Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/The Random Editor
Edit stats for {{user|The Random Editor}}
| style="border: 1px solid ForestGreen; background-color: LightGreen; font-size: 8pt; width: 100%;" class="collapsible collapsed" |
| align="left"| Edit count statistics: as of 07:33, 8 September 2007, using the [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=The_Random_Editor&site=en.wikipedia.org "WannabeKate" tool]. |
|---|
|
Member discussion
- 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)
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)