Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report HouseBlaster 138 13 6 91 00:50, 23 June 2024 0 days, 19 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 04:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 05:46:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

WP:FRA?

Resolved

 – WP:FRA has been redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject France. —MS10 (Master•C•L) 02:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite get that redirect. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume it's intended for the typo of WP:RFA. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's ok, but I think it'd make a little more sense as a disambig on the France Wikiproject. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 04:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep :) WFC (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The claim "'WP:FRA' redirects here" is now not correct, and I can't get rid of it. Bah. Şłџğģő 04:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

At the top of this WP:RFA, there is a comment that WP:FRA redirects to this article, but it is (as above) no longer the case. The comment after template expansion reads ""WP:FRA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject France." Could that comment be removed? Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 05:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed this in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter. It was not protected, just hard to find. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (And a forehead slap to me, of course I could hit "edit' on a protected article and look at the code, I'd never tried, I just thought "oh, protected, can't edit". Learn something new...) --j⚛e decker^talk 05:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody close Marcus Qwertyus' RFA?

Resolved

 – it's now closed and the ANI thread is resolved as well. Move along, nothing to see here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously not going to pass. As the user who fired the torpedo it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do it myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've closed it, but I can't remove it from the main RFA page, nor can I put a notice on his talk page. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think IP addresses are supposed to close RFA's. I've left a note on WP:ANI. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 18:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

They can close them, just as any other editor can. Aiken ♫ 18:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What he said. Our policy is "Requests for adminship can be closed by non-bureaucrats in certain cases; for example if the user has withdrawn the request or the outcome is very unlikely to be positive. Non-bureaucrats should be very careful in the latter case and only close RfAs when they are not in doubt. In such cases the requesting user should always be asked to consider withdrawal first."–no mention that the "non-bureaucrat" needs to be autoconfirmed. – iridescent 18:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't get very excited about whether an IP can close a snow RFA or not. Wikipedia has bigger problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously it's either a user logged out or perhaps a blocked user. I wouldn't jump on as a 'problem' just yet- the vandalism in Connormah's recent rfa, however, was a bit worrisome. Tommy! [message] 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter are that if it isn't a problem, we shouldn't be looking to make it one. As to the vandalism on Connormah's RfA, that persisted even after it had been closed and the page is now protected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the vandalism on my RfA was just from a vandal who appears to be targeting me. Nothing really. Connormah^talk 05:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sure the current policy allows IPs to comment (but not !vote) in RfAs and to close them in the obvious NOTNOW/SNOW/withdrawn cases. This particular close was certainly entirely non-controversial. However, I wonder if allowing IP comments in RfAs is such a good idea. I may be wrong, but my impression is that in 9 cases out 10, when an IP makes an edit to an RFA, it is either plain vandalism or it is a registered user who for whatever reason does not want to have the comment they are making associated with their username. The latter practice is actually the more problematic one and should not be encouraged: vandalism can be quickly reverted, but when someone who is clearly not a new user makes an RfA edit as an IP, this can cause all sorts of ugly suspicions and accusations and is just the sort of thing could raise the temperature in an RfA (which is always undesirable). My impression is that the cases where an IP editor, who does not have a registered account, makes an edit in an RfA, are rather rare. Nsk92 (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see with disallowing IPs from commenting is that there genuinely are a lot of good faith IP editors with good contribution histories, who, for whatever reason don't want to register. What if they wish to comment in an RFA about actions the candidate took in relation to them (or in relation to anything else, come to think of it.)? Even if your 9/10 guess is right, or 99/100, that still doesn't seem entirely fair to me. Of course you could have a separate discussion about IP editing in general, but whilst it is permitted, allowing them to comment on who gets to administer their edits seems fair.  Begoon^talk 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This thread has been marked resolved, and the topic has shifted from the title. Can I suggest that a new thread be started if there is more to say?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok - just replying to the new comment - didn't see the Resolved note. Doesn't need a new thread for me, I've pretty much finished rambling now  Begoon^talk 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone should close ddbruce's RFA

Resolved

 – done by Courcelles. sonia^♫♪ 05:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would close it but I don't fully understand how and I don't want to do anything stupid. Access Denied^(t|c|g|d|s) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it has absolutely no chance of succeeding. Mauler90 _talk 05:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Doing. Courcelles (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh.

Unresolved

 – I've never seen one before -- no one has -- but I'm guessing it's a white hole....?

Well, I was going to come and contribute my infinite wisdom to all of the no doubt plentiful discussions on this page, but I have arrived to discover that there are no open discussions. What am I going to do about this? So hard to figure this out... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

By starting a discussion about there being no open discussions, you have thereby solved the problem which led you to post in the first place. However, since there is now no problem to solve, this thread is no longer relevant and can be archived. But then that presents a problem where there are no open discussions. Maybe we should start a thread about it? Oh my... --Deskana (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My mind = blown Mauler90 _talk 22:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good, that's what I was hoping for. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I object to this discussion being closed on the grounds that it may cause the universe to implode in on itself in a puff of circular logic. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what is it ?  Begoon^talk 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone ever notice that ADMIN spelled backwards in NIMDA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Cline (talk • contribs) 18:50, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

If the important issues are all dealt with, any chance of a look at the protected requests? --WFC-- 01:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

New Question #4

Hello all, I'd like to propose that we add a new "standard" question #4 to the questions at RfA. Specifically one that asks about previous accounts and having significant edits as an IP. I thought we'd actually done this at one point, but I guess my memory fails me. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)