Wikipedia talk:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies

My unsuccesful RfA is labelled failed here, but I received more support votes than oppose. Shouldn't it be labelled consensus not reached?--Bkwillwm 22:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I see it now correctly says "withdrawn by bureaucrat" -- Cecropia 07:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Bcrat name on withdrawals

Thanks for your help in keeping this page tidy, but please leave the removing Bcrat's name on withdrawals. I have a few objectives:

1. Provide visitors with more precise information where reasonable
2. ID the removing bureaucrat to discourage someone from removing nominations with the generic "withdrawn by bureaucrat" and noone cheks to see it was actually a bcrat that did it
3. Let the removed candidate or anyone else interested know who did the removal so that bcrat can be contacted for questions, since this is a bureaucrat function not recorded in the bureaucrat log.

I will add more ID's as I have time, or you can help, if you've got lots of free time on your hands. :) -- Cecropia 07:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Your plan seems good to me. I notice you added the vote count on one. Is the plan to add the final vote count to all entries, even if withdrawn by candidate? or just bureaucrat withdrawals? NoSeptember ^talk 07:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of "how much work are we willing to do"? :D I think we should add the count on the unusual removals first, then on the "consesus not reached" and then, if we're really REALLY ambitious, the failures. More or less in this order:

1. Bureaucrat removals, with the count and bureaucrat's name
2. Other early closings, with the count and admin's name
3. "Gray area" noms (75% - 80% that failed) if it's worth the trouble to figure out which these are with the count and closing b'crats name)
4. "Consensus not reached" with the count, but no need to bother with the bcrat's name.
5. If we're not completely fed up, the count on the failures, no need for remover's name if the nom ran it's full course.

Of course, new additions to the list should have the relevant info. Cheers, Cecropia 08:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Detailed numbers?

It may make sense to have the (sup/op/neutral) numbers after each failed attempt. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 02:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Support this idea. As per leaving the 'crat's name as appropriate, we're being more informative in each entry, which should be good. Kimchi.sg | talk 09:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I hope no one mines, but as I go through, if I find a tally in the header that is wrong, I'm correcting it. The pages say not to modify, but this seems to be a good modification to do. If anyone objects, please speak up. JoshuaZ 03:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No objections. Kimchi.sg | talk 06:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing RfA

I happened to notice that Hexagon1's failed RfA isn't listed. Shouldn't it be? Is there a protocol for dealing with things like this? I's be bold but the last thing I want to do is impinge on the beaurocrats' turf. As an aside, I'd also love to see the chronological list kept more up to date and would help with that if no one minds. Eluchil404 08:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, I added Hexagon1 to the list. You are welcome to update both this list and the chronological list :). NoSeptember 11:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A pressing issue ;)

Some of the entries use commas and some use slashes. example (45,23,6) vs. (45/23/6). Shouldn't we be consistent, and which way should we go? NoSeptember 11:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Consistency is often overrated, but in this case I don't see anyreson not to go with slashes which matches the usage of the RfA template. Eluchil404 01:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer slashes. I also like to add spaces before and after each slash to improve readability. example: (45 / 23 / 6). This is how I do it on User:NoSeptember/Desysop and User:NoSeptember/RfA voting records. NoSeptember 10:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Edit Counts that important?

In my opinion, edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value and faithfulness one is toward Wikipedia. I questioned that why is everyone opposing someone from becoming an administrator if their edit count is only 1500? You can create 1500 articles and only counts as 1500 edit counts. Unlike some others, who is "faking" edit counts, they created 1500 articles with an edit count as high as 15000. Why? What is the difference between the two? The only one I could think of is that one does not have an adminship, but the one with 15000 edit count does. This is VERY unfair, I am sorry to say. --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign • Chit-Chat • I give at 00:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)