Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Susvolans - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Netoholic (talk | contribs) at 18:57, 26 June 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:57, 26 June 2005 by Netoholic (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Susvolans

Vote here (1/6/6) ending 18:54 1 July 2005 (UTC)

Susvolans is doing tireless work on stub sorting and vandalism patrol, and has over 6000 edits under the belt. A steadfast contributor who can be trusted to use adminity to further the wiki. Radiant_>|< 18:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

  1. Sarge Baldy 19:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  2. 'Support' - There's always plenty of room at the Hotel RC Patrol. --FCYTravis 19:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No way. -- Netoholic @ 19:35, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
    Any particular reason? Carbonite | Talk 19:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I've seen your comment. Voters should not be challenged. I have at this time not given detailed reasons. No amount of prodding will change that. You'll get a better explanaion when I see fit. -- Netoholic @ 22:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
    FYI, Neto told me he would explain when Sus answered the standard questions. HTH. Radiant_>|< 23:25, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks. That's pretty reasonable and all I wanted to know for now. Carbonite | Talk 23:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Good to know private conversations are, private. -- Netoholic @ 13:07, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
    I've tried many times to move the above threaded comments down to the designated Comments section. I moved them because I believe it is inappropriate for voters to be challenged in this way and, from a practical standpoint, it makes this section less readable and clear. I wanted to take a brief opportunity to illustrate why this practice should be discouraged and discontinued.
    I'd like everyone to consider these things before replying directly to another user's vote.
    There are some serious consequences if this sort of discourtesy persists:
    • Users who have not yet voted may fear similar sorts of pestering. They may even decide not to vote to avoid it.
    • Escalating failures to Assume good faith - When one's vote is challenged, the natural reaction is to feel that the challenger does not believe you made the vote in good faith. Of course, the converse can happen when the voter assumes the challenger has negative motives. On a very public page, and with the challenge directly under a vote, This intensifies. Moving the discussion elsewhere immediately reduces to urgency of the situation.
    • Users who are new to the voting process may expect that challenging a voter is acceptable, encouraged, and part of normal procedure.
    • Especially on a vote page over a user's adminship, they may take any comments or challenges personally. They may also feel badly when someone who supports them acts or is victim to this.
    • Other users who may wish to comment may avoid doing so for fear of over-extending the about of space given to the conversation as it appears in the voting section.
    • When threaded discussions in the voting section grow too long and complex, the vote suffers purely because of the readability of it.
    • Votes may become accidently deleted.
    • Bureaucrats and other readers may have difficulty tallying the voting result.
    • Voters who've been challenged may feel specifically targetted when other similar voters aren't challenged. (In other words, if one voter leaves a simple "Oppose" vote, and so do many others, why would only one of those voters be challenged for more information?)
    • Challenging a voter may be an attempt at poisoning the well or at setting the challenged voter up as a straw man to discredit all who've voted with the challenged voter.
    Alternatives:
    • Instead of commenting directly to any voter, use the Comments section.
    • Comments could go on the Talk page instead of the main page of the vote.
    • Contact the user, via their own talk page or email, and ask for clarification on their vote.
    • Don't comment. If a voter has chosen to leave no explanation, then that is their desire.
    As one can see, there are many alternatives to directly commenting on a vote, and all are much better than commenting directly. Hopefully, if we can learn to at least show this minimum respect, a lot of conflict can be avoided. Likewise, users can be proactive by removing discussion threads from the voting sections, whereever they see them. -- Netoholic @ 18:57, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
  2. Instantnood 19:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I can't support someone who's used their sig for panic-mongering for admin. --Carnildo 20:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Carnildo gkhan 11:26, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose 172 01:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I too dislike the panic-mongering Dmn / Դմն 12:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I want to Support, as I like Suslovans, but I don't see stub sorting as a reason to give someone an admin. Sure, it's necessary gruntwork that needs a reward, but I keep seeing it as a reason to make someone an admin. For what other reasons should I vote for Suslovans? I'm sure I'll eventually move to support but spell out why I should, please. SchmuckyTheCat 19:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral until the editor answers the standard questions. --Sn0wflake 20:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - per Sn0wflake. --FCYTravis 21:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ditto. Would like to support, but the answers need answering... Grutness...wha? 23:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Are you the same one who called me a vandal? If I'm mistaken I apologize. It was either you or someone with a similar name. Everyking 00:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Abstain until the questions are finished. Bratsche 21:54, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A.