Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/The Random Editor
Edit stats for The Random Editor (talk · contribs)
| Edit count statistics: as of 07:33, 8 September 2007, using the "WannabeKate" tool. |
|---|
run at Fri Sep 7 21:32:05 2007 GMT Category talk: 3 Category: 22 Image talk: 1 Image: 10 Mainspace 1974 Portal talk: 8 Portal: 174 Talk: 163 Template: 25 User talk: 1694 User: 153 Wikipedia talk: 72 Wikipedia: 1025 avg edits per page 1.39 earliest 14:38, 27 March 2007 number of unique pages 3817 total 5324 2007/3 132 2007/4 392 2007/5 1733 2007/6 1671 2007/7 654 2007/8 650 2007/9 92 Mainspace 32 Bank of New York Mellon 16 Virgin Mobile 13 Corporate title 8 Money 7 America's Most Admired Companies 6 Indo-Bangladeshi barrier 4 Equus (play) 4 LG Chocolate (VX8500) 4 Sky Financial Group 4 Wachovia 3 Apple Inc. 3 André Turp 3 Microsoft 3 Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland 3 Culture of Greece Talk: 8 Cirque du Soleil 4 Mills Novelty Company 3 Indo-Bangladeshi barrier 3 Subprime lending 2 Southern Hemisphere 2 The Restoration 2 Money 2 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2 Hip hop music 2 Tokyo Kyuko Electric Railway 2 International Criminal Court 2 Slavery 2 Tom Cruise 2 Andrew Saul 2 Corporate title Category talk: 2 Messianic Judaism Category: 3 WikiProject Stub sorting participants 2 Byzantine Army 2 Byzantine military 2 Wikipedians who like Codename: Kids Next Door Portal: 18 Roman Empire 14 Roman Empire/Selected biography 12 Roman Empire/Selected picture/Layout 12 Roman Empire/Selected article 8 Roman Empire/Selected picture 8 Roman Empire/Selected article/1 7 Roman Empire/Selected biography/1 6 Roman Empire/Selected picture/1 6 Roman Empire/Things you can do 5 Roman Empire/Quotes 5 Roman Empire/Selected article/2 4 Roman Empire/Selected article/6 4 Roman Empire/Selected picture/3 4 Roman Empire/Selected biography/2 4 Roman Empire/Selected picture/2 Portal talk: 5 Roman Empire Template: 5 Vandalism information 4 Federal Reserve System 3 GA number 2 US Banks 2 Central Bank User: 42 The Random Editor 16 The Random Editor/Source/Main Page 13 The Random Editor/Awards 11 The Random Editor/Userboxes 10 The Random Editor/Source/Userpage 9 The Random Editor/Menu 9 The Random Editor/monobook.js 7 The Random Editor/Source/Userboxes 3 The Random Editor/Main Page 3 Mgeheren/userboxes 3 The Random Editor/Policy 2 The Random Editor/Source 2 Llama11 2 UBX/Byzantine 2 R/EFD User talk: 50 AndonicO 45 The Random Editor 41 Husond 31 Animum 28 Hirohisat 26 Boricuaeddie 19 Dihydrogen Monoxide 16 Phaedriel 14 Cremepuff222 13 Escape Artist Swyer 10 Arnon Chaffin 8 Klutzycutie13 8 Brooklyn Soldier 7 Simply south 6 BrownsFanForLife Wikipedia: 108 Help desk 69 Motto of the day/Nominations/In review 38 Administrator intervention against vandalism 37 Usernames for administrator attention 19 Reference desk/Humanities 18 Requests for comment/User names 17 Reference desk/Miscellaneous 17 Village pump (proposals) 15 Good article candidates 10 Requests for page protection 8 WikiProject Council/Proposals 8 WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians 7 Good article candidates/List of reviewers 7 Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force 5 Requests for adminship/Magnus animum Wikipedia talk: 31 Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force 21 Counter-Vandalism Unit 4 WikiProject Awards 3 Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force/Members 3 Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia 2 WikiProject Finance |
Member discussion
[edit]- Note to users: I don't mean to nag, but when a user raises a good-faith concern, I don't think other editors should come to the defense of candidate until he/she addresses the concern. The spirit of the RFA process is for the candidate to answer all questions and concerns personally, either by presenting evidence to contradict such concerns or prove their correction, or by promising to answer them in the future. Other users can assist in the discussion, but they shouldn't substitute the candidate's responses. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 00:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I totally second that. Watching the Rfa crew was a bit of a pain. --Hirohisat Kiwi 01:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with that, Marcos. I agree that the candidate's explanation is worth the most, but Rfa is a discussion, even if it doesn't appear to be one. Here, we are discussing if Mr. Random can be trusted with administrator rights. Our duty as participants in this discussion is to evaluate if comments made here by others are truly valid concerns that may cause us to not trust this editor. In this case, we (the "RfA crowd") responded to 'hermit's opposition, as should be done, and reached the conclusion that it wasn't really such a concerning point. I encourage all editors to discuss oppositions raised at RfAs. --Boricuæddie 02:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think we might be starting to get off-topic. Just a comment, RFA is a discussion, and the candidate should respond to a oppose personally, but other editors certainly are capable of doing so as well and should not be chastised for doing so. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 02:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with that, Marcos. I agree that the candidate's explanation is worth the most, but Rfa is a discussion, even if it doesn't appear to be one. Here, we are discussing if Mr. Random can be trusted with administrator rights. Our duty as participants in this discussion is to evaluate if comments made here by others are truly valid concerns that may cause us to not trust this editor. In this case, we (the "RfA crowd") responded to 'hermit's opposition, as should be done, and reached the conclusion that it wasn't really such a concerning point. I encourage all editors to discuss oppositions raised at RfAs. --Boricuæddie 02:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I totally second that. Watching the Rfa crew was a bit of a pain. --Hirohisat Kiwi 01:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but where do we draw the line. How can we assume that the person who raises a question doesn't want the nominator to answer hims/herself? RFA can sometimes be a brutal process, but I think it is THE test for a candidate to prove his worth for sysoping. I wouldn't answer concerns right away since I'm not on the hot seat, I'd allow the candidate to form a response, and depending on such I would amplify or clarify to the questioner. Just my 2 cents though, it's not like I'm trying to establish policy here. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 12:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's really an impossible situation. Candidates who respond to the opposes often receive additional oppose votes with comments like "unhappy with tone in badgering of oppose voters." Candidates who don't respond will often get "unhappy with unresponsiveness." There's an expectation from many RFA participants that candidates be psychic. Unfortunately, since these sorts of comment are allowed to stand, anybody who is familiar with RFA is going to be a little reluctant to respond to opposes for fear of garnering even more opposes. We saw this most recently with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WikipedianProlific -- an RFA that narrowly failed. Some of the oppose votes (the difference between success and failure, in this case) opposed primarily for the "tone of his responses." A total red-herring. There's a big difference between defending yourself and "being defensive" but since there's a lot of participants at RFA who will oppose for this, any candidate would actually have to be a little bit stupid not to let his friends respond first. --JayHenry 18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)