| Revision as of 22:44, 2 January 2006 editGateman1997 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,159 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:41, 26 May 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Ed emailed me and asked me tell everyone "If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve." This was because it occurred to me to write and ask him when I flagged this article as being a <nowiki>{{speedy}}</nowiki> candidate. ] 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Ed hasn't edited since Dec 11th. He may not want this popularity process that encourages people to express negative opinions. This Rfa should be closed NOW by an admin, ] 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | Ed hasn't edited since Dec 11th. He may not want this popularity process that encourages people to express negative opinions. This Rfa should be closed NOW by an admin, ] 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I agree. I could close it but I'd prefer the people who started the RfA to do so.--] 21:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | :I agree. I could close it but I'd prefer the people who started the RfA to do so.--] 21:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 5: | Line 7: | ||
| ::::It's not supposed to be linked to the main page UNTIL the user accepts.] 22:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | ::::It's not supposed to be linked to the main page UNTIL the user accepts.] 22:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| This is invalid, because the nominee has not accepted. You're effectively turning it into an RfC about a user who has left. ] <sup |
This is invalid, because the nominee has not accepted. You're effectively turning it into an RfC about a user who has left. ] ] 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Why are people voting is my question. This is valid ONCE he accepts. However voting is supposed to wait until he's accepted and it's placed on the main page.] 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | :Why are people voting is my question. This is valid ONCE he accepts. However voting is supposed to wait until he's accepted and it's placed on the main page.] 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 12: | Line 14: | ||
| *Seconded. Let it sit for another 48 hours, and if there's no complaint, speedy it. --] 22:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | *Seconded. Let it sit for another 48 hours, and if there's no complaint, speedy it. --] 22:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **Thirded? However if the page is protected how can Ed accept on the off chance he comes back?] 22:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | **Thirded? However if the page is protected how can Ed accept on the off chance he comes back?] 22:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ***We may take heart that Ed's many months of Admin access have doubtless left him well-versed in the ]. ]|<span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;"><sub>]</sub></span> 22:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***If it's gone when/if he returns, someone could just re-nominate him. If it's still here, he could leave a message right here, or on any admin's page, asking for un-protection. ] | ] 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Agreed (although I won't be around). ] ] 22:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Agreed. --] 00:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Ditto. Wait another 2 days, then speedy the page. Ed can comment here if he wants this RfA opened, but I think anyone looking to start fresh would want an opportunity to accept and perhaps comment before any votes were cast or discussion initiated. ] ] 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***I agree. I'm still at a loss as to why people started voting on this before it was accepted.] 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****That's wikipedia for you. If they had all been positive endorsements I would not have said anything but as thery weren't I felt it important to flag the situation. A number of editors have left wikipedia due to negative feedback in their Rfa's so we must remember that an Rfa is a sensitive thing, ] 01:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Baaaah'''. Sheep-like agreement that the RFA should be deleted tomorrow if Ed doesn't come back. ] 13:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I would suggest that archiving it would be better. It seems a shame to be deleting things that should be considered part of public record on Misplaced Pages. --] 15:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah, archiving sounds good. See ya later! :-) ] 00:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've just reverted another use of this RfA as a reverse-RfC. I've also reprotected it. People must learn when to stop, and if they can't learn, must simply ''be'' stopped. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry I didn't read the talkpage of this before adding to the article. I've stated my reasons for why I don't want Ed to be an administrator. Why not just delete this whole thing to let the process be done correctly? --] 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Because Ed Poor has indicated above that he wants it archived. And there is no process to be done correctly, since Ed Poor has indicated quite clearly that he ''will not'' presently accept a nomination. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Because this RFA wasn't supposed to be publically voted or listed until Ed accepted per RFA procedure. A few users jumped the gun, it's no reason to delete it. However since Ed has turned down the RFA officially then we can now archive it.] 22:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for the clarification. If this page does go live some day, will it be on this page or will a new one be created? --] 22:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Probably a new one created. Assuming Ed ever wants his job back but as of now he's left the project in disgust so it may be a while.] 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Okay, but I would like to be informed when/if a new page is created because I have a personal stake in what I considered to be abuse of admin powers by him against me before he was desysopped. If a new page is created, can I get somebody to let me know on my talkpage? --] 22:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:41, 26 May 2022
Ed emailed me and asked me tell everyone "If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve." This was because it occurred to me to write and ask him when I flagged this article as being a {{speedy}} candidate. SqueakBox 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ed hasn't edited since Dec 11th. He may not want this popularity process that encourages people to express negative opinions. This Rfa should be closed NOW by an admin, SqueakBox 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I could close it but I'd prefer the people who started the RfA to do so.--Alabamaboy 21:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- It will be closed 7 days from the time it was created unless Ed accepts. Doing anything otherwise violates policy, including all the voting that is taking place.Gateman1997 21:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The candidate hasnt accepted the nomination, or been active for a few weeks, and ithe nomination hasn't even been linked to the main WP:AfD page; it's not like it's really following policy as it is. Joyous | Talk 22:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's not supposed to be linked to the main page UNTIL the user accepts.Gateman1997 22:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The candidate hasnt accepted the nomination, or been active for a few weeks, and ithe nomination hasn't even been linked to the main WP:AfD page; it's not like it's really following policy as it is. Joyous | Talk 22:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- It will be closed 7 days from the time it was created unless Ed accepts. Doing anything otherwise violates policy, including all the voting that is taking place.Gateman1997 21:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This is invalid, because the nominee has not accepted. You're effectively turning it into an RfC about a user who has left. SlimVirgin 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Why are people voting is my question. This is valid ONCE he accepts. However voting is supposed to wait until he's accepted and it's placed on the main page.Gateman1997 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Protected
I have protected this page. There is no reason for anyone to 'vote' here, since Ed has no accepted. This is becoming an RfC by any other name, without the subject here to deal with it. I would not object to a deletion, in the manner of an uncertified RfC. -Splash 22:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded. Let it sit for another 48 hours, and if there's no complaint, speedy it. --Durin 22:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thirded? However if the page is protected how can Ed accept on the off chance he comes back?Gateman1997 22:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- We may take heart that Ed's many months of Admin access have doubtless left him well-versed in the arcane and dubious methods by which one can get a page unprotected. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 22:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- If it's gone when/if he returns, someone could just re-nominate him. If it's still here, he could leave a message right here, or on any admin's page, asking for un-protection. Joyous | Talk 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed (although I won't be around). AnnH 22:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thirded? However if the page is protected how can Ed accept on the off chance he comes back?Gateman1997 22:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Alabamaboy 00:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ditto. Wait another 2 days, then speedy the page. Ed can comment here if he wants this RfA opened, but I think anyone looking to start fresh would want an opportunity to accept and perhaps comment before any votes were cast or discussion initiated. bd2412 T 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm still at a loss as to why people started voting on this before it was accepted.Gateman1997 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's wikipedia for you. If they had all been positive endorsements I would not have said anything but as thery weren't I felt it important to flag the situation. A number of editors have left wikipedia due to negative feedback in their Rfa's so we must remember that an Rfa is a sensitive thing, SqueakBox 01:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm still at a loss as to why people started voting on this before it was accepted.Gateman1997 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Baaaah. Sheep-like agreement that the RFA should be deleted tomorrow if Ed doesn't come back. The Land 13:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ditto. Wait another 2 days, then speedy the page. Ed can comment here if he wants this RfA opened, but I think anyone looking to start fresh would want an opportunity to accept and perhaps comment before any votes were cast or discussion initiated. bd2412 T 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would suggest that archiving it would be better. It seems a shame to be deleting things that should be considered part of public record on Misplaced Pages. --Improv 15:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, archiving sounds good. See ya later! :-) Uncle Ed 00:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just reverted another use of this RfA as a reverse-RfC. I've also reprotected it. People must learn when to stop, and if they can't learn, must simply be stopped. -Splash 22:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't read the talkpage of this before adding to the article. I've stated my reasons for why I don't want Ed to be an administrator. Why not just delete this whole thing to let the process be done correctly? --ScienceApologist 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Because Ed Poor has indicated above that he wants it archived. And there is no process to be done correctly, since Ed Poor has indicated quite clearly that he will not presently accept a nomination. -Splash 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't read the talkpage of this before adding to the article. I've stated my reasons for why I don't want Ed to be an administrator. Why not just delete this whole thing to let the process be done correctly? --ScienceApologist 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Because this RFA wasn't supposed to be publically voted or listed until Ed accepted per RFA procedure. A few users jumped the gun, it's no reason to delete it. However since Ed has turned down the RFA officially then we can now archive it.Gateman1997 22:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. If this page does go live some day, will it be on this page or will a new one be created? --ScienceApologist 22:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Probably a new one created. Assuming Ed ever wants his job back but as of now he's left the project in disgust so it may be a while.Gateman1997 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, but I would like to be informed when/if a new page is created because I have a personal stake in what I considered to be abuse of admin powers by him against me before he was desysopped. If a new page is created, can I get somebody to let me know on my talkpage? --ScienceApologist 22:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Probably a new one created. Assuming Ed ever wants his job back but as of now he's left the project in disgust so it may be a while.Gateman1997 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. If this page does go live some day, will it be on this page or will a new one be created? --ScienceApologist 22:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)