Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Amarkov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit count stats as of Tue Feb 13 01:32:34 2007 GMT

Category:       80 
Image talk:     2 
Image:  11 
Mainspace       837 
Portal:         1 
Talk:   334 
Template talk:  50 
Template:       128 
User talk:      819 
User:   675 
Wikipedia talk:         604 
Wikipedia:      3180 
avg edits per article   3.32 
earliest        22:43, 15 September 2006 
number of unique articles       2026 
total   6721 
2006/9  111     
2006/10         1019    
2006/11         1567    
2006/12         2213    
2007/1  1496    
2007/2  315     

OMG candidate doing his own edit count. Check it if you want. -Amarkov moo! 01:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing date

Could someone explain why the close date is 10 days from the first vote? Amarkov chose not to add his name to the main page for four days, but that was his decision. He signed it earlier and people started voting earlier, so the closing date should be 7 days either from the first vote or from the date he signed to accept. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the current count situation, this is not a critical issue either way, but I'll mention the disagreement on when this should close on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. Newyorkbrad 01:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Similar situation happened with one of User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me's RfAs. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the instructions, it says 1) Accept or decline, 2) Answer questions, 3 & 4) Change time and transclude. This is the order Amarkov followed; No one should be expected to start the timer and then answer the questions. One person besides the nominator supported before the date it was transcluded, which is no large violation, and I don't see how a candidate can be expected to have lost 3 days of not having it transcluded onto the RFA page just because they began editing the page. I don't see at all how any RFA can be expected to have started unless it is transcluded, as that is the key point in an RFA starting. -- Renesis (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't have candidates hanging around for four days after signing their acceptance and after people have started voting, before they decide to put their name on the main page. If this is an indication of his skills as an admin, it's not a good sign, apart from anything else. The closing date should be seven days after the candidate signs to accept. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I should have checked the page history before commenting above. If only one user !voted support before the transclusion, I agree that this is immaterial and the candidate should get the full seven days from the date of posting on the main RfA page. In any event, as mentioned, I've asked a 'crat to stop by. Newyorkbrad 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the co-nominator (me) and one other user. No big deal in my mind either way; I think the outcome of this nomination is fairly clear and unlikely to change. GRBerry 01:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it won't change the outcome in this case, but I think the instructions should be clarified so nominees know that once they sign, the clock starts ticking; otherwise we end up with situations where some people are voting already and others don't even know about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But that could, intentionally or inadvertently, skew things the other way, if there are concerns about a candidate that take a few days to be expressed. 02:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. How would signing and putting your name up immediately skew anything, given it's what 99.9 percent of candidates do already, and what concerns would need to be expressed and by whom? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If the timer starts from acceptance, then what happens if the candidate waits a few days to answer all the questions? You have considerably less discussion time, which may not be enough time for all the concerns to come out. -Amarkov moo! 02:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess I wasn't clear. A candidate could sign, 20 friends could happen to notice the page and support over 3 or 4 days, then the RfA is posted with only a couple of days left to run, and the people with concerns would be deprived of the full 7 days to express them. I guess this is a purely theoretical scenario, given that opposes would come out of the woodwork just based on the timing, but the other possibility you raise is perhaps equally so. And in this case, it's pretty clear (from the timing as well as edit summaries in the histories), that the candidate was just taking time to work on honing his answers, not abusing the process. Newyorkbrad 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Alternatively, we could tweak the steps in the instructions. 1) Decline or answer questions. 2-4) Accept, change time, and transclude. That is closer to what I did in my RfA, though I was also waiting for a co-nominator to nominate. (All I knew about that was that someone was going to be a co-nominator.) GRBerry 03:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolute disagree that the "clock starts ticking" as soon as they sign their acceptance. What should be more clear, is that people should not vote on a non-transcluded RFA (other than nominators). The instructions seem to clearly say right now that the first thing you do is sign the acceptance. RFA end time = transclusion time + 7 days. Simple as that. Anything else doesn't make sense (per Newyorkbrad's concerns above). Because of this, I think that GRBerry's suggestion above is a reasonable possibility. -- Renesis (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)