Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:24, 30 September 2007

Standard questions?

Does the nominee intend to answer the standard questions? Or ought more specific and relevant questions to be devised? I think the community would, and I certainly would, want to hear how the nominee intends to act if she is given the mop. Sam Blacketer 13:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think she does. Melsaran (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

She should answer the questions.Rlevse 14:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Our friends at Misplaced Pages Review are already discussing this RFA, and have made a very valid point: "everybody already knows the answers to those anyway...". Kelly is perfectly capable of writing tick-box answers to the standard questions, but what would be the point? Moreschi 14:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So those of us not familiar with her or the "Giano kerfuffle" would know where she's coming from. They are standard questions and there's no reason for her not to answer them. Without the answers, you're asking the rest of us to take the nom's word on her behalf and simply isn't right. Also, where is this "wikepedia review" taking place?--and I don't mean the "optional thread" currently going on. Rlevse 14:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Here . You have a few minutes to click this before my comment is removed and I am banned, I suppose. 86.138.190.45 14:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You can ask your own questions, and Kelly will answer those. What's wrong with just going back through Kelly's contributions and finding out for yourself? Also, you have my word of honour as an English gentleman that my nomination contains nothing misleading. Kelly knows enough not to delete the main page or block Jimbo (tempting as that latter option is at times). Enough is known about Kelly, and plenty is on record, to make the questions superfluous. Moreschi —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to dig through her contribs, just as I don't have to for other noms. Her refusing to answer the standard questions indicates she thinks she's special and the rules don't apply to her, something I never want to see in an admin. And whatever she wrote on her first nom is way outdated now as much has occurred since then. Rlevse 14:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you commenting at RFA if you can't be bothered to look at people's contribs? 86.138.190.45 14:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WTF? You mean you don't bother looking at contributions before participating at RFA? God help us...Also, there is a precedent for this: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ragesoss. In this case, I suspect it's a case not of Kelly thinking she is superior, but that she heavily dislikes the questions, which are (in all honesty) a tad banal. I, for one, highly suspect that I copied-and-pasted mine from someone else's RFA...kind of indicative, huh? Moreschi 14:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The rules? AFAIK, the questions are optional, so no "rules" apply here. And you say you "shouldn't have to dig through her contribs"? If you support or oppose an RFA, it is expected that you look at the candidate's edits to determine whether they are suitable. Melsaran (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. I do look at them, I'm saying I should have the choice to and not be forced to rely on the nominators for verbiage. I want to her when the nominee has to say on a standard set of questions. sorry for the confusion.Rlevse 14:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The three standard questions don't say anything about being optional, only the additional ones people add.Rlevse 14:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They are completely optional: "It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants" - see the word optional'? Followed by the questions? Yes, they are optional. They are also, IMO, meaningless, and so any answers Kelly gives would also be meaningless, and it is not in Kelly's habit to say meaningless things. Contributions speak far louder than words. Moreschi 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. IMO it would be a bit ridiculous for Kelly to have to answer the questions in a fashion similar to all the other admin-wannabes who learn policies by rote. We've already seen what she does with the tools. 86.138.190.45 14:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If they're meaningless, why are they there? So now we have two people that refuse to answer them. That's what you'd call a trend and consensus, so let's just get rid of the questions. IP-why are you hiding behind an IP? Rlevse 14:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They're optional - you may wish to answer them, that's all. Removing them wouldn't be a particularly bad idea, actually. Melsaran (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that's something I can agree with here! But in the meantime,... I'm taking a break from this thread now, let the firworks continue-;) Rlevse 14:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not? That aside, the questions are there because of enwiki's sheer bulk causing social inertia, that is, you can't get anything, no matter how broken, changed. I can give you nice breakdown what the questions actually mean, though...

• The first one is walking the fine line between looking too eager to use admin tools, and not having any clue what admin tools are used for.
• The second is a chance to demonstrate calculated humility.
• The third is an opportunity to gain an unmerited reputation for candour.

That's all they are. Moreschi 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I know.Rlevse

IP is behind an IP because he posted a WR link and doesn't want his ass bannzored, I imagine. I don't call 2 people refusing to answer the questions consensus at all, merely personal opinion. I suppose you may let the candidates answers to questions, or lack thereof, influence your opinion. Although, frankly, I neither review contributions minutely nor read the answers to the questions. Contributions are usually meaningless out-of-context and answers to questions are almost always cookie-cutter. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA Bot

Does anyone know why the RFA bot isn't including this? See the one on WP:BN. User:Veesicle 15:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That board is updated by the Bot on the hour. Should be listed at 16:00 UTC. WjBscribe 15:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been listed for far longer than that and the bot didn't include it (on either the half-hour or hourly updates). But I see someone else fixed the issue. User:Veesicle 15:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I looked to see if that was the problem but saw that the ---- was there so guessed it just hadn't updated yet. Anyway - the Bot should now see it at 16:00. WjBscribe 15:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Too bad...

Looks like this is failing by a large margin... I guess Kelly made too many enemies who won't drop their grudges; opposition is coming from people on opposite sides in various disputes as she's done something to piss off people in all "camps". It's a shame, since her recent commentary about Misplaced Pages has been a breath of fresh air. *Dan T.* 20:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You can rest assured that the outcome of this RfA will have no effect on whether or not I continue my commentaries on Misplaced Pages. It is, of course, possible that specific comments made during the process may spur specific commentaries, although I won't know that until it's over. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)