Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions.

Current time: 00:05:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

Archives

2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 Most recent Template:Archiveline Template:Archiveline

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The current RFA for Acather96 is a perfect example of the inconsistency and failure of the RFA process. Although Acather96 is a good person they have zero need for the tools, no demonstrated technical capability to use them, no Featured content work and has just come back from a long break. The main reason they seem to be applying for the tools is because they are getting bored with regular editing. This RFA seems to be a landslide support but yet all the failures of this candidate have derailed dozens RFA's, many in the last few months. A few examples, this month New Age Retro Hippie 3 failed because they didn't have enough experience at AFD, XFD or activity in the last couple years, all apply to the current candidate; several have been derailed since this summer for lacking content building experience including Lugia2453 where several supporters of the current RFA opposed; etc, etc. A couple even state openly they don't meet "all or some of their criteria". It seems to appear that pure luck is what passes an RFA these days rather than a demonstrated need and capability to use the tools and a fair amount of hypocrisy is present on the case of the voters opposing other candidates and then supporting this one for the very same reasons. Kumioko (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not unreasonable for an editor to apply to be an admin even if they have "zero need for the tools". They might have had their fill of regular editing and want to do a new job that will be useful to the encyclopedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I could agree with that if the editor had some demonstrated experience in admin areas, and I should clarify that the current RFA is only one example of a larger problem and I am not targeted that editor specifically. When editors support one candidate as they are but then oppose others for reasons that the currently supported candidate clearly doesn't have, it proves that the current process isn't working. Kumioko (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some people support or oppose based purely on their 'gut feelings' of a candidate, or the candidate's personability. I think most Wikipedians' intuitions have been spot on. -- œ^™ 00:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true but I still don't think this user has demonstrated a need for the tools or the technical ability to use them. It looks to me like another of those editors who will get the tools and not use them. Its unfortunate that these days the only ones who can pass are the ones who don't get involved in admin areas prior to getting the tools. That is not how the process should work. Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko, if you've got a point to make, head across the road to the RfA in question and !vote. I don't think it's particularly fair to begin what is essentially a bashing thread against a candidate whose RfA is currently running. And this from an editor who has consistently criticised the hostile atmosphere surrounding RfA. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take another look Basalisk because I did vote oppose. I also stated clearly that this isnt about this individual. Its in reference to the fact that several of the people who have supported this candidate opposed others for the very shortcomings this editor has stated or less. It gives the impression (and not too subtlely I might add) that getting the tools is less about what you know and more about staying below the radar until you get them. I would also clarify that I told the individual on their talk page it wasn't peronsal towards them and I waited until the RFA was essentially locked into a win before i started the thread. Now I know that you don't care about reforming RFA and just want me to go away, andI plan to do that in about 3 days, soo drop you droll about how this is only about my not getting access to the tools, its not and never has been. That's just PR from editors who don't like me getting the better of you. How about you step up and do something to make this process better since I am doing so badly at it. Also I honestly don't think anyone else really wants this process to change, after all it worked well enough to get them access to the tools so to say it isn't working would also be to say they didn't get the tools fairly right. I mean its not like we dont have enough adminsn to do all the tasks, we certainly don't have any backlogs of admin tasks and we didn't have to create 3 new roles over the years (rollback filemover and Template editor) to compensate for the lack of admins. Nope, I am just dreaming all of that. So please, please put your time where your mouth is and help improve this process. Kumioko (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well what I'm implying is that your !vote is sufficient, there isn't any need for yet another barrage on the talk page to follow it up. Telling someone "it's not personal" doesn't make any difference to how personal a criticism feels. If you go up to someone and say "you're a fucking asshole, nothing personal" it doesn't magically become impersonal. I just think the last thing someone needs when he's running the gauntlet of RfA is to be made the thinly-veiled subject of a critical piece on the talk page. Boring garden-variety straw man at the end there too, accusing me of being "against RfA reform" on the basis that I'm against the language you use to address it - "you're against [my idea] x so you're clearly also against [what everyone else supports] y". And please don't tell us yet again that you're leaving. I'd like you to stay, if you're going to leave so be it, but please stop saying you're going to leave if you're not Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked to stay too but I am of no use to this project. I can't participate in the areas want to participate in so there isn't any point in staying. The editing environment has become toxic and the site has become a joke to most of the word outside its editors for a variety of reasons. Even longtime supporters and funding providers are cutting ties. I used to have a lot of passion for the project and pride in being an editor here and more and more I am embarrassed to tell people I edit Wikipedia, the encyclopedia very few can edit and those that do are severely restricted. Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding that the nature of running an RfA at this particular time coincides with abnormal editing routines, i.e. I'm personally unlikely to be scheduling in the amount of research I'd normally expect to undertake. The same may be the case for others. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm guilty of having done less research this time than I normally would. It would be surprising if we're the only two. Maybe there should be a moratorium on launching RfAs between, say, 14 December and 28 December. If in future years an RfA is launched when it will run over the festive season, I may just ABF and oppose on principle ;) --Stfg (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find it disappointing and annoying that the ones who get the tools are the ones who really don't need them and show no signs of using them. Those that do meddle in admin areas are shot down because the mentality is they have shown they could do the tasks without the tools. Or they have participated in those areas long enough to make some enemies. Its meaningless to me any more I have taken the hint, that's why I only comment in discussions now. Soon enough not even that. But if I were other editors like Wikid and Cyberpower who routinely do admin stuff and keep getting told no only to hand the tools out to others who have no demonstrated need or knowledge of the tools I would feel pretty insulted. Too many admin tasks rely on non admins helping out and the admins forget that. Kumioko (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Trevj: Surely that isn't cheating, is it? Maybe the running of that RfA was just a coincidence and not a previously planned delay in launching a RfA. Epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't suggesting cheating... just that it could've perhaps been more thoughtfully timed. Of course, there are no rules regarding the timing, and candidates need to consider their own availability to promptly answer questions. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were more than 80 participants, and though it ended over Christmas the busiest time in most RFAs is the first couple of days which were clearly not in the holiday season. As this was the only RFA running from the 21st to the 24th I would consider that it had more scrutiny than many of our current admins had in their RFAs. However as this is not the first time that the holiday issue has come up, perhaps those for whom it is an issue could list the days that should be disregarded when calculating the length of RFAs and propose an RFC to extend all RFAs from 7 days to "7 days ignoring Diwali, Good Friday, New Years Day, Christmas Day and April the 1st". I'm not sure if I'd agree with you, but I've no objection to people trying to change policy via RFC, whilst I do find it distasteful to see people try to change policy by objecting to people who follow it. ϢereSpielChequers 09:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you necessarily need to have FAs, or have participated in AfDs and XfDs or whatnot to be an admin. Some admins just get the tools for a single purpose (for example, Trappist the monk got admin tools solely so they can edit protected templates). Other admins just apply for adminship so they can have bundled user rights, not necessarily so that they can do admin tasks. Besides, the admins who don't use the tools now may use them later. Just because these admins have no need for the tools now does not mean that they will not use them at all, ever. Who knows, Acather96 may end up making thousands of page protections, page deletions, blocks, pagemoves, etc. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Acather96 and especially his answers to q1 and q2 there are some obvious differences between his RFA and certain ones that failed. His q1 answer illustrated a use of the tools for which he was qualified - no surprise that he already has 273 logged admin actions and his q2 answer demonstrated that he has content creation under his belt. There are some editors who want to see FAs, but the consensus at RFA seems to be that the content creation test is that you need to have demonstrated the ability to add content cited to reliable sources. I've seen RFAs that failed for several common reasons, but Acather96 avoided all of them, not because of lack of scrutiny but because he was a qualified candidate who avoided certain pitfalls. ϢereSpielChequers 21:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having voted on almost all RfAs over the past few years and closely studied dozens of older ones, I notice that trends in voting appear to come and go in waves. The past year or so appears to have placed rather more emphasis on participation in GA and FA. While solid content contribution and ideally some immaculate creations beyond stubs is essential to have demonstrated that those who wish to police pages should know how to produce them, a correct and useful participation in admin related areas is just as important and possibly even more so. These are also the areas where voters should do their own research rather than piling on with support or oppose votes 'as per' other participants who may well have got their voting rationales quite wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that fashions in the question section come and go, but the content creation threshold seems to have been fairly stable for some years. FAs and GAs are of course an autopass for the content creation test, but the threshold for support is much lower, and going back to Kumioko's three examples at the start of this thread, neither of the two who failed had demonstrated an ability to add reliably sourced information to the Wiki, whilst the candidate who succeeded had passed that test. We do sometimes get opposes for lack of an FA, but I'm not aware of any RFA ever where that alone has sufficed to fail a candidate. We also have a consistent test re need for the tools, here I'm sometimes on the losing side as I hold the view that if we can persuade a qualified member of the community to carry the mop they will perforce find themselves using those extra buttons, and perhaps more cautiously than some. However I wouldn't nominate a candidate unless they could credibly convince the community with their Q1 answer, and if a candidate's answer to Q1 fails to make a sufficient case to pass their RFA I may not even bother assessing them sufficiently to !vote. ϢereSpielChequers 09:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The robust success of Acather96's RfA only serves to remind how completely bogus "no need for the tools" is. — Scott • talk 13:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also shows that if you don't make waves, go with the system and keep your head down you'll get the tools, but if you try and make this project better you stand no chance. That's not the environment most people want to participate in and a key reason why I left. The only reason I am commenting now is because someone sent me an email and asked me to comment because my name was mentioned. The arguments that WereSpielChequers presents that the examples I gave would not make good admins are completely false and only reinforce the current attitude that technical editors have no respect here. Not everyone is going to make FAs (especially since the process heavily favors British speech over American) but because for many of us that's not what they are interested in. Likewise, many don't want to code templates and do stats work. But that's no reason to hold them back and tell them they can be trusted with the ability to block. That argument is a complete fallacy and fundamental problem why the Wikipedia editing environment has turned into such a disgrace and an embarrassment. For all of the comments and bullshit being written on this page about how you all want to change this process not one editor on this page except me has any interests in making Wikipedia a better place, just business as usual because that what allows you to maintain control. You all should be ashamed! The lack of trust in the editors in this community is disgraceful. Kumioko (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... not one editor on this page except me has any interests in making Wikipedia a better place, just business as usual ..."^{[citation needed]} doesn't make this place better either! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not but no one here is doing anything at all to prove that statement wrong and no one can deny that I tried for years to make it better at the cost of my own reputation. Because it mattered to me to make it better. But instead, because the people in power want to keep it and hold the project back by not allowing editors to contribute we end up with a toxic editing environment where too few people can help out and the project continues to suffer. Then, we split off tools and create new roles like Template editor on the premise of helping the project when in reality the only reason was because there is no trust left in this community and a strong lack of desire to allow technical editors to do what interests them somehow hoping that they will change their inclination and start creating FA's or helping at ANI, CCI or some other admin area without the ability to even be able to help because they don't have access to the tools. Then we only give access to the tools to people who are ultra conservative and won't rock the boat. Then we allow other "admins" who should have had the tools stripped long ago, like Sandstein, bullies like Rschen or editors who don't do anything at all like Guerrilero other than some make believe governing body to continue to have access to tools they abuse continuously or don't use at all. Then we wonder why we have months long backlogs in some areas. Gee I wonder. The question here shouldn't be why is Kumioko being such a jerk. The question should be, what did the community do, to turn a contributor who was once deeply committed to the project and who devoted countless hours to it, to a point where they no longer have any respect for the project at all. Its the same core reason why editor retention in general is a problem here and why fewer and fewer editors join our ranks, a complete lack of trust towards editors who have repeatedly shown devotion to the project only to have the community tell them to fuck off, were better off having backlogs than having your help..your not trusted. Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO one piece of the answer remains obvious. Decide on qualities useful for admin and structure the RFA process to nudge it towards more discussion / evaluation regarding those points. That would make the criteria far less random/wrong. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your partially correct but what really needs to happen is we need to get back to a point where adminship is no big deal. We need to give the tools out to people who need/will use them and remove them from those who are abusing them. Both need to make it easy. This we can trust the community to promote but not to recognize a bad admin BS needs to stop. I admins are abusing the tools, they need to have the tools removed, at least temporarily. If they aren't using them, remove them. If the ability to block is that important we shouldn't leave it on a dormant account for a year before removing it. If its really that important (and I personally believe that argument is merely an excuse to justify keeping power in the hands of a few) then it should be removed after 30 days and then if they come back they can have it back. No muss no fuss. Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kumioko, I didn't say the two candidates had failed would necessarily make bad admins, and I certainly didn't say they needed an FA. I just pointed out that one of the community's expectations is that a candidate need to have demonstrated the ability to have added reliably sourced content, and that was one key difference between Acather96 and the other two. I'd be happy to see either of them come back here in the next few months with that resolved. ϢereSpielChequers 19:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott, I know it was asserted in this thread that Acather96 was an example of a candidate who could have been opposed for "no need for the tools". But if you read his answer to Q1 answer in his RFA you'll see a very strong case as to why he needed the tools and was ready for them, hence no-one should be surprised that he has already done hundreds of loggged actions in his first couple of weeks as an admin. I don't personally agree with the "no need for the tools" argument, and I'm sure I've seen it torpedo an RFA in the last few months. But Acather96 was in no danger of failing tfor that reason. ϢereSpielChequers 19:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eamon Kelly was born in Dublin in 1963 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukekelly2009 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want Wikipedia:Requested articles. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under the General Comments section under Kevin's RFA, it's written, "Edit summary usage for Kevin can be found here. On clicking, the link show's it's dead. The replaceable link is this. Anyone for any help on how to fix this problem for this RFA as well as other future RFA's? Thanks! Ethically ^(Yours) 07:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone else knows otherwise, this has fixed it. I previewed its use in a draft RfA and the Example User link worked for me, as did the link for another user when using the template in preview mode. This change appears uncontroversial, given the change in Toolserver links. Acalamari 09:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how long it was going to take for someone to fix that! Now lets see how long it takes to fix the other problem with the RFA template(s)? Kumioko (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KumiokoCleanStart: Which problem would that be? If you let me know what it is, I'll see if I can't fix it for you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have always had a lot of respect for you MR. S and I have always thought you were one of the better admins on this site so don't take this personally but I am done doing the work for other people. I did it for years and all I got was insulted and told I couldn't be trusted so if I can't be trusted then it doesn't need to get done. Also, just as an FYI, I locked that account so regardless of whatever else happens that Username has been abandoned. Here is a partial hint though for old time sake...there is more than one RFA related template. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No "hints", please. Either let me know what needs fixing, or don't. Anything else is just a waste of time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@138.162.8.57: @Mr. Stradivarius: - I've gone through all the templates in Category:Templates related to requests for adminship and checked the links, I fixed a few problems but nothing major. {{RfA talk}} needed a link update, Huji's tool on {{RfA toolbox}} was a deadlink and I removed it, this tool I left on the same template as it stated it was currently unavailable, but it might come back later. The error Kumioko was probably referring to was on {{RfA/sandbox}}, which was identical to the above and I've now fixed. One link needed updating on {{Rfal}}. Whilst it was very childish of Kumioko to just offer hints and tips, I'd at least thank him for reminding us that we need to give the RfX templates a little spring clean every now and then! Thanks, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 17:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Great catch @Acather96:, the one I was talking about was the broken link in RFA tools. I didn't even know about the other 2 you found so although you might think it was childish, the project benefited from you reviewing the templates. For what its worth, its also childish for the community to tell an editor who devoted years to the project they aren't trusted and that their edits must be reviewed by an admin to be implemented but then have the admins doing the change admit they wouldn't know if they were correct or not. Its childish to allow admins to abuse the system and generally hold them to a lessor standard of etiquette but then treat editors like second class citizens in the site. There are tons of childish things going on within this site, but my decision to not do the work because the community doesn't trust the work I do, after doing it for years, isn't particularly childish. If there was more trust in this community I would still be a high output contributor and would have made that change to the RFA template back in July when I found it...along with a dozen others with other templates and the myriad of vandalism that still sits on articles in my watchlist (I assume, because I locked my account so now I can't see it). And while were on the topic of changing things someone should probably update the message genereated when users are restricted from creating a new account. There is a link still pointing to the Toolserver. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• You know what, I think it is absolutely laughable that an editor who has spent 18 months widely disparaging the project and many of its contributors has the bare-faced hypocrisy to declare themselves "gone" but who, in this section alone, has contributed using 2 usernames and 2 of his many unregistered IPs (to the absolute confusion of any editor who doesn't actually realise who it is). It is the epitome of intentionally confusing & bad faith editing and needs to be dealt with. Leaky Caldron 17:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First let me address that I only used one username, I did in fact use 2 different IP's though. One is from my home and one is from my work. I will also admit that the work one can get a little confusing because its a variable proxy so it changes occassionally. So yes I admit it is somewhat confusing. It is not however done to intentionally confuse nor is it bad faith. The fact is, if this community wasn't so distrusting of its users I would still be editing. If this community did something about the admin abuse that is going on in the site, I would still be editing. But because neither of the 2 are true I have no need for a username. I frankly am finding it quite enlightening editing as an IP. As a longterm experienced editor I am getting to see how IP's are treated. I am seeing the broken error messages and the obvious desire by some in the community to disallow IP anonymous editing. Aside from that, I don't really care what you do, block me or don't, if I want to edit, its not going to stop me and you'll just wsate more time and resources than letting me edit. That is unless you want to block the entire Navy and Verizon Fios networks. The truth is I look at it this way, as long as admins are allowed to violate policy and abuse editors with no remourse or repercussions, then there is nothing holding me to one account. There is no policy that says I have to login nor that I do it only from one IP. So really, other than being a little confusing, I'm not even breaking a policy whereas admins due that all the time. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your contributions are wholly non-constructive, borderline trolling which, per policy, is disruptive. Shame there is not an Admin. with the balls to block your IP addresses. I personally couldn't care less who's network it is. You are happy to use it to hold the community over a barrel and put up with your repeated, nonsensical, vexatious diatribes. The community didn't want you as an Admin., that's all. Get over it and get a life. Leaky Caldron 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, but perhaps if you and others put as much effort into advocating that admins be held accountable for their mistakes and that they not be held to a lower standard, then Wikipedia would be a better place to edit. We all know that there are abusive admins on this site but no one has the balls you mentioned earier to do anything about them either. The Arbcom doesn't, the bureaucrats don't, the WMF doesn't, and you and your peers don't either. Sure you like to complain about my complaints, but that's just because you don't care enough about the project to advocate something be done about it. If I have to go down in flames to get the project unscrewed so that people on this site are treated equally again and not based on some extra tool they have, then so be it. But no one can say I didn't try and just because you don't like what I am saying doesn't make it trolling. It just means you don't like the message. So get back to work editing and quite bitching at me for trying to do something to improve this cess pool. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are way off track with that nonsense. There are many, many Admins. I have held to account for shoddy work and poor behaviour, whether locally, or at AN/I, RfB & Arbcom. Leaky Caldron 18:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really but you are right, there are a lot of admins, a little over 1400. Of those only about 500 have edited in the last 6 months, of that only about 100 are more than semi active and over that its only about 10 - 15 that I would consider abusive. So that really is a small minority. But what happens when you put rat poison in soup? It spoils the soup. So it doesn't take manyt bad admins to have a profound, negative effect on the project. Your also righ that sometimes they get sent to ANI an Arbcom but the first problem here is that seldom does anything. Their told not to do it for the 10 or 12th time and that's that. Secondly Arbcom is a nightmare process that few will endure. So by the time the admin is submitted to Arbcom, for them to generally just do nothing and end the case after spending a month, a lot of damage has been done and credibility in the project lost. Admins aren't perfect and no one expects them to be, not even me. But when we see a pattern of misconduct and everyone in the project who sees it just lets it go (and I know you know of some cases) then that's a problem. I did it too, I ignored it for years and for that I was a "good editor", now that I am trying to put an end to that stupidity I am the monster. Well I would rather be the monster that tries to fix the problem than the subservient stooge that ignored it and let the problem get worse. I did that for a long time, if I would have stepped up sooner and not ignored it, maybe the problem wouldn't be so bad now. When we can get back to an environment of trusting our editors again and the admin tools are easier to get and easier to take away (notice I think it needs to be both, not one or the other) or the tools are broken up (or both), then this project will start getting popular again. Unless we show our editors that we trust them, and to be clear most we can, contrary to popular belief, then this site will continue to be a joke as we protect more content and ban more editors. Not every editor need to be able to block or delete nor do they want too, but there is a generally complete lack of trust in this site that didn't used to be here. It used to be AGF until given a reason not too, now its assume bad faith until shown otherwise because we have let abusive admins get it to that point. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi... Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rudra john cena - The user has not translc'ed the review page, but is advertising it on his user page. --AdmrBoltz 20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So advise the editor :-) ES&L 21:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Haven't been at RfA for quite sometime :) --AdmrBoltz 22:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, a table of nominations shows up in this revision but this edit made it disappear; does someone know why? Chris857 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure what you're referring to. But the RFA has been closed/removed and the table of nominations is present on the page. Going back to view the previous revision, it looks like the table is still there. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A rather unusual situation has transpired over the past five days, as we've had four consecutive RfA closed without a single support vote cast in any of them. Furthermore, of the 15 unsuccessful RfA closed this year, 10 of them have had zero support votes (including 6 of 7 this month). By contrast, we hadn't really had any RfA of this kind at this time last year. Does anyone have any idea why we are seeing an increase of RfA filed by obviously under-experienced users? Northern Antarctica (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]