Wikipedia:RFA as RFC/Werdna
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
THIS IS A TRIAL RUN AND THE RESULTS ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A TEST OF THIS PROCESS - HOWEVER, PLEASE TREAT IT WITH THE SAME BRUTALITY AS A REAL NOMINATION
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Contents |
[edit] Nomination
[edit] Nomination statement
This is a summary written by user(s) making a nomination for adminship. Users editing or endorsing the "Statements of Objection" section should not edit the "Nomination statement" section.
[edit] Acceptance
This is a statement of acceptance by the nominee.
Yeah, I accept for the trial run — Werdna talk criticism 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Required questions
These are standard questions for the nominee. Additional questions can be asked on the talk page.
Why do you want to be an administrator?
As with Rory's recent RfA, I am not desperate for, nor do I "need" the sysop tools. However, if I'm promoted, the tools will be helpful to me, and I'll be able to contribute to Wikipedia in a new fashion: backlog-clearing. We have so much administrative backlog, and not enough people are clearing them. I will spend some time clearing backlogs if I'm promoted. — Werdna talk criticism 01:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is where the standard question(s) will go. Questions are still a detail of this process being worked out.
[edit] Users certifying the nomination
Three editors in good standing must certify the nomination before it is listed for discussion.
- - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- – Gurch 13:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Let's run this up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes. Guy 14:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Users who endorse this nomination
Users who support the nomination as presented should sign here. Comments should go on the discussion page
[edit] Statements of Objection
Each statement in objection to this nomination should be presented in a separate section similar to the example below. Users that agree with one or more of these statements may endorse those statements with which they agree. Users presenting additional objections may create a new subsection with a statement outlining those objections.
[edit] Objection
This is a concern raised about the nominee that may be signigicant enough to preclude them for adminship. Users editing or endorsing an "Objection" should not edit a response to this opposing note, or the nomination.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit responses to it.}
- Users who believe the concern is legitimate and significant enough to preclude the listed user from adminship:
[edit] Objection
This is a concern raised about the nominee that may be signigicant enough to preclude them for adminship. Users editing or endorsing an "Objection" should not edit a response to this opposing note, or the nomination.
Apart from blocking (less than a third of the sysop's capabilities), it isn't clear what benefit the candidate will get from being promoted; recently the candidate has spent most of his time on project pages like RFA, RFB, BRFA, RFC, RFAr, VPP, etc. (evidence on talk page); the only pages the candidate frequents for which adminship status is useful are AN, ANI, and AfD (which is well down the list). Although Werdna's efforts to improve policies and processes on Wikipedia are commendable, they do not require a sysop bit. There is no evidence that the candidate will be experienced enough to carry out protections, edits to protected pages, and deletions correctly (although the candidate can probably be trusted with blocks).
- Users who believe the concern is legitimate and significant enough to preclude the listed user from adminship:
[edit] Objection 2
This is a concern raised about the nominee that may be signigicant enough to preclude them for adminship. Users editing or endorsing an "Objection" should not edit a response to this opposing note, or the nomination.
The user shows a lack of responsibility in standing for adminship whilst being on a 'semi-wikibreak to escape from the politics'. As an admin, a user is forced into the politics of Wikipedia whether he or she wants to or not; perhaps indicating a lack of understanding and real willing for the role.
- Users who believe the concern is legitimate and significant enough to preclude the listed user from adminship:
[edit] Objection 3
Werdna claims that "one of my failings is that I have a tendency to use strong language to describe strong emotions". While I recall no personal interaction with this editor, this may lead to concerns of civility. I'm noting this because this is a test run and civility is bound to come up on a full-scale RFA. I do not personally think this is significant enough at the moment, but to 'simulate' an RFA we might assume that four or five editors do, by default. >Radiant< 12:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Users who believe the concern is legitimate and significant enough to preclude the listed user from adminship:
- Cynical 08:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Borisblue 04:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Mailer Diablo 13:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Responses to Objections
Statements may be presented below that respond to opposing statements. Note that this is not the same as supporting the nomination.
[edit] Response to Objection 1
This is a summary written by a user who wishes to respond to an opposing note. Users editing or endorsing a "Response" should not edit the opposing note it responds to.
Thanks for taking part in my request for adminship a trial run of RfA as RfC. I have extensive experience (certainly not just in my last thousand edits) in dealing with issues on ANI, trying to resolve content disputes, and our deletion process. I certainly know exactly how our policy works with regards to these things. I've been here for a year, and dealt with these things regularly. — Werdna talk criticism 01:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Users who agree that the response satisfies the objection raised in an "Opposing note":
[edit] Response to Objection 2
This is a summary written by a user who wishes to respond to an opposing note. Users editing or endorsing a "Response" should not edit the opposing note it responds to.
As stated above, I don't have any strong desire to be an administrator. That said, as I've also stated, the tools would be very useful to me. I believe my reasons for moving away from Wikipedia are secondary to pushing for reform in our Requests for adminship process. I don't think that my being on a semi-wikibreak is really a big deal. Everybody needs a break from the cut-throat politics here every now and then. — Werdna talk criticism 01:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Users who agree that the response satisfies the objection raised in an "Opposing note":
[edit] Response to Objection 3
There's a big difference between incivility causing newbie-biting, and a perfectly civil, but blunt and harsh critique of an established user and their viewpoints. I believe my actions fall into the latter category. — Werdna talk criticism 00:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Users who agree that the response satisfies the objection raised in an "Opposing note":
[edit] Further discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
