucrats will promote if the !vote ratio is over 4:1 in favor (that is, 80%). Between 70% and 80% support level, they should exercise their discretion to determine consensus, with candidates being more likely to pass the nearer they are to the 80% mark, and less and less likely to pass the farther they get down the scale towards 70%. Between 60%-70%, the candidate will almost always fail, unless there are extraordinary circumstances. So, for an example, I'll use my own RFA, which was closed as succesful with a final tally of 94/35/4, or just under a 73% support level (yep, I was surprised, too). At that level, just 6 more opposes would have pushed me down 3%, under the 70% mark, and sunk it, whereas 6 more supports would have only pushed me up to the 74% mark, a change of only just over 1%, and still in the range where Rlevse (the closing bureaucrat) would probably have felt compelled to give a closing rationale. This means that the opposes at my RfA were worth almost three times what the supports were. So, since the opposes are so much more influential than the supports are, why shouldn't we hold the opposes to a higher standard than the supports?--Aervanath (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are we trying to pre-filter RFA comments?

Not to single out ~~this~~ the above question in particular, but why does it feel like there is this recent push to start legislating what is or is not an "appropriate" support/oppose? I was under the impression that we had 'crats for the very purpose of having someone the community trusts sufficiently to weigh the validity (or lack thereof) of the !votes in a discussion. If we get into this habit of preemptively deciding what is or is not a valid rationale, not only are we effectively turning 'crats into mindless vote-counters, we are effectively turning the process into a vote. I know, I know, some will say that the intent is quite the opposite, that we are trying to discard !votes that have no basis in any kind of discussion (ie. the "support/oppose signature" ones) but if we distill it down to "Your !vote only counts if it meets A, B, and C", then so long as said !vote fits the parameters there is no real point in treating it as anything other than a vote. What ever happened to letting folks say what they will and then leaving it to someone level-headed and trusted to determine what to do with it? Shereth 19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question, but it's something you need to ask above (see the #Peter Damian or #Unexplained opposes sections above). Julian's thread here has no such tendencies, he does not want to "outlaw" such !votes but asks for !voters to submit more elaborate statements that benefit both those reading their !votes as well as the candidate who can maybe learn from the criticism. Regards So Why 20:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Percisely. Whenever possible I try not to respond to other votes to avoid the appearance of badgering, so it would just be nice for voters to clarify a bit. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if it sounded like I was singling your comment out - I really didn't mean to :) Just the timing of it worked out that way. Shereth 20:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I for one cannot believe how much time people spend on such trivial matters, since they know full well that the closing crat will know how to handle certain types of !votes and as such there is no need to "outlaw" or "strike" anything. But as it' imho quite unflattering for Julian's thread to be mixed up in that drama and since your concern is surely a valid one, you might want to make it into a new section. Regards So Why 20:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WT:RFA, although I would agree that Julian's question has more validity than many topics repeatedly brought to light here. Useight (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. That's why we elect crats (well, and the other tasks they do). It's their job to deem a rationale appropriate/valid or not. We should know that they won't count an oppose with the rationale "Because he hates Canada." So replying to those votes seems pointless. Generally, the silly opposes don't effect the outcome of the RfA. Is there any essay on this? If not, one should be written. If one existed, it would be easier to be bold and remove replies to opposes with a link to the essay. iMatthew ^talk at 00:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:TYFYV? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I like that essay, but there's a risk that if a candidate says "Thank you for your vote" too much, he/she's going to get more opposes for coming off as dismissive. It might be better coming from one of the other voters. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not what you say; it's the way that you say it. There's always, "thank you for your feedback; I'll think about what you said," or even, "I don't agree with you, but your point is noted." I would probably only use a simple TYFYG for truly silly oppose-votes, and there usually aren't many of those. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's do the time warp again

Let's do the time warp again! It's just a jump to the left. And then a step to the right. With your hands on your hips. You bring your knees in tight... Wow, not only is there a movement to have FA's, but you having FA's is no longer good enough... this it NOT FAC or FAR. This is RfA. Having an FA under your belt is nice, but it is under no circumstance a requirement for adminship and having one that doesn't meet particular people's nuiances is in no way barrier to adminship. I feel like I'm on the way back machine and we're in 2006 where having an FA was expected. I thought we had grown past that point.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And that's your opinion. Congrats. I think other people are entitled to have their own. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure which RfA/RfB you're referring to specifically B-man, but I haven't had time to be as active here as I'd like to be either lately. (Daw-gone real-life keeps interfering with my wiki-time). I certainly understand Davids point of view here, and even agree that our primary goal is to build high quality content; but, I think there are many other areas which are important as well. Protection (vandal fighters), Policy and guideline building, and I think one vastly under appreciated area is the NPP folks. Those that take one-line stubs, and build them into start class articles with references which establish notability I believe is an extremely valuable commodity in our community. BLP and Bio issues, copy-vio issues - each play their part in developing a well rounded project. We all play to our own individual strengths, and I agree that we should all work towards improving our quality encyclopedic writing skills; but, I don't think it should be the single "support" or "oppose" rationale in a decision making process at RfA. To be perfectly fair, I do see David as a well rounded evaluator in this regard - and admire his in-depth review of the candidates on a number of items, so I'm certainly not finding any faults with that. While I agree that "quality content" is a great evaluation method, I think there a number of areas that editors can use the admin tools to benefit the project. For me, the primary concern should be: "Do you know and understand our policies and guidelines", and "Are you willing to support them in a positive manner"? But that's just me ... YMMV. ;) — Ched : ? 15:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two candidates whose FA's are being ripped appart as an attempt to discredit those candidates. We are not talking about candidates with no article building experience or lacking experience, we are talking about explicitly attacking the FA's that candidates have written as a means to discredit those candidates. I find this incredibly shocking... FA's are a feather in the cap wherein the article has to be reviewed by numerous people before being promoted. These opposes aren't just saying you have to contribute articles, they aren't just saying you have to produce high quality articles, these essays are saying even if you produce an FA quality article, that is not good enough. We only want professional editors here.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, each one of us will have a different set of internal criteria as to what would make a good sysop or bureaucrat. Some people will focus more on the janitorial/maintenance side of of the job, others on the overall picture of the project which these roles are intended to facilitate. Each one is valid, and if someone believes that having written a good/featured article is a requirement to "grok" the project in order to be able to facilitate it from the background, that is just as valid as someone who feels that getting the maintenance part is more important for functioning as a sysop. This is why we will have this argument perennially, since both perspectives are valid—it is a personal preference. -- Avi (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you, seeing opposes based upon FA's has occurred numerous times in the past. This is the first time I've seen people attacking the quality of FA's as a means to discredit candidates. If it was just Peter, I would write it off. But this is a sad state of affairs.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I think it is helpful to discount the acerbic wordings of the claims from either side and focus on the content. Yes, some people have a preference to have their comments more pointed than others; whether this is helpful is a discussion for another decade. Also, perhaps it is my naïvte, but I am willing to believe that responding parties are capable of discerning the merits, or lack thereof, of positions notwithstanding the forcefulness of their phraseology. -- Avi (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because there are two opinions does not mean they're equally valid. Let's break this down: what is adminship? It's a couple extra buttons. These buttons most importantly let you delete pages and block editors. So, it's logical to base our decision on whether to grant these extra buttons based on anticipated competence with deletion and blocking. If adminship were about letting someone help make decisions on FAs, competence with FAs would be directly relevant. There are different jobs in the world. Competence in one area does not imply competence in another. This is entirely logical. I don't know where this idea came from that having a couple FAs means you'd make a good admin, but it's obviously flawed and should be discouraged, not fostered out of some misguided notion that all ideas are equally valid. Friday (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Friday, I respectfully disagree with your analysis and submit you have committed the fallacy of petitio principii. What you said is completely correct, according to the position that focuses on the janitorial aspect of the job. That perspective completely disagrees with the notion that understanding the project's goals and actively demonstrating that knowledge by having contributed is a necessity in order to have the intuitive understanding and judgment that we are trusting or sysops and bureaucrats to have. There is nothing wrong with what you have said, outside of it belonging exclusively to the set of people who believe in concept A. To someone who firmly believes in concept B, the idea that sysopness is just a "few extra buttons" is difficult, and die-hard believers would call it patently ridiculous. The ability to lock articles and block people can very easily shape the direction of articles, and in their opinion, someone with that ability needs to show that they understand the project. Personally, I try to approach this issue from both perspectives, and can see the merits of both. Although, I also have other criteria which I believe are more important (such as NON-automated interaction with other editors, for one), but that is neither here nor there. -- Avi (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Avraham, but he said it better than I.) Admins who know jack about content guidelines and policies are in my opinion more a hindrance then help, considering they'll be blocking editors engaged in article disputes or protecting the subjects of edit wars. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The point of the "content experience required" criterion is that content is what causes most disputes, and admin candidates should demonstrate that they have the necessary diplomatic skills rather than being the most literal-minded law-enforcers.

However I think it would be wasteful to make top-class content editors into admins. --Philcha (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about who gets the keys to the janitor closet. It's appropriate and rational to focus on the janitorial aspect. Yes, admins need to be clueful and should demonstrate that they get the project in general. That's a given. But this focus on FAs, specifically? That's attaching all sorts of weird voodoo to the position. Let's cut down on the voodoo. Simplicity helps solve this problem. Friday (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Friday, that statement includes the implicit assumption that all adminship is is the "keys to the closet". There are many people who firmly disagree that sysophood is just "an extra few buttons". That is the heart of the begging the question fallacy; when the answer is presumed in the question, it does appear obvious. Can you not understand that there are people who very strongly believe that sysophood comes with much more than the keys to the closet, but with the keys to jail, the ability to arrest and incarcerate, the ability to freeze articles, and access to ye olde bannhammre? You have every right to disagree with them, but that does not make them objectively wrong, only subjectively wrong to those who share the same hypothesis that you do. -- Avi (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "simplicity" enters into the discussion, unless you plan on banning certain types of votes. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What actually changes when someone gets adminship? They can block, protect, and delete. It really is that simple. What am I missing? Call the closet a jail if you like. That doesn't change anything. Friday (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Friday, "block, protect, and delete" can very easily change the direction and timbre of an article, something fundamental to the project itself, there are people who beleive that in order to trust the judgment of a person to afford them the ability to "block, protect, and delete", they need to grok the project as a whole, and its primary goal: writing an encyclopedia. -- Avi (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This I understand. However, saying that admins should grok Wikipedia in general can't possibly be controversial, can it? I just like keeping separate things separate. There are different kinds of jobs to be done here. Friday (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

@ David - I have been an admin for twenty days shy of one year. In that time, I have made approximately 200,000 edits, 10,400 blocks, 800 protections, and 6400 deletions. Unless the admin did not notify me (or if my memory is as good as it usually is), none of my logged actions have been overturned by an admin other than me. I have never been the subject of a thread on AN or ANI where my actions were deemed unambiguously inappropriate, let alone the subject of more formal dispute resolution avenues. The most recent thing I can remember where someone seriously complained about my actions was a request for clarification on my role as one of the referees overseeing Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. The views of the arbitrators who commented were decisively in favor of my actions.

I have no featured articles, no good articles, and no DYKs. My entire writing experience essentially consists of one B-class article. ~~What was that you were saying about admins with no content experience being a hindrance?~~ J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you reread my comments, J, I never said admins with no content experience are a hindrance, I said admins with no understanding of content policies are. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, J, the fact that exceptions exist doesnot invalidate the rule. A priori, David is of the opinion that demonstrating knowledge of the project is a valid leading indicator for a candiate's ability to act as a sysop. The fact that there are those who are good sysops without said indicator does not make the decision algorithm invalid. See Proof by example for fallacy that relates to the argument above. -- Avi (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

@ David - My apologies.

@ Avi - Yes, I know. Even though I know that they are using generalities, I still find it annoying when people say (or imply through their comments on RfAs) that all admins with no content experience are bad/evil/a hindrance/whatever. I consciously go out of my way to avoid causing problems for article writers, but unfortunately, no one ever notices when everything is as it should be. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What's that old saw, something like "generally speaking, speaking in generalities is generally wrong most of the time"? 8-) -- Avi (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

<- Balloonman, you're misreading the opposes. In the one vote I took, I oppose because of what I see of a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:RS on a candidate who wants to work on deletion. Said candidate has no track record indicating his grasp of deletion related issues, so what do I do? I turn to his other contributions to try to see what graps the candidate has on core content policies. And what should we look at, if not the contributions he's most proud of? And here I find what I see as a fundamental misunderstanding (if I AGF, mind you) of WP:RS and WP:V. Which to me makes the candidate currently unfit to judge consensus in a deletion discussion. Separate admin roles so that blocking, protecting and deleting are three independent roles and he has my vote for blocking and protecting. But I cannot in good conscience support someone who wants the key to the deletion part of the admin job. I find your choice in words (and those who think like you) to qualify that objection, quite frankly, missing the point and inappropriate. I could equally express concern for support votes like "support per opposers". MLauba (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm misreading the subject... there are two current cases where a person's FA's are being criticized. You are only addressing one, the other is being criticized, among other things, as "boring." I don't mind reviews and honest appraisals, but this newfound interest in critiquing FA's of candidates to find reasons to oppose if a little over the top.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. — Ched : ? 16:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

break

Since this conversation seems to taken off rather quickly, I added a break for ease of editing. A couple things that come to mind. We're told that "Adminship is no big deal", but in fact, what can be done with the tools is a big deal (or it can be). This is where we have to judge a candidates intent and judgment. If someone is going to "block" an editor over a content dispute they are involved in - then that's not a person I'd want to be wielding that button. If however, the candidate is going to be using the tools cautiously and to the benefit of the community - then yes, I think the more help we have the better. FA can be a good thing, but there is also a perception of some that it contains an aspect of political positioning, and "luck of the draw" in the review process as well. I think it's fine to use it as one tool in judging a candidate, but I don't think it should be a single determining factor either. — Ched : ? 16:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. On the one hand, we are an encyclopedia, so any reasonable person would expect a Wikipedian to have experience in writing articles. On the other hand, FAs/GAs/DYKs have little or nothing to do with adminship. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, a school does need teachers - but it also needs secretaries, administrators, and janitors as well. Good point JC. — Ched : ? 16:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Not such a good analogy, Ched - AFAIK teachers generally have greater disciplinary powers than secretaries, administrators (school), and janitors; and most discussions about RfA focus on disciplinary powers. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see a multitude of aspects to the +sysop flag: Block (Administrator or disciplinary) ~ Delete (Janatorial) ~ Protect (secretarial). Perhaps many of the RfA discussions do focus on the "disciplinary powers", but not all admins focus on that aspect alone. Perhaps you're right in that there would be better analogies, it's just one that passes through my mind because of the academic nature to our project. ;) — Ched : ? 16:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like using such analogies to go about furthering an argument about administrators. I think it'd be difficult to find any outside system truly comparable to Wikipedia's power structure. As for GAs and FAs, although I don't give them a huge amount of weight when !voting in RFAs, they do have importance in adminship. An admin is generally expected to know all the core policies. A candidate having GAs and/or FAs under his belt shows his knowledge of the content policies, just as participating in and nominating AFDs, PRODs, and CSDs shows his knowledge of the deletion policies. Tim meh 17:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of all of this would go away if the powers were actually separated and the four eyes principle maintained consistently (except in case of immediate harm). Having a great content building background then becomes a path into protection or deletion, as would accurate vandalism management, while people with great track records in dispute management get the block button. And we'd no longer have to worry whether someone with an accurate CSD nomination record would abuse of the block function since he wouldn't have one. I'd venture that the amount of successful RfAs would also rise since any candidate would only carry one third of the abuse potential when compared with today. We've all been there before. MLauba (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

MLauba you've stated a point that I've been thinking about as well. Having to go through seperate nominations for the different functions would eliminate some of the problems that are being encountered. Allowing persons to work in an area they enjoy and do well would be better than forcing a person to handle areas they dislike or lack experience in. You already see in many RFA's that the nominees state their areas of preference. Shinerunner (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the "separation of powers" issue brought up many times in my short tenure here, but it never seems to gather much support. My view is that if I can trust an editor with one aspect of the tools, then I trust them to use good judgment in the other areas - even if it's not something they do on a regular basis. 3 RfAs for the combined set ... ewwww - I somehow doubt that would go over real well. I can think of quite a few folks that work in many areas who aren't "huge users of the tools", but use them wisely when the occasion calls for it. — Ched : ? 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Many of the oppose vote are for a lack of experience in area X,Y or Z. At least with a seperation a nominee's qualifcations for a given area can be reviewed and may reduce the number of oppose votes. Burnout would be one problem that I could forsee happening if an administrator concentrated only in one area. Shinerunner (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh I can certainly understand your views Shinerunner. I think that one intangible with RfA though is that often people will find a reason to support or oppose because they either "like" or "dislike" a candidate personally. We are supposed to review the content - and not the contributor, but in practice, people do develop strong opinions about the "people" as well. For someone who is young, or inexperienced in Internet interactions with others, RfA can be a very demoralizing ordeal. Some folks go through it once, and never want to repeat that experience. I agree, Burnout is a very real issue here; but, since it is all volunteer, we can't very well dictate to anyone what they should or should not be doing. One admin. who I admire greatly (J.delanoy), spends a great deal of time defending our project and dealing with vandalism - for me, too much of that would lead me to become cynical and jaded - yet JD has the ability to stay upbeat, happy, and enjoys his work here. It's a quality I wish I had. But the bottom line is that a separation of powers isn't likely to happen in the near future. IMHO, but I'd imagine that you'll find a large number of folks would agree. — Ched : ? 03:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Separation of powers doesn't really gain traction because the majority of the people participating in the discussions here are established admins (and not part of the bad apples). I think if this idea were to be floated a bit more seriously, we'd have to flesh it out - first, the separation of powers would not be retroactive. Second, in order to get an extension of the powers, a full RfA wouldn't be required anymore - my own notion would just be for a "separated admin" to submit a request after 6 months or one year of tenure to 'crat discretion - yes, that's expanding the role of 'crats, but reviewing whether 6 months of admin decisions and communication style shows enough clue for a second bit or not should, in this case, no longer be a big deal.

The reality is, when I oppose I tend to be worried mostly about delete or block. In my most recent RfA vote I opposed a candidate who stated an interest for deletion but without any record in any deletion areas. From what I've seen, I would support giving him the protect button, and probably even block, but I don't have enough confidence to give him delete. And that one is a showstopper for me, even if I'm quite convinced he'd be fine with the other two buttons. The only thing left for me though is to oppose. Which is a pity because he'll probably do just fine in the other two areas.

Limiting the buttons is limiting the risk and probably also the grief people have to subject themselves to for RfA.

Of course, as others have mentioned, -sysop is another thing which needs to change. It has to become much easier to weed out the rare truly abusive people. At least these are my couple of cents on the matter. MLauba (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) The fact about RfA now is that it's about the contributor, not the content. However, if you think about it, that's just the way that's most logical. Say you're a manager for a supermarket. You're looking to hire someone for assistant manager. Would you look mainly on how they deal with stocking shelves or interacting with people? Part of the administrator's job is to be a catalyst, and as such, it's the conduct of the candidate that should be looked at, not what they've contributed. Now of course, you need to be conducting with people in the content areas too (just look at FAC). However, when a new user wants help with something, do they go to the content contributors, or do they go to the administrators? 90% of the time, it's the admins. (X! · talk) · @245 · 04:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe what you say is true in part, but I'm not sure that new users go to admins for any reason other than they are often seen as people who can be trusted, who know the ropes, et al. Part of all the problems above I think would disappear or become fundamentally more trivial if only we could desysop bad admins more easily... then RfAs would be less of a big deal, we'd stop having these conversations, and then WT:RFA would be quiet... (far off look) We can dream, can't we? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

X! I know when I was starting out here the person that welcomed me, an administrator, was the person I turned to. To me, I see Wikipedia as more of a corporate structure with different managers for the various departments rather than a "mom and pop store" manager/assistant manager situation. I know that what I was proposing will probably never happen, but it's an idea.Shinerunner (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Apteva

I was disappointed that this RfA was closed so quickly, before many people had the chance to express an opinion. Johnfos (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It was extremely unlikely (nay, impossible) for it to have ended any other way than scores of !votes opposing it (with perhaps a few moral support !votes). In situations like this, it is not uncommon to close them early unless the editor specifically requests that it remain open. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm wrong, that RfA was closed incorrectly. The user closing should have notified the candidate first, and given them a chance to withdraw. I'll talk to the user who closed (after all, they might have talked about it somewhere else). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's generally how it's done, yes (and how I would have done it). I was mainly addressing his concern about how quickly it was closed, not the actual closing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, the candidate does not have to be asked to withdraw first (thus it does not make the close incorrect) but it's common courtesy to do so. On the original question: Nihonjoe is right, with 10 opposes in a short time, there was nothing likely to be gained but demoralizing the candidate and we cannot wish that to happen, can we? Regards So Why 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Mybad, "incorrect" wording there - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; when the result is all but clear, there's no point in allowing it to garner further opposition, as it does little more than discourage the candidate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, someone should write an essay to that effect..... :) Pedro : Chat 23:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

voting

I know we're all vote phobic here, but consider the definition of the word vote... "A formalized choice on matters of administration or other democratic activities" (Wiktionary), "a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; especially : one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal. To call it purely a discussion is simply not wise or accurate indeed... South Bay (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Some RFAs include more discussion than others, but none contain only voting. This is not a voting process, its a discussion process (or should be). The supports and opposes in boldface are just there to make it easier for bureaucrats to determine consensus. Take a look, for example, at my RFA, in which there was plenty of discussion, though drama-filled, in the oppose section. Opposes are what really spark actual discussion in an RFA, and although it may not seem like it, that is a good thing. After all, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia just wouldn't work without proper discussion and consensus, especially in a place like RFA. In other words, RFA is close enough to being purely discussion-based. Almost nobody supports or opposes a candidate with no reasoning, and I think that's one of the few good aspects of the RFA process. Tim meh 01:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that Wikipedia would work a lot better (and RfAs would be less acrimonious) if we could decide to use voting in some non-content related places like RfA (voting about content is obvioulsy bad, and that is what the original intent of the "polls are evil" phrase was). In other words, what is poisonous at RfAs is the discussion, not the voting. But most people seem to think differently. Kusma (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Content discussions good: they tend to evaluate content. User value discussions bad: they easily degenerate into tribal popularity contents. Now if we had an attack-resistant trust metric here, maybe seeded by number of contributions to article space, then I think the pure-voting idea would work. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I'm fairly relaxed at introducing voting in areas where we are trying to establish weight of opinion between two or more clearly understood options, I'm uncomfortable at doing so at RFA. Almost all !voters at RFA are of the view that some candidates should be promoted and some should not (we have had the odd maverick who opposes all candidates without consideration; looking at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) we haven't had a !voter who supports every candidate without consideration whilst I've been watching RFA, but in theory such a situation could arise). Where we differ is as to whether individual candidates should or should not become admins, and such differences clearly benefit from being done as reasoned !votes based on the candidates contributions "these diffs indicate to me that the candidate is too quick to tag for deletion" as opposed to !votes where the candidate doesn't know why they are being supported or opposed. For example if I oppose because someone has been blocked in the last 12 months they have the opportunity to point out to me that their block was subsequently apologised for as a mistake, if I vote oppose without saying why I do so, the candidate does not have that opportunity. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussions are good. However, vote+rationale means that you are essentially campaigning at the poll booth, which I find undesirable. But anyway, RFA has moved more and more and more away from voting during the last years (it was almost a vote when I became an admin in April 2006) and does not appear to have improved -- actually, I think that it the fighting and the hostility have increased. So looking at the history of RFA, I think the days when we were mostly voting were superior. Kusma (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) If we consider it a vote, people will start to believe that everyone's vote is equal, which is not the case, ever. You'd get more canvassing, socks, bribery, everything if it were a simple numbers game. Considering it a discussion hides this premise. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that just removing discussion wouldn't make RfA any less of a popularity contest, in fact it would probably make it more so (as people evaluating the candidate would have less clout than the friend horde.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this issue discussed again, as it gives me the opportunity to remind the often forgetful readers of WT:RFA that RFA is part discussion and part vote. The tally counts neither for nothing nor for everything. Broadly speaking, the tally places the RFA in one of four categories (the percentages given are estimations, and are subject to gradual change): (1) clear consensus to promote, >~80%; (2) clear consensus not to promote, <~50%; (3) no consensus, ~50<x<70%; (4) the notorious discretionary zone, ~70<x<80%. Barring evidence of sockpuppetry or other irregularities, in RFAs falling into categories (1) and (2), the bureaucrat is required to promote and not to promote, respectively. Category (3) also usually defaults to non-promotion. When an RFA falls into category (4), the bureaucrat is required to read it carefully, considering arguments in favor and against, before deciding the outcome.

To be sure, non-vote material such as conversations between users, careful research and presentation of reasons for one's opinion, and so forth are most relevant in category (4) RFAs. But that is not to say they are irrelevant in other RFAs: even in the most apparently obvious cases, the closing bureaucrat is expected to read the discussion, if for no other reason than to ensure that substantial discussion actually took place. An RFA with no text in it other than two lists of signatures for 'support' and 'oppose' would almost certainly be invalidated by the closing bureaucrat.

So, as you can see, both voting and discussion are relevant at every stage of the week-long RFA process, and both vote-counting and discretion are relevant at every part of the RFA-closing process. This is the best system we've yet thought up for regularizing RFA outcomes without making them purely mechanical. — Dan | talk 17:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think people here just have a phobia of the word "vote". RfAs really are votes (using the definition given at the very top) with varying degrees of discussion (some RfAs have more than others), but anyone who says that is branded as evil and as trying to skirt around consensus. A vote by any other name is still a vote. I think the emphasis, though, should be put on strongly encouraging a rationale to be included with each vote, even with support votes. If people understand that "me, too!" pile on votes are less effective and not necessarily given as much weight as a vote which includes a decent rationale to back up the vote, then I think more people would begin including one. Or maybe that's just me? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason the process isn't considered a vote is that individual arguments (votes, !votes, points of discussion, incoherent drunken ramblings, etc) can and are disregarded without general upheaval over it (*cough*Iran*cough*). A straight vote would see an RfA fail if thirty editors suddenly decided to oppose over a sufficiently weak argument ("The candidate likes green, and I hate that color"), whereas bureaucrats have the ability to disregard superfluous commentary (and what we [the 'crats] consider superfluous is dictated by both our own discretion and what the community feels is bogus). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally think RfA is too much like a vote. It's counterproductive when people start dismissing good-faith discussion as "badgering". I also agree with EVula. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the oppose section should really be about things you can change (and does tend to be), things done wrong in the past. If you're arguing with opposers, I tend to get a sense of denial about one's problems, which is not a good thing. By not complaining, I see a person who's ready to pick up on those points - particularly with an RfA that's going through easily. Drill down into what they find wrong, yes, but starting to make points to the contrary, no. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not every RFA participant does their research thoroughly, or puts their case well, so I would advise any RFA candidate to be ready to respond to implicit questions especially in the oppose section. I also think it is perfectly appropriate to ask !voters for diffs to support unsupported criticisms, especially if you suspect those criticisms to be unfounded. As for well founded criticisms, then unless you can respond along the lines of "thanks for bringing that to my attention - I've now reset my preferences not to default to minor edits" best to leave them unbadgered. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jarry1250. In the short time I've been hanging around here, as well as reviewing previous successful and unsuccessful RFA's, you see where some unsuccessful RFA candidates have seen the need to answer and sometimes argue with an opposing vote/comment. In my opinion it seems to speak about the temperament of a candidate if they have a willingness to review or change what they may feel is a "right" action or opinion. Having the ability to simply acknowledge another persons views does seem to diffuse alot of problems. Shinerunner (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

On the arguing thing, I have a problem with that. For my first RfB, I made the mistake of responding to the opposers; this wasn't out of a sense of combativeness, it was out of a sense of dialogue. That people have a problem with a candidate responding to their opposers is something that still frustrates me; it seems silly that someone can have comments directed at them (sometimes inaccurate assumptions about intent) but not respond to them directly without earning the ire of the general community. Definitely an area where the RfX process, on the whole, is a failure. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It is, but I've generally found that if an allegation is false, others will chime in or challenge the allegation... and that it has more credence when an "uninvolved" party chimes in than the candidate themself.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)