Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Keilana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Edit count for Keilana

[edit] Speedy Close
  1. I support this user but ask for this to be speedy closed, just like any other unnecessary reconfirmation RFAs. Húsönd 01:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Deskana said that no 'crat would close it early. Also, if I withdraw, I lose the tools. Just to clarify. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Why would you lose the tools if you withdrew? Sorry Keilana, you are one of my favorite users but these reconfirmation RFAs are becoming a much unneeded trend. You are open to recall and only a recall RFA should be in order. This is not the case. Húsönd 01:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Errm, it actually is a recall RFA - Alison ❤ 01:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    This is a reconfirmation RfA. Same diff. The result of RRfAs (as they are called) is that "failed/no consensus --> tools removed". — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Indeed, thanks for clarifying, Alison and DHMO. This is a recall request, technically, and I would lose the tools if I withdrew because it would be closed as a failure/no consensus for me to have the tools, and I would have to ask for desysopping on Meta. Again, not a "I think I'll go through RfA to get a bunch of nice compliments" request, more of a "someone asked me to stand again" thing. Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 02:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    This is not a recall. The word "recall" isn't mentioned in the nomination, and this RFA doesn't even comply to User:Keilana/Recall. How can this be a recall? Húsönd 02:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Because of comments I made on WT:RFA saying that I would accept recall/reconfirmation if anyone wanted it because of the recent issues; it was a temporary suspension of my recall procedures. It really should've said recall. Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 02:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Keilana, users participating in this RFA won't be able to guess that this is a recall. And in fact, it is not, as it does not follow your own criteria/procedure for a recall. I strongly recommend that you fix this by providing a detailed explanation on whether this is a reconfirmation or a recall RFA. If it can be fixed at all, that is. Húsönd 02:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Where should I go about this? I don't want to mess with Dihydrogen's nom. Keilanatalk(recall) 02:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Can't get any messier. ;-) Húsönd 02:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    True. I'll clarify what I can. Keilanatalk(recall) 03:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    We have consistency in our set period of days RFA. Sometimes however, it does not take that long to get a consensus on something. Consensus seems clear in this case, and I don't think this RFA has a snowballs chance in heck of failing. I ask, no, I call for the logical conclusion. Thank you, M-ercury at 03:04, January 7, 2008
    So I stand corrected, given wmarsh's evidence. M-ercury at 04:24, January 7, 2008

I am damn confused as to what led to this request for reconfirmation. The users edit history is intact and available, and no accusations of abuse of position has been declared. It seems to me that this reconfirmation was requested just because the ability to do so existed.

Advice to admins out there, if you are going to be open to recall make criteria, like "You must have some sort of a reason". Better advice, don't be open to recall, let the existing procedures handle it, the new ones don't work. Otherwise you get this sort of nonsense where instead of asking "Should this person be desysoped" we are asking "Should we let this admin be an admin" for no reason other than the fact that somebody could do it so they did. 1 != 2 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought one of the conditions with recall was that there had to be a legitimate reason for a recall. I didn't think one could be initiated "out of the blue" in case certain people had a grudge against a particular admin. Acalamari 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The person who initiated has also voiced "support", I believe. I find this rather ironic as somebody who voiced some minor objections about the current renaming process but advised against an RFA. --kingboyk (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)