Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Rcsprinter123 3

Request for close per WP:SNOW

As the first opposer, I was rather surprised to see this Rfa devolve rapidly. Now the drama-meisters are out, with vandal attacks and an attendant ANI thread, all within the first 12 hours of the request for the tools. Even the few supports coming in are now of the moral variety. Enough. I think the candidate can show great maturity by agreeing to a SNOW close and avoiding a week of disruptive circuses. Those wishing to offer constructive advice can do so on the candidates' talk page. Let's move on. Jus da fax 21:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather people didn't try to force the issue. At 6/10/7, it is still possible (though extremely unlikely, more likely than a snowball surviving hell) the request will succeed; moreover it would be more dignified for the candidate to pull out at a time of their choosing, rather than being encouraged to fall on their sword. It is not incumbent on the candidate to withdraw to stop drama-mongerers, and indeed doing so would only be to feed the vandals. BethNaught (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who's "forcing?" I am saying that the candidate can show strength by voluntarily sparing the community a dragged out process that, in your words, is "extremely unlikely" to succeed. I'd submit that if the candidate withdraws now, and comes back next time in good standing, then their chances for the mop would be considerably enhanced. Not to do so, in my view, reinforces the impression that this candidate is desperate for adminship in a way that is less than creditable. It's their choice, of course. Jus da fax 22:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Forcing" may have been the wrong word. I meant that, as you say, it's only been 12 hours. There was still ample opportunity for a snow close or withdrawal to occur without any prompting, which would have been more dignified in my opinion. I wasn't implying you had any malicious intent; your words just came across to me as a bit huffy. I also submit that the candidate would not be sparing the so much community but more themselves. I understand the point you are making, but find the manner of its expression unhelpfully blunt.

In any case, the point has been made, I'm dropping this now. BethNaught (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The average number of participants in the past ten RfAs's been just above one hundred. An opposer proposing that rcsprinter's RfA be closed when not even a quarter of that predicted final number of participants had a chance to voice their opinion just screams "bad faith." 62.80.187.13 (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Jusdafax on this one. Everyone can voice their opinion, but 30% isn't going to become 70%. And comparing supports to opposes so far, those voices you want to hear from will likely be 2:1 negative. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't why he hasn't bothered withdrawing as It's obvious he's not gonna get the mop, IMHO someone ought to close it. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate lives in England, where it's the middle of the night right now. He hasn't seen this thread yet because he's presumably asleep. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm in the UK and I'm still awake

–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, you were correct in that presumption. Anyway, it's clear I won't pass, so could an administrator please close this RfA as withdrawn. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 10:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]