Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
RfAs	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	15
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 10:18:16 on August 3, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

I'm hoping to provoke some thought rather than raise Cain about this, but I tend to think Everyking's RFA was closed on a pure vote count, rather than an evaluation of the strength of the arguments. (This is ironic -- or perhaps fitting -- as direct vote counting would be closer to Everyking's philosophical preference; weighting of arguments is the community's preference.)

• First, to be clear. A large number of opposers cited very valid concerns.
• But a significant number had opposes based off their misunderstanding of the exchange over Q5. The context of Everyking's previous comments and his clarifications all make it clear that he was expressing an opinion about how he would prefer Wikipedia operated, and not his understanding of what was accepted practice, or what he would do.
• One case is dealing with fact and the other opinion -- that's a non-trivial distinction. The question What is the accepted/codified/etc way to evaluate consensus on Wikipedia? has correct and incorrect answers. The question How would you prefer things work? does not have correct and incorrect answers.
• I believe that many of the Q5 opposers clearly misinterpreted this exchange, believing a question with "right" and "wrong" answers has been asked, rather than a question about an opinion. (A handful of Q5 opposers may be proponents of Wiki-thoughtcrime, although that's a different discussion). So with only a few exceptions the Q5 opposes were extremely weak or even logically meaningless.

I'm not trying to get the RFA overturned (although I would have liked a rational, as I think this was very borderline). Rather I'd hope here to spur some thinking about the general issue of whether word salad or confusion from opposers can form the basis for an oppose to which bureaucrats give weight (or vice versa, it'd be equally problematic if you had a huge volume of support based off something logically meaningless). --JayHenry (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too thought that a rationale would have been nice in this case. The safe call here was clearly no consensus, particularly because I think history has shown that any other call at that level of numerical support would become very controversial very quickly. Since I supported EK, I might have preferred that a bureaucrat weigh the merit of the opposition when determining the outcome... But generally speaking this isn't something they do, and since we have a tendency to pick bureaucrats who are extremely consistent at not making controversial decisions we can't really expect it. I'm not sure I'd have the same sympathy for the rouge approach if my personal opinion on the candidate went the other way, and I expect many others are in the same boat. In the end, the request simply closed outside the discretionary range and that seems to take weighing the arguments out of the picture. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 23:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also interested in whether consideration is given to the damage done by a deliberate attempt to disrupt the RfA. Ottava Rima's repeated postings were sufficiently disruptive for him to be banned from the RfA at AN/I. His comments evidently influenced !votes in both directions. How does behaviour of this type influence the evaluation and closing of RfA's? Is it simply assumed that all !votes would have been the same had there been no disruption? EdChem (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW (not much), I would have closed as no consensus also (if I were a crat, and had not voted, of course). There was ample discussion from the opposition about the various reasons that Q5 was a problem; and even if there had not been, opposition arguments tend to be shorter and not cover all the bases. When you get turned down for a job or school application, they don't go into the 30 reasons they think you suck; that would be cruel, and pointless, and it would waste their time with pointless conflict. A single, reasonable-sounding reason has always been considered good enough at RFA; a philosophical discourse on its meaning is not required. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about philosophical discourse though. Perhaps I was too long-winded in introducing the topic. If an oppose or support is actually logically meaningless how can it be "reasonable-sounding"? Is "Oppose. Has incorrect opinions" a valid oppose if it is repeated amply? What about "Oppose. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously?" --JayHenry (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the closer, but I would have closed it the same way, even though I do very much weigh the strength of the arguments involved when I close RfAs. I can't speak for all of the other currently active bureaucrats, but I know many of us weigh the strength of arguments. Weighing works on both sides though, not just against one or another. In this case I was happy to see that many people were able to let go of long past issues and only look at his current suitability and focus on recent actions. And while it is unfortunate that his opinion on consensus was very different from what people wanted to see, that doesn't make those votes misunderstandings. People used his comments and made reasoned arguments about why they felt that made him not an ideal admin candidate. Therefore there was no really large number of spurious votes and even if I disagree with peoples' reasoning, I don't take that into account when I close. I simply weigh if the argument is sound and supported by reasoning. It's like what the supreme court would refer to as the ideal reasonable person idea. If an informed reasonable person could make the argument, it's not spurious. Though I'll throw in a disclaimer here, I didn't do an extensive sock analysis here which I would have if I were closing and thought it would make a difference. - Taxman ^Talk 03:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offering a reason and making a reasoned argument are not the same thing. One would conclude that an informed reasonable person would not make a logically meaningless argument such as "incorrect opinion" or "colorless green ideas sleep furiously", and therefore a spurious argument such as this would indeed be discounted? --JayHenry (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm evidently non-neutral here, but I will say that I think some form of rationale in the close would have been helpful. There was a distinct lack of consensus, but I think a remark is always useful in such close and angst-ridden RfA's as this one. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not participate, but I did go back to the RFA to check if there was a rationale posted. I was kind of disappointed not to see one, but I equally did not expect there to be one. It might have been nice to have one there, but I don't think it was absolutely necessary in this case. Useight (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, though many ask for a rationale, I personally would not have left a rationale for this RFA. It was fairly contentious and there were good and valid points on all sides. Consensus did not exist and it doesn't take a trained eye to see that. Andre (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it closed as "no consensus", rather than "unsuccessful"? I'm not challenging the end result, though I must agree that a brief rationale would have been useful. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the definitions here. "Unsuccessful" is for RFAs with sub-50% support. You may also be interested in the discussion here. Useight (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I only asked that question for the sake of argument. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that was what you were most likely doing. Useight (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still be interested in thoughts on my question from earlier in the thread, about RfA's where there is substantial disruption from a single user. EdChem (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In closing this RfA I did not see the results warranted a closing statement. It was not a borderline case. There was not a consensus, and the arguments made in opposition were nearly all rational and valid. "No consensus" was not the "safe call," it was the only call.

You may not agree with or like the rationale opposing Everyking's opinion on Q5, but that opposition was valid nonetheless. That opinion bothered a number of people. When public opinion leans hard in one rational direction, it must rarely be ignored.

As for Ottava Rima's behavior, I feel it was over the top and disruptive, but in the end it is impossible to determine how many !opposes were solely because of Ottava Rima and how many !supports were in reaction to Ottava Rima. How Ottava Rima is dealt with in the future is not a decision for the Bureaucrats, however; it is a decision for the entire community.

I am happy to answer any questions. And I happy to add a closing statement to the RfA if there is a demand for it. Kingturtle (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the process makes it hard to see evidence of weighing the reasoning behind votes, I suppose, because there is so often no visible sign of it having been done. Some 'crats have always said that they weigh rationales, but since the closing outcome so rarely is at odds with the numerical indication my sense has always been that this is not actually common. Giving participants and observers a clearer picture of when judgment comes into play might be another use, in the general case, for more regular closing statements. As for "safe" -- well, this call was clearly the safe call, but I wasn't clear above and I'm sorry if I gave any offense; unsuccessful here is safe in the sense that it conforms to what most would expect from a traditional interpretation of the requests' closing state. I didn't mean to imply that it was closed as unsuccessful because that was seen as the safe call.

This traditional interpretation is what, I think, Jay is questioning. Most of the oppose votes weren't trolling or blatantly invalid in some other way; they were the opinions of reasonable people with reasonably held beliefs, although I and others think they were misunderstanding the answer that prompted so much opposition. As Kingturtle points out, normal practice is to count these votes as valid. Is that the right approach, though? If a crowd of people clearly misinterpret an answer, can a bureaucrat take note of that misunderstanding and disregard votes that follow from it? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason RfA lasts for 7 days is so that we can talk about these things during the RfA. Sometimes I'll explicitly say what it is I'm waiting to see from the supporters ... I did in this case. Even when people don't give an invitation, you can guess what it is that needs rebutting. (Even though some just deposit their vote and don't look again, there is a critical mass who do pay attention.) I didn't see much engagement of the opposition in this one, and as a result, no one was swayed. I think the crats take the position that it's the job of the community to pick admins, which implies it's not their the crats' job to fill in the gaps, to do things left undone in the RfA. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I pointed it out is the irony, Dan. Do you honestly not realize that what you just articulated is almost identical to the thoughtcrime for which Everyking was opposed? --JayHenry (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When they close an RFA where their decision falls within the traditional given range, they are "counting noses." When they close an RFA where it does not, they are, "unjustly dismissing the will of the community." Dlohcierekim 23:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's always at the margins that this sort of dissent occurs, perhaps to state the obvious. Accordingly, those who are on the opposing side of the decision might find some reason to carp, because of course, their concerns have not been given appropriate weight. WP:RFB is arguably a higher hurdle to jump than WP:RfA, because of the higher responsibilities (and I do not say "powers" advisedly) involved. It behoves crats in such circumstances to explain their reasoning, and thus far, I have been impressed by the cogency of crats' arguments I've seen in borderline cases, and although there is no appeal, as such, against that decision, I've seen few admin approvals in such circumstances turn out to be an error of judgement- on the evidence available to the the closing crat at the time. As to failed RfAs in borderline cases, our problem is that there is no way we can know whether the crat's decision was correct or not; such cases are rare, because of the requirement for clear consensus to promote, and that is usually (at least numerically) beyond doubt. All this suggests to me that we are largely getting it right.</ramble> Rodhullandemu 00:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys,

I'm not sure whether it's a manual message or a template, but the information you leave on someone's talk page when they're promoted to Sysop should probably contain a link to / information about #wikipedia-en-admins (#wikipedia-en-admins ^connect), as I only just discovered it more or less by accident after about 6 months as a Sysop. At least, that's my suggestion. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have several flavors of congrats msgs. I'll add it to mine. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't mandatory information, and I don't think the IRC clique should become too intertwined with on-wiki stuff. It's normal for admins to find IRC by way of word of mouth when they have some contacts and experience. Andre (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am and will always be in favour of the deliberate separation of Wikipedia from IRC. I really do not consider information about wikipedia-en-admins to be entirely necessary information. Still, I'm willing to consider what others may have to say. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• #wikipedia-en-admins was created primarily as a working tool for contacting other administrators for assistance, and for that reason, I do continue to support IRC as a mechanism for quick communication between sysops. As I outline in my advice for new administrators, the first few weeks of sysopship often present issues one has never encountered before, and so new administrators would be well served with directions to join the channel—which, in almost all cases, is a useful and productive forum. Perhaps the concerns over the channel becoming a substitute for on-Wiki decision-making would be best tempered with the insertion into the bureaucrats' promotion messages of a reminder for the newly promoted sysops that the channel is a tool for garnering assistance and not for making decisions.
  I'm not a bureaucrat, but I have been using IRC for several years and am aware both of the positive and of the negative aspects of it; take my two pence as you will.
  AGK 00:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a bad idea, but I'm going to leave my spartan boilerplate IRC-free. I just think it's a good idea to keep them separated. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think that's spartan? User:Andrevan/promote. Andre (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently, mine is not spartan. Mine is... madness? Okay, that meme didn't work there nearly as well as I thought it would. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like someone needs a trip to the pit... I typically improvise each message instead of templating. Generally I mention New Admin School, and that's it. bibliomaniac15 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • AAAARHGHHHHHAndre (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a RfA on myself, despite being a standing admin. Basically, I am requesting reconfirmation of the Communities trust in my ability to use the mop/buttons/flags. As far as I am aware I am not under scrutiny regarding my admin status anywhere else. My point in raising this matter now is that in a weeks time (unless I have really screwed up in my evaluation of my standing, in which case I should be desysopped sooner rather than later) one of you fine folk will need to close this. You may want to have a discussion amongst yourselves over what criteria and what weight should apply regarding supports/opposes that refer to admin actions over that of general (un)trustworthiness, or whether patterns of disquiet should be given more weight than a single instance of really bad judgement/action. I have also asked that support comments should note any area of "improvement required" should it be deemed appropriate. What weight might be placed on such a comment, even though the editor is generally supporting, where there are opposes also noting the same is another matter for consideration. In short, I think I may have handed you something of a hot potato.
The other reason why I am noting this, is that it is my hope that I will not be the last as well as the first admin in goodish standing to put myself up for reconfirmation. You may need to consider that you will be applying your judgement to more of these applications in future. Have, er, fun! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this just be like a regular RfA? If you have our trust, you keep the bit, and if not, off to meta? Synergy 00:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the firm belief that RFA was created for the express purpose of creating administrators. As a process it is not made to evaluate editors who are already administrators. bibliomaniac15 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that this wouldn't be binding if he fails? Synergy 00:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfB is on the same page, why not RecFA? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because for every idea, there are 30 people who don't like it. I think this is where it should be honestly, but anywhere is fine, so long as its binding. Synergy 00:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since nothing has been done to address methods of admin reconfirmation (or even recall in general), whatever process used could be considered binding, I suppose. bibliomaniac15 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bibliomaniac. This was ill-advised. I have opposed as a result, and I urge any other bureaucrats who read this to agree with Biblio and me and just close it as disruptive. (Well, he didn't say that, but he agrees it was a misuse of the RfA process). Andre (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're all so sure it's disruptive then close it, rather than urging others to close it. I realise you commented, but to me, that seems like a bit of a cop out. Something's stopping you from just doing yourself, and I think it's doubt whether it would be the right move to close it or not. I don't really have much of a problem with it. Sure, it's not ideal, but little is. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's the correct move, but I also opposed the RfA so I don't want to overstep my bounds. Plus me acting alone could provoke a backlash, whereas 3+ bureaucrats in agreement should be pretty safe. Andre (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm then a Wikipedia:Request for admin evaluation is long overdue, not all decisions need to be made by the arbcom, some should be left to the community to decide ...--Warpath (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Admin Review. Xclamation point 12:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but thats for the admins and levels above to add their names themselves to the review, what about non-admin putting forward a name of an admin they would like to be reviewed or evaluated ? ..--Warpath (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the purpose of Category:Administrators open to recall. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's pretty much the purpose of CAT:AOR, but there is a note-worthy difference: AOR is extremely passive, while something like this takes a much more active approach. Kind of a "If anyone ever notices anything wrong, go ahead and bring it up" versus "Is anything wrong?" Useight (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with AOR is that the admins are the ones that can add themselves but if non-admin members of the community thinks that one certain admin can no longer fulfill his/her rights as an admin, where should he/she bring this up..WP:AN?..where it might get laughed at and thrown out. Some admins do add themselves to the AOR cat, but seriously, they don't ever want to be recalled so I think we must prioritize AOR to all admins as that will be fair and maybe get a new policy or add to a current one that all admins will be evaluated/reviewed by its peers and/or the community once every 6 months, that will be a step in the right direction...--Warpath (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A major problem with evaluating admins every six months is that this equates to dozens of admins being evaluated weekly; this would be extraordinarily time consuming, and, in my opinion, not necessary. Useight (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about annually or on a 14-month basis? Not ideal, but it would result in a slightly lighter workload. Plus, most reconfirmation RfA's would be low-traffic, near-100% support open-and-shut cases. AGK 00:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see... 1,657 admins... divided by 52 weeks in a year... If the annual reconfirmation were to go through, that's on average 31.87 reconfirmation RFAs a week. Isn't that a little much? Xclamation point 01:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)I substituted this, to keep a record for the future. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 01:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if only the ~900 active admins were to be reevaluated annually, that'd still be 17 weekly. And I agree that a vast majority of the cases would be nearly 100% support, which is actually a reason not to have mandatory reconfirmations. Useight (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory reconfirmations would make adminship a Big Deal^TM in my opinion, though I'd fully support an optional process. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the community is hellbent on not having a de-sysop policy, something must be done to make sure that everything is fair. 1657 admins you say?..how many of those are even around?..over 70% of those haven't edited in a year or more I believe, so JulianColton, you are saying that adminship is a permanent right? because without reconfirmations and/or a de-sysop policy, the number of admins will surely rise, but the percentage of active admins will drastically fall..--Warpath (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily; I believe the flag should be removed on accounts that haven't edited in several years. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, but I don't see that happening in a foreseeable future and maybe only Jimbo has the power to see that happening, its no use having a big board of directors where only a few are working and the rest are having a nice longggg rest ;) ..Maybe in a perfect world, we can have all active admins, a very active community and no trolls..oh wait..yeah that can never happen.....--Warpath (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

70% not edited in a year? That sounds... skewed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll ever get Jimbo pushing that [1]. the wub "?!" 12:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ugh, the old dictator has lost a lot more than his hair :D ..--Warpath (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorely tempted to go thru that RfA and remove each and every !vote that objects to the process and not the candidate. Hmm. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really EVula. And will you also be removing the votes that combine both commentary on the process and the candidate out of interest - or will you simply be giving them no weight? I ask because it would seem you may be one of the few crats who can close this and I'd like your bias out now please.Pedro :  Chat  20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pure process opposes seem more symbolic to me; I find it hard to believe that folks have concluded LHVU should not be an administrator simply because he initiated a reconfirmation RfA, and I wouldn't be surprised if bureaucrats discounted some votes for that reason. Still, I wouldn't go through and strike them at this point. Seems both unnecessary and likely to create far more controversy than leaving them there is prompting. Nathan ^T 20:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I might venture that if EVula (and his semi-melodramatic "hmm") ventures so far as to start striking votes then his next visit to RFA may not be in the capacity of closing the discussion. Again, EVula, given you are one of the 'crats not to have commented your position please - will you give less weight to comments that indicate displeasure with the process, even if they have additional comments on the candidate. This doesn't seem much to ask. Pedro :  Chat  20:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, totally wasn't my intention to leave you hanging with this; I was just busy with other stuff. :)
The point of the above comment was to act as sort of a "floating the idea" kind of action; to see how people reacted to even the idea of removing them. If I were to close the RfA (called so because I don't feel like bandying about another damn acronym) I would probably disregard any !vote the solely referenced a disapproval in the process; those that opposed based on the grounds that the candidate's mere action of putting himself back up at RfA is grounds for lost faith have, in my opinion, a just argument, although not quite as much as, say, ones referencing the Jimbo diff.
However, while I may have been considering the flat-out removal of the !votes, I ultimately decided not to, primarily because of the massive amount of drama that it would cause (in a couple of different ways). Not worth it.
Also, for what it's worth, I've been a proponent of a de-sysopping system that rests in the hands of the community for a while, and I'm glad to see that there's at least some movement forward on it... even if it is a bit more of a lurch than a graceful step. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bureaucrats really play no role in this closing actually. If consensus is found for "promotion" (which seems fairly unlikely at this point, I think it's pretty clear that the RfA has a serious lack of consensus right now), we do nothing. And if no consensus is found, the status quo will still apply under the consensus system -- remember, as an dubious out of process non-RfA page with no consensus, nothing will happen unless LHVU personally requests a desysop on Meta -- as well as the lack of a bureaucrat desysop ability. Therefore, I urge whoever closes this not to take the safe or diplomatic route by giving some kind of blessing to the result of this RfA. The only safe call in cases of extreme doubt is no consensus -- which means do nothing.Andre (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As per [2] and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Aitias#Aitias.27s_suspension_confirmed I am asking for the return of my sysop flag. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 17:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 17:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) — Aitias // discussion 17:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'de-sysop' is sometimes bandied about, and I was curious - is there documentation on what sorts of instances trigger the process? What is the actual process? Is it written down anywhere? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DESYSOP? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't give any process other than "voluntary resignation", "take it to Arbcom" or "Jimbo's personal whim"… – iridescent 20:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For ArbCom's permissions removal policy see here. Tiptoety ^talk 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are essentially four ways to get de-sysopped, though I'm not sure if it's written anywhere concretely.

1. Self-request at Meta (sometimes a self-request locally works, too);
2. Emergency removal by a steward (for odd account behavior, generally);
3. Removal by the Arbitration Committee (the Committee is empowered by the stewards to request access rights changes for any user at Meta);
4. Jimmy (who arbitrarily removes rights, generally for egregious behavior).

--MZMcBride (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A slight error there I think. Should say:

4. Jimmy (who arbitrarily removes rights).

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He just might remove your right to edit for that ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd just have to use one of my sleeper accounts, one of which I think is very close to being a good RfA candidate.</joke> --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using humor; the bureaucrat noticeboard is for serious business only, no silliness. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been upset for a while I can't get my Malleus Fatuorum account through RFA, hence my use of sleepers. Pedro :  Chat  22:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who was being silly? Perhaps it wasn't a joke after all. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the sock of yours that I was supposed to be coaching... James Blood?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already raised this issue here, but was told this venue was more appropriate.

I have a concern about this RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster 2). The vote was narrow, and the issue of content creation was important. My specific concern is that the candidate made claims about '156 articles created' in an intendedly persuasive way to influence the outcome ([3], [4], User:FlyingToaster/created.

I have looked at many of these articles, and I find that as well as a significant number of disambiguation pages, a large number of the 'articles' are plagiarised directly from internet sources. Most or all of the 40-odd articles on Roumanian generals are plagiarised from a single source. Many of the more substantial-seeming articles are directly plagiarised, without any modification of phrasing or order or other softening. One article was already plagiarised and was only wikified (extensively) by the candidate. But why did she not spot this, given it was obviously so? This shows a serious lack of judgment in a person who is supposedly chosen for just that quality.

I want to know if all of those who supported this RfA would still do so, if shown full evidence of the plagiarism, which was clearly performed in an attempt to gain credentials. If the election were rerun, would we get the same result?

Here are the articles I noticed.

• Cluster-weighted_modeling lifted from this abstract: [5] O:"Cluster-weighted modeling (CWM) is a versatile inference algorithm". W:"It is recognized as a versatile inference algorithm ". Original: "Each cluster is localized to a Gaussian input region and possesses its own trainable local model". Wikipedia "Each cluster in CWM is localized to a Gaussian input region, and this contains its own trainable local model". Also from another paper here [6] and Danil and Feldkamp [7] ("a feedforward layered network might be preferred").
• Over 40 articles directly copied from a single internet source on Romanian generals. E.g.
  • Alexandru Batcu: "Alexandru Batcu (1892–1964) was a Romanian Brigadier-General during World War II. From 1941 to 1943, he served as Commanding Officer 28th Fortress Regiment. He was then a Prefect of Dubasari in 1943. In 1944, he began as a Prefect of Tiraspol, then became a General Officer Commanding 5th Division, and finally a General Officer Commanding 5th Training Division. He was Assistant Commandant of Bucharest in 1944, Commandant of Bucharest in 1945, and retired in 1946."
  • Original "1941 - 1943Commanding Officer 28th Fortress Regiment, 1943 - 1944Prefect of Dubasari, 1944 Prefect of Tiraspol, 1944 General Officer Commanding 5th Division, 1944 General Officer Commanding 5th Training Division, 1944 - 1945Assistant Commandant of Bucharest, 1945 Commandant of Bucharest, 1946 Retired [8]
• Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation, lifted verbatim from another site – lead, history, Acquisition of the buildings
• Homeokinetics has already been deleted for possible copyvio.
• Momentum flux is a copyvio from here.
  • "It can be associated with either mean velocity components, internal gravity waves, or with turbulent velocity fluctuations. For turbulence, the momentum flux is also called the Reynolds stresses. For waves, momentum flux is related to mountain wave drag", the source says "Momentum flux can be associated with either mean velocity components, internal gravity waves, or with turbulent velocity fluctuations. For turbulence, the momentum flux is also called the Reynolds stress. For waves, it is related to mountain wave drag."
• Radiative flux draws heavily from an article from the journal Applied Optics, and also raises my concern about taking material from abstracts, which is not good practice.
• There is also some copying at Chemical flux
• One of the sources for Volumetric flux seems to be a blog advertising a software program called "Unit Converter EX" which does various unit conversions. This is not good practice.

Peter Damian (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• The RFA was charactorised by Flying Toaster's supporters hectoring (and continuing to do so) the opposition. This hectoring was often "justified" by mention of her prolific content creation, and claims that her pages created numbered over 100. The oposition centred its opposes on her lack of real content and mainspace edits. I looked at several of the pages cited as hers and was struck by their, in my view, poor standard; looking for copyright violation never occurred to me. What was clear was that the candidate had little idea of Wikipedia and its ways and protocols. Yet 100 people miraculously appeared and supported, something I find very strange indeed. My view is that Toaster should do the honourable, and simple, thing and resign the tools, thus avoiding a damaging and embarassing investigation. She should then be given a timescale to clean up the pages before thay are deleted. I don't see the need for punitive sanctions for what appears to simple ignorance of Wikipedia laws and standards. I don't think it unreasonable for a certain knowledge of thse things to be acquited before Admin tools are granted. Giano (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering but do you think that posting the same statement here and on ANI (in multiple threads there) is helpful? I think it might look as if you have a crusader-mentality against this user, unlikely to be helpful in convincing people that there was a mistake. If you want to suggest FT to resign, you should really tell this to her personally, imho. And if you think the RFA's consensus was incorrectly judged, maybe we should allow the closing crat to offer his reasons before we can really discuss anything? Regards SoWhy 08:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is outrageous. Yet another indication of how low the English wikipedia has fallen. To say that the vote was "narrow" is... a very mild way of putting it. I expect the closing bcrat to resign. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see this as being the bureaucrats' fault, it's not their job to pick through all the evidence of a candidate's suitability. This seems more like a failing of the wider community. Although I hope the 'crats had the good sense to discount such supports as "We need more good looking admins for WikiMania" and "appears to have the correct enemies". the wub "?!" 08:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good call by the closing crat. The arguments given by the opposers were weak, it just didnt seem worth addressing them at lenght with all the complaints of "badgering". Plus there was almost bang on 80% support! And that was after what was effectively determined if rather feeble negative canvassing - and yes I do have evidence which Id prefer not to present, but will do if pressed! FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to quote Scott MacDonald from the RfA - "Opposes seem mainly to be petty political score settling based on her support of someone who'd pissed off some powerful people - wikipolitics at it worst." It sums it up nicely actually. Now we have calls for FT and Anon Diss to resign??? Cut it out. If there is a problem with FT's articles then pop over to her talk page and tell her what they are so she can fix them. Moaning about it here solves nothing. FT is very responsive and if there is some inappropriate paraphrasing (I wouldn't call it outright plagiarism) then she will fix it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of content work was certainly focal in this RfA – many opposed because of it, and it formed the crux of the oppositional argument. However, the opposition mentioned a lack of content work, rather than plagiarism issues; lack of content work (which the RfA centred on) is different to copy-violative content work (which was not even mentioned in the RfA). Tying the two together like that is, in my view, not presenting the RfA for what it was. Now, if the plagiarism issue had been discovered while the RfA was in progress, a different outcome may have been the product; however, speculation doesn't solve anything.

In my view, to assert that FT deliberately and carefully perpetrated a misrepresentation to influence the RfA is assuming bad faith on the part of the candidate. If we assume that FT genuinely believed her articles were not problematic, it does not seem so unreasonable that she should be proud of the figure of "156" and should wish to make a note of it on the RfA. The claim that she "made claims about '156 articles created' in an intendedly persuasive way to influence the outcome" seems rather cynical to me.

These allegations are a concern, and they require proper attention. We have avenues for that, and what seems to be productive discussion to the end of solving the problem has been generated at ANI. However – and I re-iterate – this problem is not germane to the RfA as it was. It would most certainly have been germane to the RfA if the information had been exposed during the candidacy; this is unquestionable, and, even now, the implications here are substantial. Unfortunately (and it is very unfortunate) the problem was only identified after the closure. I do not make this point in some attempt to fop off the concern with a technicality, or to detachedly defend my closure. I mean only to call attention to what actually took place during the RfA and why a distinction must be drawn between the issues of the opposition in the RfA and the issues that have arisen shortly afterward. In short, I take this position: these matters need to be looked into and addressed promptly, but to draw a connection with the RfA itself – other than to consider whether these problems may have affected support and oppose trends – is not accurately interpreting the arguments that underscored the discussion.

For now, all we can do is work with the present. Developments may yet come in the situation as further inquest into the articles in question is undertaken. The most important thing right now is to fix the articles and remove the plagiarism. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ECx4 Perhaps if the evidence was provided during the RfA things might have turned out differently? I swear, there was a week to raise this issue, instead most of the opposes were fairly weak. And by weak, I mean they didn't provide evidence. Most of them were along the lines of IDONTLIKEIT. As for the 'crat to resign? Give me a break, the final tally was about 80% in support. The opposes didn't make a concrete oppose rationale. I think I have a reputation as being a hard nose when evaluating candidates---I oppose a lot more than I support. But when the oppose rationale that is being cited by many is A very poor idea. This editor is naive, uniformed and has an appalling record regarding content. One wonders why these people come here, any fool can sit and talk all day, and many do. That doesn't speak to the strength of the opposes. Sorry Giano, that rationale looks more personal and unsupported. Even Peter who provides the links above, provided us with the compelling argument of per reasons above, mainly no visible content contribution. You have to get to !vote 19 before any of the opposes provided a link and oppose 31 before anybody actually started citing some facts. None of the other !votes made a case, they just cited an opinion. If you want people to listen to you, do more than say "I don't like it." Give reasons backed by facts, not opinions. If you have reasons, such as Peter's above, provide it DURING the RfA. Might it have swayed the outcome? Very likely, but that is why we have a 7 day period, not 1 day. Sheesh.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're saying because this came to light a little too late, it should be ignored in regard to whether she's suitable to have the tools? Rubbish. Every action should be taken into account, that's why people are desysoped. Plagiarism, though unintentional, demonstrates a lack of understanding of copyright and judgement that would not be expected of someone with the power to delete. And yet because the evidence has been found a day after the RfA was closed it's ok? I don't think it should matter how long an editor has been an admin, if they misunderstand an important policy on such a basic level they shouldn't have the tools. Most don't know the ins and outs of copyright, but most know that you can't copy someone else's work onto wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I sound like that, I think it's a tragedy. It's not what I meant at all, and I tried to enforce that point in my comment. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite a few misconceptions introduced here. FTs creation of 156 articles wasn't even mentioned until 17 May, by which time she already had over 100 support votes. No one in the RFA's support sections directly gave article creation as a reason for supporting - instead folk point to her improved janitorial work such as CSD tagging plus AIV and UAA reports. Or to FTs steady composures plus friendly and helpful nature. At best article creation can be seen as a factor in about 5 votes, and thats if you construe comments like "constructive contributions" as referring to article creation and not said janitoring. There's a contingent among the opposers who seem to think fine content creation skills are essential for an admin – but on this doesn't appear to be the majority view in the community. In general folk are happy to promote admins on the bases that they are likely to be good with a mop and bucket, and that they wont abuse the tools. For myself it was clear FT is probably still some way from developing into a fine stylist from this, supplied by Editor Plutonium27. Even that piece of evidence points to FTs helpful nature as the intial version was clearly her own work and she went to a lot of trouble to research an article requested by another.

• As for plagiarism , I dont think this was anywhere near as extensive as implied, and anyway we're encouraged to be relatively faithful to the sources, so its an understanable mistake for a fairly new editor. From the examples I've looked at only Glengree is a clear cut case, and I dont see any thing morally wrong with representing a respectable and essentially charitable institution in its own words. Granted it shows FT was at that time not fully aware of applicable policy. But we're encouraged to jump in and learn as we go, and when one does look at either the guidelines themselves or policy related discussion on talk pages the emphasis is much more on avoiding OR and Synth – almost the reverse of avoiding plagiarism! Anyway FT gives no indication she's likely to use her admin status to throw her weight around in content disputes, rather she seems keen to serve the community in areas where she has a solid understanding of policy. Also she responds very well to constructive criticism.
• Im very much hoping this complaint will be put to bed by an early closure, as hopefully crats will agree FT is a fine candidate strongly endorsed by the community. In case it does go the distance its probably fair to say I have evidence that suggests extensive foul play by some in the opposing camp, which I would rather not present unless neccessary. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have "evidence" put your money where your mouth is! Giano (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish Gianno. You posted on both the admin board and your well watched talk page , where you made it very clear you considered it would be a cyber tragedy if FT was promoted. Ostensibly you were complaining about IRC in general , but in both cases you linked to the then ongoing RFA and its notable you archived the discussion a few hours after the RFA was closed. Now this may not have been your intention, but given the fact youre admired by many for your extensive and rather exquisite creations , the effect will have been to inevitably channel editors to the RFA , with a deposition to be hostile. This indeed seems to have been what happened , given the then apparently flimsy pretexts for many of the opposes. Theres a lot more I could say, but I try not to say anything negative unless its necessary and Id guess theres now little chance of the decision being reversed. I'll be back to see how this had played out this evening!

That's it - is it - the evidence of foul play? Funny how all I do is above board and on Wiki - isn't it? Don't bother to apolgise they are two a penny from Toaster's supporters - that is why I archived my page when the RFA finished - far from foul play. Giano (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very honest of you to confirm your posts were an attempt to influence the RFA - thats canvassing and you should try to avoid it in future, per WP:CANVASS. And there's no danger of an apology as my comments were fair and not needlessly insulting. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ryan, have you a clue what you are talking about, have you spent too long on IRC to know what is going on here? Here are just two of the many hectoring responses from Toaster's supporters to the opposers. The RFA was flawed, it was wrong, it was a tissue of misleading statements from Toaster and her supporters - maybe knowingly, maybe not - that is not the point. The point is the community was misled and she picked up a 100 automatic votes from IRC. Just look at this support [9], and as for this now laughable edit [10] hectoring an oppose voter. And this hectoring response to an oppose, clearly shows the voters complete ignorance of the candidate's work [11]. Why the Crats allowed this RFA to continue is a complete mystery that needs to be explained. Then of course, we have William M Connolley's supporting vote [12], exemplifying all we have come to realise about Admins and these matters. Looking at all the supports 9to many to diff) just look at the comments on her edits and contributions. Yes, I think a strong rebuke to the closing Crat is called for - perhaps even resignation. Even the barn stars she handed out to her supporters have been deleted as copyvio. I'm afraid Ryan, your beloved IRC may rubber stamp RFAs, but don't expect the community to like it. I suggest you take a message back with you: "Do some spade work and learn what Wikipedia is about before inflicting yourself as Admin's on the rest of us." Giano (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is IRC the issue or the article contributions? Giano, you've swapped and back on this issue the last few days, focusing first on the IRC issue and it looks like you are using this to go back on your IRC complaints. If IRC is the issue to you, focus on that, but somewhere else and don't try to spoil this well for that reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issues for not Adminning Toaster are now too many to list, but don't worry I doubt a Crat will back down, I doubt Toaster will resign and I doubt IRC will change. Toaster joins a long list of such worthy Admins. Giano (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thought I'd put in my .02 FWIW. Didn't participate in the RfA, and hadn't heard of the candidate until now. I reviewed the RfA and the points raised above.
  • The points brought up by Peter Damian are worrisome. I disagree with those above who are dismissing the issue of copyvio.
  • There is a precedent on bureaucrat discretion on close RfAs and as such I see no fault with the bureaucrat's decision to promote given the information available at the time. I do not think the candidate had an intention to mislead !voters with the "created" list.
  • Bureaucrats cannot de-sysop (unless things have changed). I do not think ongoing discussion at WP:BN (or ANI for that matter) can provide a solution.
  • While I am sure that User:FlyingToaster is hardworking, nice, and friendly, I strongly believe that the ability to judge what content is appropriate for an encyclopedia is the foremost role of an administrator here. The recent copyvios, even if unintentional by User:FlyingToaster, bring into question this candidate's suitability for adminship. Understanding copyright violation is essential for a number of admin functions: deletions, AfD closures, even protections, etc. I think a de-sysop should be considered and the only body with that authority is ArbCom (correct me if I am wrong). I would support having this brought there -- Samir 09:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Giano has now described as laughable my request for him to furnish diffs to explain his critique of the candidate contributions, I would just like to make the point that if his intent had been to persuade me to oppose this candidate during the RFA it would have been better to have disclosed why he regarded the candidates contributions as appalling during the RFA rather than after it. For those not familiar with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster 2 it was a new low for the RFA process. Giano's oppose was one of the first and my request for diffs is at the end of the thread that it started. (full disclosure, I took one peek at IRC some weeks ago and have not returned there, but see no reason to oppose those who use it). Also anyone who can advise me as to how my request for diffs could have been expressed in a politer less hectoring way is welcome to tell me by email or on my talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 09:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I thought the way I did it was fine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are happy for an Admin to copy paste other peoples work onto wikipedia, and claim it as her own. If that's not naive then it's criminal - which do you prefer? The naivity I was referring to at the time concerned her posts elsewhere. It is not your place to hector voters on an RFA, and not an opposers duty to respond to you. Please remember that in future. You will be blaming me because you all appear very foolish soon. Giano (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Samir sums it up pretty well. ArbCom is -> thattaway, (though the user's talk page is probably a much better starting place) as Crats do not currently have community consensus for desysopping, even if we agreed wholeheartedly with the arguments in favour of it. Changing that consensus is a whole other conversation and should not be conflated with this one. This is also not the appropriate forum for discussing perceived bad behaviour at the RfA, unless users are requesting that Crats take action in future RfAs against any generic (ie not specific to user) behaviour types: again, this may also be something that would require new consensus, but also may not, and indeed may not need specifically Crat involvement. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like Samir, I did not participate in the FT RFA, and like Samir I am troubled by the evidence of copyright violations. Best outcome, in my opinion, would be for Flying Toaster to resign admin status voluntarily and reapply in >3 months.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Low hopes of getting through without an edit conflict, but: 1) a person needs to set him/herself apart from editors to be apart from editors as an administrator. 2) Setting apart by content knowledge is one thing, and apart by dispute resolution is another. Setting apart by button pushing or tags is not an option, since that is common, we hope, to all editors. Running a bot is not one, as that, too, should be common. Being friendly is not one, as that, too, should be common if "civility is a policy" and all that rot. 3) This candidate's dispute resolution credentials were impugned earlier in the previous RFA. The article knowledge was all that was left that was licit for a bureaucrat to exercise discretion on. Article creation, without copyvio, was poor, as Giano argued, and now appears to have been even worse -- in violation of core principles. All of the CSD's the candidate had been tagging should, apparently, have included many of her own. 4) Discretion had to weigh whether the support arguments were based on a quality that showed a good administrator or a popular person, and whether the oppose arguments were about a person's lack of qualification or dislike. 5) Ryan can see into the heart of hearts of all oppose arguments and dismiss all their words, but the closing 'crat shouldn't. Were the arguments based on qualifications for an administrator or "why not?" Were the arguments against based on "bad person" or "no qualifications?" Indeed, as is appropriate for this venue, the crat made a very bad call. This has nothing to do with the candidate, everything to do with the RFA. Geogre (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No George, the candidates credentials were not impugned at the previous RFA! I take it youre referring to her support for neuro – as an occasional Telegraph blogger and someone whos contributed to the print version I took an interest in that. It seems neuro gave an explanation for why his admittedly regrettable and untrue contributions to the Telegraph blog were not lies. And anyway theres no good reason why FT should have know all the details. The crat made a good closing call and no matter how many walls of text you guys post that fact isn't going to be obscured! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Damian and others: Why didn't you raise these concerns during the RfA? It is not not 'crats job to go through the candidates article contributions. Much of the opposition during the RfA was more like "hangs out with the crowd that my faction is opposed to". --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I do check articles showcased in an RfA for general quality, and I did in this case (hence my comments at RfA). I do not normally check for plagiarism, partly because it is quite difficult unless glaringly obvious, but mostly because I take it on trust that no one is going to showcase such material. In this case (albeit too late) I had nagging doubts and checked. Should I have to be doing that? I don't think so. Peter Damian (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case there was perhaps only a single article which was an outright copy. So are you saying as well as weighing the arguments the crat should have carefully checked a good proportion of the new articles to see if they were derivative – potentially a very time-consuming task? Or are you saying the crat should have Googled extracts from each single article? Especially as there were clearly several determined and highly experienced editors in the oppose section, who might reasonably have been expected to at least hint at any issues, I don't think either check would have been a good use of the crats time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was answering the question about why I didn't raise these concerns during the RfA. I don't have a view about whose job it is to do what. I do have a view that in situations where a glaringly unsuitable candidate happens to be chosen by means of a certain process, then that process should be carefully re-examined. The problem can be resolved by less depending on trust. Or by accepting that much depends on trust, and also accepting the resignation of the candidate. That is how it works in RL. Have you been watching the news in the UK recently? Peter Damian (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Feyd staes above that: "FTs creation of 156 articles wasn't even mentioned until 17 May", this is incorrect; it was mentioned (well as 155) on 11 May. [13]. Giano (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe everyone should calm down until FT actually responds to these allegations, eh? Skinny87 (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And could we also try to avoid repetition? A lot of what certain users are saying (naming no names) has already been said, often by themselves. It's only necessary to make points once. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]