Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Phaedriel 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Blnguyen's supporting remarks

From my investigative trawling I can see that Phaedriel has created and maintains two portals of extremely high quality, visual appeal and content, as well as a wikiproject which is now flourishing with more than 40 contributors. Aside from that, there is a very detailed map she created, Image:IPNA.png. I have compiled a longer list of articles which she has contributed to here, where a good example of the upholding of NPOV, which is essential for WP is set for other users.

Secondly, an administrator is meant to be an ambassador for Wikipedia, and the civility, politeness, enthusiasm and encouragement that Phaedriel brings to the project is amply evidenced ([1], [2], [3]). You can also see her "Today's star" campaign, and the number of userpages she has renovated. Needless to say, she does not use agitatory editing practices.

Phaedriel's ability to work and discuss issues in a group can be observed at [4] as well as a dispute at Talk:Texas Ranger Division; which is ample evidence that she will be able to weather the inevitable storms that an administrator will face in a gracious and dignified manner.

Phaedriel frequently reverts vandalism and always remembers to warn the user in question ([5]), as well as not biting the newbies.Her record and contributions at AfD, ([6], [7], [8]) demonstrate an ability to reason and debate with logic and in good spirit with other Wikipedians and the community can be confident that she will close debates with discretionary wisdom where necessary.

I am honoured, humbled and embarrassed to be selected to nominate Phaedriel for administrator status.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lar's supporting remarks

It is my pleasure to co-nominate Phaedriel for adminship. Once in a while you see a candidate so awesomely right for the position that it is difficult to explain exactly why to those that do not know the candidate. If you know Phaedriel, you already know she's right for the job and I'm not talking to you because it is almost certain that you will already be scrolling down to support. But if you do not know Phaedriel you are in for a treat. Read on.

Blnguyen in his co nomination has presented the quantitative case, with numbers, analysis, and so forth, but I think it's important, perhaps more important, to also present the qualitiative case. Adminship evaluation is a lot more than raw numbers. It's also about the Wikipedia spirit. Merely analysing Phaedriel on past and anticipated future edits and actions is profoundly wrong as it misses the point.

For, while she will be a fine admin in terms of the mechanicals, it's what she brings to the project itself with her spirit and approach that will rock. Look at her approach to dealing with other users. She's always there with a kind word and a sympathetic ear and a comment to cheer you up. Even the stalkers that have plagued her have been met with the utmost reasonably possible good faith and civility. Her recent "Today's star shines on" campaign to recognise good editors is a perfect demonstration of Phaedriel's embrace of the Wikipedia spirit.

For some time now, Phaedriel has had a long procession of people wanting to nominate her for adminship. If everyone that wanted to were actually a co nominator she'd have dozens. I was one of the voices arguing that she should NOT accept adminship until she was ready, and willing to take the mop. That time has now come. I am extremely honored that Phaedriel, out of the many people that have offered, selected me as a co nominee. It's time to make this fine Wikipedian an admin. For the good of the encyclopedia, and for the good of all of us.

Phaedriel will be changed a little bit by adminship. It changes all of us. But I think Adminship itself may well be changed by Phaedriel. I think we admins are a fair, firm, and civil bunch. But I think Phaedriel will push us to be even better, to be fairer, to be more civil, and yes, more loving, in our approaches to our users, and to our tasks, and that she will keep us honest when we stray, and will cheer us should the work grow heavy and we despair.

It is way past time to make Phaedriel an admin and I hope you will join me in supporting her candidacy. ++Lar: t/c 10:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My My!

I never thought that she was not one already!.. I had earlier inter-acted with her, and found her really a very nice person. Only such administrators shall take wikipedia to a stage of higher credibility and complete integrity. --Bhadani 14:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brilliant

This'll be another Wikipedia 100. And for those who don't know, it's Phaedriel's birthday today! (29th July, which will, in a matter of hours, be true for everyone) So from everybody at the Birthday committee, and everyone who voted for you, Phaedriel:

Happy Birthday! from the Birthday Committee, and all the RfA supporters

Wishing Phaedriel a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee and all her wonderful RfA supporters!

Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

(I know there's about 10 hours left till this is true for GMT, but we can bring it forward a bit... :D ) --Draicone (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. I did this with The Time Machine. The party has started... All the best to her! --Bhadani 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Done. I did this with The Time Machine. The party has started... All the best to her! --Bhadani 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, let me add my super-early congratulations. The tremendous support your RfA has garnered is a tribute to your fine work here and couldn't be more deserved. Its about time you were en-mopped. Well done, Gwernol 14:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
100??? after 13 hours it is already 117. I think it will set a new record - maybe 300+ --rogerd 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
137142 supports now. I really would love to see WP:300 achieved here; she totally deserves it from what I've seen. As for the birthday wish, since I'm part of the Birthday Committee...I'm going to hold off until it actually says the 29th :) Thistheman 19:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:300 could be possible, we hit 100 in 11 hours I believe. Is there a notice on Phaedriel's user page that the RfA is going on? --Draicone (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from nomination - technical savy vs Wikilove

<my biggest rant ever>This time I choose to be that obligatory stupid hair in the soup. Too much Wikilove overall here for me. All the idiots that take the bumpy road to try to improve Wikipedia from the technical side are ignored here by all these nice "Wikilove" freaks. I hope we finally start getting some more technical knowledgeable admins. After all, there are fully protected pages that affect the site as whole - I hope all these admins here know how to edit them. Yes, I am frustrated. And yes, I am that first one idiot neutral vote. Phaedriel: it's nothing personal against you. You sure must have excellent communication skills. I just hope you don't start taking technical decisions from idots, once you are at the top of that Wikilove Iceberg Cabal. Being nice is not everything. Could someone of the freaks here put the fully protected citation templates {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} on her/his watchlist and learn how to edit them? Ignoring/killing doesn't work there (They survived "The Wiki Process"). Thanks for reading. <rant off> No. I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy. Not at all. You might have guessed it. --Ligulem 09:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. Comment Do you believe that this user would be an inappropriate administrator, or was this a more general rant? RandyWang (raves/review me!) 09:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    I think he's just ranting, and he certainly has a right to do so. He has a point about technically incapable admins, however the process through which people choose to vote for an RfA involves some (if not most) of the voters examining the person's edit history and making sure they seem capable to use the mop. Therefore there shouldn't be a problem, and I don't believe Phaedriel will be incapable of using her admin powers appropriately. In fact, this should be more a 'comment' then an actual vote, even if its a neutral vote. --Draicone (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed. I asked because his comment didn't actually seem relevant to Phaedriel. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 10:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    Alright then, if consensus states as such then it should be moved to comments, and Ligulem's comment is far too generalised to justify a vote in any direction on this RfA. In fact, this might even belong on the talk page for WP:RFA. Any suggestions? --Draicone (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'd argue that because Ligulem put it as a neutral vote, we keep it on this page for continuity, but move it to the comments section, as per Draicone. Thε Halo Θ 12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    Doesn't seem like a good idea to me. He left it as a comment in the neutral section, which doesn't affect the results anyway. If we keep arguing that RFA is not a vote, then moving this because it's not a vote, doesn't make any sense. --JoanneB 12:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    I agree, and see where you're coming from Joanne. I only suggest we move the comment to comments for ease of reading, seeing as it has nothing to do with how Ligulem feels about Pheadriel's ability for adminship. It might be a good idea to leave it here, and if Ligulem feels it should go in comments, he'll move it. It's his vote. Thε Halo Θ 12:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    Can we leave the matter be, please, guys and girls? While I sincerely don't consider myself as inept as Ligulem fears I may be, I understand his position, and I respect it. He has also made it clear that it's not a personal issue, which I imagine is the reason why he chose to remain neutral instead of opposing. Note of your concerns due taken, dear Ligulem, and I hope I won't disappoint you nor anybody else, if this passes - now please, let's move on :) Phaedriel 12:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
"...if this passes"? You are far too humble my dear :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Ligulem has a right to vote where he wants to. If he wants to vote neutral than he can. If his comment was right that reason is perfectly legit for a neutral. --Osbus 14:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We have moved the above Neutral vote and associated comments to this page in order to facilitate further discussion on this topic. I hope this will reduce the overall length of the nomination, as well as the potential for edit conflicts. Johntex\talk 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Ligulem, I thank you for calling our attention to those 3 templates. I use them a lot myself, so I know they are very important. I have added them to my watch list. Are you asking for them to be unprotected? If so, why? I have not yet read their associated talk pages to see if any issues have been raised, but I will do so at my first opportunity. Thank you, Johntex\talk 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks and my apologies for letting my frustration escape here. I see why these templates are protected. But if an admin breaks them, I can't fix them (as I did in the past). But this is the wrong place to discuss that. Reading the talk pages might be a good start for you. Start with {{cite book}}. I just wonder why all these Featured Artists here need sysop rights, while those which know something about technical things are constantly mistrusted for adminship. Wikipedia seems to be the first system that chooses system operators (admins are sysops, right?) based on attributes like kindness and absence of "disputes". What about knowing how templates work? Does anybody of the folks here know how CSS is supposed to work on this site? The respective pages can only be edited with the sysop bit (in the case of high profile templates). So what does one need to edit that? Adminship discussions seem to have slipped into a contest about beauty and wikilove — sorry, I'm still ranting. A big deal, obviously. But the wrong deal for my taste. You folks make too much of a tantrum here about sysophood. A simple question about whether you trust somone not to abuse the sysop bit would suffice. And also a quick removal if it is abused. What's so difficult about that? This here starts to be a religion. But whatever. It's the wiki process. And again: nothing personal against Phaedriel. It just blew my hat off here when I was reading the support votes. Adminship is ridiculous on this site. --Ligulem 18:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • You're partially right, but admins are not just glorified sysops in my opinion; they serve as role-models, mentors, guides, whatever, and good user interaction is one of the basic criteria for that IMO. —Nightstallion (?) 23:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Yay ^_^ I found someone with the same wikiphilosophy :) — Deckiller 23:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree with Nightstallion.

Secondly, if this little "rant" isn't one of the most obvious violations of WP:NPA (yep calling Wikipedians [or a segment of Wikipedians..all the same, Wikipedians] "freaks" isn't the smartest thing to do), I don't know what is. If it was an oppose vote, I'd strongly suggest that it be ignored. Still, I strongly suggest it should be ignored.

Phaedriel has demonstrated time again that, not only is she a friendly and easily approachable person, she also knows what she's doing. More than 100 Wikipedians can agree with that. One Wikipedian's rather harshly worded opinion isn't going to change that. — Nathan (talk) / 21:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Right you are. I knew I would be tarred and featherd by Phaedriel's pretorians :). Feel free to ignore my "vote" and take my wiki persona to whatever tribunal you see fit. And when we're done with the whole ceremony, you can tell us what to do with the citation templates and all the other things that are piling out there. Are we here to celebrate an adminship election or do we write an encyclopaedia? If Phaedriel really want's to waste her talent in the admin trenches, of course she shall do so (she will do so anyway, did you ever think she would not pass?). And per the "freak": don't take that too literal. It is was more meant as a collective attribution of that collective excitement about Phaedriel's talents. And that strange conception here what adminship is: it's obviously meant as an ambassador title and a trophy. Just the job title "sysop" is a bit strange then. And I wonder why it needs an ambassador to edit {{cite book}} or MediaWiki:Common.css. In normal clubs, they call the service personal, which has the key to open the service cabinet. Here, we hold a celebration while some true "admins" try to tinker with template:cite journal :). I know, I'm evil. I plead guilty. The strongest punishment is to be released of the burdon to keep things rolling at {{cite book}} :). Luckily, I already have that. --Ligulem 00:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
As Ligulem mentioned above, being an admin doesn't mean you spend all of your time in the "admin trenches", as you put it. I have been an admin since March, and I still spend most of my wiki-time as an editor. However, when the circumstances deem it nessecary, I block vandals, I speedy delete articles and images (when called for), and do other admin functions. However, I do not spend all of my wiki-time in the "admin trenches", and I think that many other admins also still contribute to the article space in addition to performing admin duties. I can't speak for Phaedriel, but I doubt having the admin tools will diminish her contributions to the article space. --rogerd 01:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ligulem brings up an important point. Specifically, that several 'wiki-tech savvy' people have failed to get adminship due to things like 'not enough project space edits' or 'user does not have alot of interaction outside template matters'. RFA is often a 'popularity contest' or 'checklist'... which works fine for most cases, but does not account for people whose contributions are outside the 'mainstream' of vandal fighting, deletion processes, 'featured' materials, policy discussion, et cetera. We should take a wider perspective and include everyone who is clearly beneficial to the project. Yes, that opens the door wider for 'problem admins', but then I strongly believe adminship should be subject to renewal to remind us that we are supposed to serve the community. All that being said, IMO the one quality all admins should have is the ability to remain calm and polite during conflict. Usually it really isn't possible to have a good idea about that without long term interaction (which is another reason I think adminship should need to be renewed), but Phaedriel has consistently shown this ability in my experience with her. --CBD 11:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, I don't have enough portal edits. I would never make it. ;) — Nathan (talk) / 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good rant, you raised some timely and valid points, although you disrupted this landslide vote to prove a point, a clear violation of WP:POINT (just kidding). All the WikiLove stuff is slightly creepy sometimes. heqs 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right (even though you say you are kidding). I was proving a point. I have changed my vote to support. My rant is against the sysophood as a whole and what we do with it on this wiki. We are wasting here other talents due to this strange treating of adminship. This annoys the experts. I'm annoyed myself because I'm a template expert and can't edit {{cite book}} & Co. All I need is the right to edit fully protected pages (it's not a technical problem, see Wikipedia:User access levels. A new user group with the "protect" permission would do it). This would have helped other failed wiki-tech sysop candidacies in the past too (User:AzaToth, User:Robchurch). Failing adminship requests is not exactly what the average wikipedian is keen on (Although Rob seems to be pretty immune on this). Both users seem to have left the project for the moment. Wikipedia fails to keep the experts. Another example: [9]. Hey, we have pages about quantum physics on this wiki! We should stop to be a sockpuppet kindergarten and stupid debating club here. Too much waste of resouces (it is interesting how most systemic errors on this wiki can be linked to resource waste...). Now, I'm watching the show :-). --Ligulem 07:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lingeron discussion moved from Main Page

I'll respond in bold. Shannonduck talk 23:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. It depends on the provenance of the picture, the nature of the website, and the context in which it was posted, but one obvious policy is this one (which tends to be enforced by banning with extreme prejudice). Kirill Lokshin 21:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    I strongly suspect Lingeron is banned user Thewolfstar; this response of hers to Bishonen all but confirms it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Bunchofgrapes, my response to Bishonen's weird statement was this "What is that supposed to mean?" Because I didn't, as I still don't, know what the heck she is talking about. How does that say that I am Thewolfstar? Now you are saying here that I am banned user Thewolfstar. You are harassing me over something that doesn't exist. I received a stupid but sort of funny userbox yesterday saying the same thing. I had a feeling when I started editing anarchism that this was going to happen because of all the sockpuppet accusations that were flying at the time, and had in the past. But I thought it was Hogeye or RJll that I would be accused of being. Your suspicians are wrong. I wish you would all stop harassing me like this. It sucks.
  1. I promised myself I wasn't going to respond to Lingeron. It is a waste of my time, as she doesn't listen. However, here I am, with but one thing to say: 'Kindness and civility includes much more than just a superficial display of it.' Shannon? Oh dear, someone hasn't done their homework. Thε Halo Θ 21:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That was an insulting thing to say, The Halo. I don't listen? I'm not a child that needs to listen to you, first off. Second, I don't believe I need to agree with you on any particular thing either.
  1. Dear Lingeron, I thank you for taking the time to reply and evaluate me and my answers to your questions. I wish to agree to disagree with you and close this matter. By all means, if your sincere belief is reflected in your thoughts above, please don't switch your position. But I only wish to make mine clear, since you have misinterpreted some of my thoughts, or perhaps I didn't explain them properly. Straight to the point, so we can both move on? K,
    1- You say that I assume the newcomer is the one who needs talking to, as if he/she was the problem. That's not how I feel, nor what I meant to say. Much on the contrary, I say that "I'd try to talk one on one with that newcomer to understand what the concerns are", precisely because I'd wish to know what is happening and hear what the newcomer's version, and then act; which is exactly the opposite, imho, of your concern that "an admin steps in, does not review the situation thoroughly..."'
    2- You found my phrase concerning newcomers and Wikipedians disturbing; when I talked about a newcomer in that context, I was referring to editors whose first and only edit was to that AfD debate, nothing else. It was never my intention to make a difference in status, I swear. By that, I meant that those users who had come for the first time to WP just to vote at that debate because they were told to do so at an external forum, could appreciate the beauty in our project and become regular contributors, and absolutely nothing else.
    3- I am happy and proud to have approached many new users and guided them into the basics of Wikipedia, or encouraged them to keep it up as they took their first steps; just like many great people did with me when I first arrived. Many of them are today valuable and regular contributors, and some, I consider my friends. Draicone, The Thadman, Karrman... I honestly feel you're being unfair when you judge me in terms like "Kindness and civility includes much more than just a superficial display of it."
    4- I really feel this is not the proper place to discuss WP:WEB or general AfD policies. I'll just point out to you the great number of experienced and serious users who unanimously agreed to delete that article.
    5- You have posted a different text that the one I provided you, and where I tried to reach an agreement and tone the dispute down, and which I already offered you below. The one you posted was my first approach to the matter, which I believe was toned properly considering the circumstances, and the personal attacks that were taking place by then. Regarding the picture issue, you have completely missed the next comment I made, explicitly mentioning that it was not a copyright issue, but a simple question of good faith I was appealing to. You had no way to know this, of course; but the picture I am alluding to was an edited version of the one currently displayed at my userpage with a number of penises pasted on it; Merovingian can attest the truth in my words. Last but not least, and to hopefully close this matter, I'd like to point out that the user I adressed at the very edit you have posted left me this message when the debate ended.
The picture that you have just described is disgusting. I don't think a whole lot of people would disagree with that. No, I didn't see it and I don't want to. The idea of controlling, or trying to control, what happens off of this website does bother me. I don't however blame this on you, as it is not a thing that would be in your control.
  1. Dear Shannon, I absolutely Assume good faith on your part; and again, stare decisis and let's not make a fuss out of this; life is too short. I just wished to make sure that the missing parts in your puzzle clicked in its place, for I humbly believe I have no reasons to be ashamed over my actions. All the best to you, Phaedriel 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Phaedriel, thank you for your response. I will admit that it was said in a kind and gentle manner. I honestly am quite appreciative of that. And I agree. I don't want to make a fuss over this either. To be honest with you I don't feel any animosity towards you at all. Right now after some of the dumb things that have been said to me in the last couple of days, I do feel some disgust with a couple of other people, though. Shannonduck talk 23:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
A general question is still where is this policy concerning off-the-wiki text or pictures or whatever? I was pointed to a couple of brief references to this topic but can someone point me to the actual vote and consensus that was reached concerning this issue? Thanks. Shannonduck talk 23:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think she's not thewolfstar because the last sockpuppet of thewolfstar went out of her way to personally attack me. She hasn't yet. Of course, I could be asking for it with this comment. <don't take it seriously> — Nathan (talk) / 21:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question Answer Session

Since these answers are not related to your RfA, I am asking them on the talk page. I would appreciate if you can answer them, though no marks would be deducted for not answering them. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Of all the current Wikipedia Administrators, whom do you admire most? Why? After you become an admin, would you try to emulate him/her?
Note: In order to save taxpayer's donator's money, no diplomacy is allowed and you have to name only one person.
A. Tough one indeed! And one that will be unfair to the other umm 971? admins I don't choose. I wholeheartedly admire so many people, that I'd never end... Sango123 & Kylu for their talent and kindness, Geogre, Spangineer & Worldtraveller for their knowledge, JzG, Mike Halterman and Cyde for their humour, Blnguyen and Gurubrahma for their unbreakable will, Bishonen for her leadership... so many escape this list that it's unfair to go on. But you asked for "one", so I'll be brave and do that. And my choice is her. Her integrity, her grace under pressure, her kindness and unfailing thoughtfulness set an example in my eyes of so many things I'd like to be as admin, that I consider her without a doubt a model. Regarding your point about emulating her - I have mentioned somewhere else how deeply I believe that our own actions define us, strengthen and model us. So although I would surely ask for her advice, I will always let my conscience and my best judgement ultimately guide any actions I take; because no matter how much I admire her, I'm me - not Ann.
2. Of all the usernames in use, is there any you wish you had? Any specific reasons?
Same note as above.
A. Another good question, which I've asked myself sometimes, without finding a clear answer - besides, I've become very used to be addressed as Phaedriel! But maybe, just maybe, I would pick Sharon, which I found to be registered but never used to make a single edit. The reasons are pretty clear, aren't they? ;)

The questions below are very generic and I would encourage everyone (in addition to the candidate, of course) to try and find the answers for me.

3. How many Wikipedians does it take to change a light-bulb?
A. At least four. One Wikipedian is needed to notice the burnt-out light bulb and flag it with markers documenting a current event and needs attention. Another Wikipedian is needed to change the light bulb. A third person is needed to vandaLIGHT BULBS ON WHEELS!!!lise the light bulb. Finally, a fourth user is needed to revert the vandalism. --Tachikoma 20:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
A. None. It's a hardware problem, and therefore offtopic for Wikipedia. Transwiki to WikiMediaFoundation, and have you made your quarterly donation yet so that the server farm doesn't have to run in the dark? ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
A. One to tell an admin, another to put it on the admin noticeboard, a third to set up a straw poll to decide who should change it, another two at least as candidates for potential lightbulb-changers, a sixth to maintain the straw poll and keep the vote count correct, then finally a bureaucrat to grant the succesful candidate lightbulb-changing privs, at which point they can then change said lightbulb. Final count: seven, or four if people duplicate roles. --Draicone (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
A Ummm... let's see. One to notice the need to change it, who puts it on the requests page. Another one to notice the request and change it. A third one, who happens to notice the new light bulb, believes it is of entirely inappropriate color and therefore, qualifies for WP:LBCFSR (Light bulbs candidates for speedy removal), and he puts a sign on it as such. The fourth one, an admin, notices the sign and removes the light bulb. Incidentally, the one who changed it passes by again, wonders "but where is the light bulb that I've just put here?", and so he gets a new one and replaces it again. Another Wikipedian observes this hard-working light-bulb changer for afar, and having seen it removed minutes earlier, believes at least some discussion is needed, and so he places a sign at WP:LBFR (Light bulbs for removal). For the next days, the Wikipedian who requested for it to be replaced, the one who changed it, the admin who speedy removed it, the one placed the LBfR tag and at least a dozen more will engage in a heated debate about the degree of luminosity of the light bulb, the voltage, its procedence, etc. etc. etc. So I'd say an indefinite number of no less than 20 Wikipedians. Phaedriel 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
A Aren't we all forgetting the guy who sees the user replace the lightbulb, and gives him the 'Lightbulb changing barnstar'? Thε Halo Θ 23:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
A. I entirely forgot about the edit war that would ensue, about whether or not the light bulb needs changing at all. --Tachikoma 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Why did the Wikipedian cross the road?
Apart from the usual: "To edit, of course".
A. In order to increase his/her edit count, of course. --Tachikoma 20:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
A. To increase his/her non-article space edits (naturally). --Draicone (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
A. Ah! Tricky question! We should first ask ourselves of "which" Wikipedian we're talking about! Examples:
  • Curps: to prevent that vandal with an entirely inappropriate name from escaping.
  • Linuxbeak: to go to Wikimania, of course! And don't forget to come, just 5 days to go!
  • Geogre: it basically all depends on "what" we understand by crossing the road.
  • Thewolfstar: actually, she didn't make it. The Vandal Police Department caught her in the middle.
  • Ambuj Saxena: to revert vandalism, raise an article to FA status and update Portal:India... and all that before dinner! :) (j/k, I realy think you can do all that!)
  • Phaedriel: to hug you, of course! ;)
  • Willy on Wheels: dunno, he's too fast! -- Phaedriel 20:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:200?

Hmm... at the rate this is going, this will make it into WP:200 in no time! Fredil Yupigo 01:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, at the midpoint (3 ½ days) the count on this RfA was (206/3/4). For comparison, the current record RfA (CSCWEM 3) had a count of (192/9/3) at the midpoint, and finished at (246/12/5). NoSeptember 19:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the whole "image issues" sub-issue may make the numbersa little lower than we thought :( — Deckiller 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, you have to earn voting records fair and square, and if an issue comes up that prevents it, then so be it. Note that BD2412, CSCWEM and Phaedriel all got these tremendous vote totals the same way: being well regarded users who waited for months before accepting their nomination, even though it was clear they would pass much earlier. The next person who wants to set a record should make a note of the route to success ;). NoSeptember 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't really CSCWEM's path, was it? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
He clearly didn't have to wait over two months after his first (failed) RfA to try again and succeed, so in that sense, it does apply to him - we weren't so stringent about how long you must wait back then. But on his first RfA, he didn't wait, so you are right if that's what you mean. My point was, all three allowed the pressure build on the demand that they become admins. NoSeptember 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1FA discussion from main page

  1. 1FA :-S -- Миборовский 18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    1 FA isn't a reason to oppose anyone, and she does meet it anyways with her featured portals Jaranda wat's sup 18:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    How is it not a reason? That's your own opinion. With 211/5/4 this RFA is a foregone conclusion.
    Anyway. One. Featured. Article. :) I have my own standards, different from Mailer diablo's. But to borrow what he said: Please do not take it personally I have opposed you under this criterion, especially if it turns out to be that odd vote in the RfA. This is done in good faith, and Mailer Diablo wishes all the best to all RfA candidates regardless of outcome. Sorry, my oppose vote remains. -- Миборовский 18:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    Could you be persuaded to change your vote? After all, it's up to us to try and change oppose votes, whether we respect them or not ;) Would you, for instance consider her work on getting Poratl's featured a substitute to 1FA (a 1FP if you will ;) This is in good faith, I respect your vote, but it's up to us supporters to try and change oppinions ;) Thε Halo Θ 20:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    With respects, I don't think it's up to you to change oppose voters minds. RfA is more about amicable community discussion than attempts to sway voters with an us/them mentality. Furthermore, this RfA is going to pass, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. (For what it's worth, while I wouldn't oppose an RfA on featured content, it has been a reason for opposition many times past, and is apparently as valid a reason as any) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not worried per se Hoopydink, but I do think that discussing an oppose vote, while not being arguementative in style, is an important part of the RfA, and one that I would like to see happen more often with support votes. With discussing a oppose vote, one sees different perspectives that one may not have before. One may say, 'oh, I never thought of that. I'll change to support then, this user deserves the mop after all.' While there is practically (i don't want to temp fate) no chance that this RfA will fail, I still think that discussing why someone's opposing is important to the prosess. And while I would love to see an oppose vote change to support, believe me, I won't lose any sleep over it ;) Thε Halo Θ 21:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    Sure thing. Obviously discussing opinions are important in an RfA; that's basically what an RfA is. My only thing was that the user had already stated his reasons (a reason plenty of other users have used in the past without comment) and I felt the prodding to be a bit redundant. I just don't feel it's anyone's job to change oppose votes. As you made it clear that your intentions were to engage in conversation and the fact this RfA is a foregone conclusion probably renders our whole encounter moot anyways. Good stuff, and I'll see you a the wiktory party ;) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'll bring the Champagne, okay? :D Thε Halo Θ 21:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    I wouldn't say 1FA has been used "without comment" before. I and others have challenged it in the past. Although, as it happens, I have both an FA and adminship, many of our best admins don't have a Featured Article under their belts. Furthermore, there's only around 1000 FAs on the entire English Wikipedia. I imagine we have that many admins, maybe more. It seems a little unfair to judge Sharon on a standard which most current admins would fail on, not least considering that she currently has an excellent Portal about to become Featured. --kingboyk 11:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    Of course it has been used without comment. Again, the 1FA thing is not something I would oppose on and I personally don't think it has much bearing on whether one is qualified. However, plenty of others do or did, and we should respect their opinions hoopydinkConas tá tú? 11:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    If that's addressed to me: I am entitled to an opinion too and mine is that 1FA is an unfairly high requirement in any RFA at the present time. Of course I respect the opposing view but, last time I checked, I'm allowed to disagree! --kingboyk 11:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    Of course you are! I'm not sure how you could've possibly interpreted my comments as an attempt to restrict your right to voice your opinions. Hmm... anyways, I don't know what else I could say on the matter, as the oppose voter had already explained himself quite clearly. As such, I guess all that's left to say say is cheers! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 12:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    It's interesting that the request was for a change of vote, not a change in underlying opinion. I wonder if the RfA is being taken too personally, and if the race to make a record in this process is overriding the true meaning of the RfA. Stephen B Streater 14:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cheerleading

I find the community rally behind this RfA a little strange and i think it is way over the top to request a user to change their vote. The best way would be to point out the portals and leave it at that. Or better yet, let Sharon answer for herself. A posse of defenders never looks that good and might even be detrimental. I will alos point out that there is no way Sharon would endorse such a comment (to change vote), so i don't think this kind of thing reflects well on her either. Not too mention the race for the record is inane. Is there really nothing better to do on wikipedia than cheerlead RfA's? David D. (Talk) 15:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please direct us to where someone was directly asked to change their vote? A request to discuss a vote with maybe changing the voters mind behind it is a lot different to actually asking someone to change a vote without any discussion or anything. I, for one, feel that discussing oppose votes is vital to an RfA, as I said above. The fact is that support voters want to see the RfA pass. Therefore, I think it's important to argue the nomannies case, with a view of showing an opposer another side to the arguement. This is very different to requesting a change in vote. Thε Halo Θ 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, well maybe I found you language to be too direct and missed your intent. You wrote:
"Could you be persuaded to change your vote? After all, it's up to us to try and change oppose votes, whether we respect them or not ;) Would you, for instance consider her work on getting Poratl's featured a substitute to 1FA (a 1FP if you will ;) This is in good faith, I respect your vote, but it's up to us supporters to try and change oppinions"
For your information, the bolded text are the parts i read that i thought were a bit inappropriate. I think it would be very possible to discuss the portals without mentioning the user changing votes as well as repeating it is your job as a supporter to change peoples opinion. Sorry if this came across too harsh but that is the way it came across to me at the time. I would have had no problem if you had only argued for the quality of the portals. It is then up to the opposer to decide if this information is the missing information that makes them decided to be more neutral or even supportive. David D. (Talk) 15:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This whole thing has been a little surreal and self-congratulatory. We're advised not to "bother" piling on opposes when it's a foregone conclusion, but somehow it's okay to pile on 200+ superfluous supports in the name of wikilove. I'm abstaining out of disgust for the lack of focus here. -- nae'blis 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm of two minds on this, and very nearly "abstained" myself. I find the "Race to WP:200" to be terribly frivolous, and despise it even more than the "Extreme nude hang gliding support" that used to be an RfA feature. In an ideal world, something like discussion for adminship would make the mob-mentality we've got going here pointless. But in the end I made my decision based upon the same careful examination of the editor's contributions that I always do, despite being quite familiar with Phaedriel. - brenneman {L} 02:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Halo, Hoopy, Stephen, Kingboy and David - I just logged in and observed this discussion, and tho I hesitated at first to say something, I feel I must tell you what I think, and hopefully to close this debate for good.

I noticed Miborosky's oppose yesterday, and his reply to Jaranda, in the sense that his requirements were strict and unequivocal. My reaction? I accepted it immediately and moved on. I didn't even feel necessary to reply, as he was clear regarding his standards, and I just don't meet them - end of the story. What if he had said, "sorry, you don't participate in FAC discussion enough", or "has not been here for a year", or "not enough template edits"? While we may personally disagree with these sorts of standards, we are all entitled to an opinion and guide our actions accordingly - and respecting other's beliefs is an absolute must. Like I expressed at Kylu's RfA, or at my very own one, I strongly encourage not to sway your position, no matter what me nor anyone else may personally belive, if that's where your heart really lies (you can attest to this, dear David, don't you?) Personally, I wouldn't want anyone to support not only me, but any other candidate or cause if the person casting his/her opinion is not convinced that s/he is doing the right thing, with no external interference at all.

This being said, and thanking all of you who are so enthusiastic about the results of my RfA from my heart, I beg you to leave the matter be, just like I did and do now. I know you do this because of the bonds of friendship that we share, but please, it is not necessary. The kind support that the community has given me is something I will never, ever forget, no matter the final count, which will be entirely circumstancial. Once again, thank you to all of you who have taken the time to read this, and to participate at my RfA. I hope we can all remember it with pleasure when we look back - so please, this is not really necessary... is it? Warm regards, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 16:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I know she is right as she is speaking from her heart. We should respect her views. --Bhadani 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding, Phaedriel. :) -- Миборовский 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The recommendation not to pile on oppose votes after a foregone conclusion is to avoid hurting people's feelings unnecessarily. Piling on support votes after a foregone conclusion, while not necessary, shouldn't be hurtful to anyone, and just may make someone who spends her time making many, many editors feel appreciated, feel appreciated herself. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record i have no problem with piling on support, just the attitude of we're going for the record. To a certain extent this actually trivialises the support. With regard to Sharon's comment above "I strongly encourage not to sway your position, no matter what me nor anyone else may personally believe, if that's where your heart really lies (you can attest to this, dear David, can't you?)". Indeed i can attest to this. We discussed my neutral opinion a bit and she was adamant that i should not change my 'vote'. So it stands. This position alone is worthy of a support vote which is why i felt that the cajoling was a little inappropriate. No big deal here, but sometimes it is good to share thoughts. David D. (Talk) 17:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
David does have a pont—Wikipedia is not a cheerocracy. Lobbying will not always yield the intended result—often, and usually, it does the opposite. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well if people feel that there has been cheerleading going on, and lobbying, especially on my part, I can only appologise. This was never my intention. Thε Halo Θ 22:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The cheerleading has been a community effort. i think everyone has been swept up in this RfA. I don't think there is a need to apologise. My comments were intended to be more general although we did end up addressing your specific comments. In retrospect, i think that has unfairly put you under the magifying glass. David D. (Talk) 22:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Likewise. I've spoken out against 1FA before and no doubt will do so again - my being friends with Sharon has nothing to do with it (and I'm addressing this to you too, Sharon). I've not engaged in cheerleading in this RFA, and nor is it needed. Whilst I'd be delighted to see this hit WP:300 she's been a lock-in from the moment the RFA went live, and that's all that matters. Furthermore, love and respect Sharon though I do I also find some of the wording in the nominations a little OTT and I suspect she does too. Over and out. --kingboyk 15:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC) PS: My only objection to 1FA is that it raises the bar too much. Having an FAC succeed is a wonderful thing, probably even more exciting - and certainly more productive - than receiving the sysop bit. I would encourage anyone who has a good quality article under their belts to go that extra mile and get it Featured.

[edit] Record?

If I am not mistaken, this is a record number of positive votes (271) in a RfA. I believe that this number has not been reached before as well on this page. Am I correct about this? --Siva1979Talk to me 19:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. :o) See WP:200. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You are not mistaken. 271 supports breaks CSCWEM's record as can be seen here. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
And the margin record too. NoSeptember 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)