Wikipedia talk:Guide to requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the discussion

[edit] Archive

[edit] Okay... sorry...

This debate has gone on for too long and is not healthy for Wikipedia at-large. Let us just take a break from debating this. The two sides will never agree, so it is pointless to continue to throw insults, and general incivility around. I urge all involved to perhaps take a deep breath and relax. I don't know where this is going to end up, but this argument is not the answer. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Why can't the two sides agree? I may have been a bit terse at times, but I see little reason why we can't keep this guide as a useful indicator of the current situation and still alleviate my and Tony's concerns. The only problem is that we've been met with the "my way or the highway" attitude from two or three people. Ambi 18:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

We all know we won't fully agree on this issue. We just need to take a step back and look at this situation as if we were outsiders. We have been acting retarded. We have been squabling like little kids. We just need to relax. I think there is a fundamental difference or possible misunderstanding over what this guide is intended to do. We just need to lower the tension level on this page.--LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you may consider joining in the discussion about what we should be doing, as opposed to making condescending and rude comments. Ambi 18:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't making condescending comments as I was a party to them. I have been acting retarded too. All I am saying is that we just need to de-escalate the level of intensity in here. Nothing good can happen if we all just butt heads together. We all, me included, need to relax a bit. Sorry if I came off as rude, that was never my intention. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, and vice versa. Ambi 19:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "your record as a Wikipedian needs to be near-exemplary"

I removed this. "According to recent RfAs, your record as a Wikipedian needs to be near-exemplary. " This simply isn't true. cf: MONGO, and Brenneman who will certainly be adminned soon despite a fairly serious faux-pas. We really must stop carelessly sending such bad signals to potential admininstrators. We don't ask for angels, and we wouldn't get many experienced editors if we did. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

With this one, I do agree. However, I'd like to make the guide mention that some editors will see signs of incivility as very serious violations, and that might derail entire nominations (e.g. NickBush24). Tito xd^(?!?) 20:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with Tony. This is patently untrue. Not only is it completely irrelevant to being able to do a good job as an admin, but there are a very great number of us who would not have been adminned if this were the case, including most of the parties to the discussion above. Ambi 04:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I added that phrase originally, as a substitute for another form of words: but on reflection yes, ditch it. The Land 17:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archived (a.k.a deleted)

Whew, that's better. Any baby that went out with the bath water? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not really how archiving is generally done...I'm going to go ahead and create an actual archive, not a link to a diff. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What RfA contributors look for

While this is sound advice, it was a bit too off-putting and seemed to hint that all the points were necessary, so I've tried to soften it. In particular, someone who writes a featured article might be great at that but unsuitable as an admin...dave souza 21:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice edit. Ta. :) Ambi 01:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What happens if you want to look up a users nomination?

I can't seem to find the nomination for user:Neutrality or user:woohookitty, can anyone tell me how to get that? And what happens if we can't find it? What happens if we feal an admin, may no longer be a good candidate, can we afd again and see what happens? --CyclePat 03:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neutrality, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Woohookitty. Currently, you could take it to WP:AN. Not AfD or RfA, though. Hope this helps some. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting on RfA's before theyre open

I changed the wording to indicate that it's a bad idea to vote and comment on an RfA before it's officially opened by being linked from the RfA page. This is both my personal opinion and in response to the recent controversy over an RfA that had already aquired approximately 60 votes before being officially opened on RfA. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is this page?

User:Ambi removed the template:guideline from this page- probably the right thing to do, since it's not really a guideline. So what should pages like this be classified as? I see WP:GRFA as something equivalent to WP:WIAFA, and I have started a discussion there on the same topic.Borisblue 17:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not the answer you're looking for: This page is a stale conflict between what WP:RFA is and what WP:RFA should be. At this time, without that conflict resolved, it serves neither interest very well. Comparison to WP:WIAFA is therefore a bit apple/orangeish. --Durin 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just Category:Wikipedia essays? Not really sure it's a guideline. It is a guide, though. I dunno. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions in other languages

I am curious, do folks who vote on RfA's tend to consider contributions in other languages? Even though one might not be able to discern the nature of those contributions due to language barriers? Aguerriero (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If a candidate submits that he contributes to another English wiki (e.g. Wiktionary) or a foreign-language Wikipedia, that counts for something. Mostly, however, we care about what you've done on this particular Wikipedia, because it has some unique policies and guidelines that don't apply elsewhere. A subset of this issue is the occasional case where an administrator from the German Wikipedia might request adminship on the English Wikipedia because he contributes to both, and he knows how to use admin tools. These nominations tend to be contentious. YechielMan 13:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Part of the section about edit counts removed

After a conversation with User:Rebecca, I decided to remove the following content from the page:

A good rule of thumb is probably at least 1,000 edits and two months of activity on the English Wikipedia. This is flexible, especially for well-known users from other language Wikipedias or other Wikimedia projects, but it is an unspoken rule rarely broken. You can use a tool commonly called Interiot's tool (after the user who made it) to find out automatically how many edits you have done.

I removed the first sentence because I feel that it can give people false hope. I've seen several times where people have self-nominated with ~1,500 edits, and then are baffled when they get lots of opposes based on edit counts ("but the page said 1,000 was enough?"). While we could also consider bumping up those numbers, I'd like to quote Rebecca who said, "The problem with defining specific numbers with a guide such as this (particularly where not absolutely clear-cut) is that it becomes self-reinforcing. New people read the guide, interpret this as the way they should vote, and thus a criterion which wasn't necessarily a given before becomes such."

I removed the second sentence because from the RfAs that I've seen that involve admins from other wikis, they're generally not given too much more flexibility, if any at all. Finally, I removed the link to Interiot's tool because it doesn't work any more (and because I removed the first sentence). Perhaps if it starts working again, the link could be put back up.

Anyway, that's my reasoning behind that edit. All comments are welcome, and I suppose it's up to the consensus to decide whether it stays that way. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 08:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S.- I also replaced that text with: If you are unsure if you have enough edits or experience, consider asking another Wikipedian or two that you trust before leaping into an RfA. which I feel is good advice all around and should stand the test of time. Generally, if you don't know another editor or two that you trust, then you probably haven't had enough experience in the proper namespaces to have a successful RfA.

P.P.S- After reading through the archives a little bit, I realize this sentence isn't without a little bit of controversy. However, I do feel it is potentially harmful to keep "1000/2 months" in the guide. If it's put back, I'd recommend bumping the numbers up to at least "2000/3 months," as I feel that's the current reality. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The controversy centers around two concepts as to what this guide should be; Either a guide to how RfA should be or a guide to how RfA is. The guide in its current form serves neither purpose well as it is a failed attempt at compromise between those two positions. --Durin 02:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is not a vote

New guideline. It does what it says on the tin. --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not very clear

Some expect use of edit summaries to approach 100% of the time. What is this supposed to mean? ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 14:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty straightforward. See Help:Edit summary if you don't know what that is. You should use edit summaries most of the time because it explains what you've done to (1) the Recent Changes patrollers, who will be saved some trouble if you explain why your edit is legitimate, and (2) past and future editors, who will find your edits in the page history. It shows that you're considerate of other people in the Wikipedia community. YechielMan 13:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page is worse than useless

Questions? Carefully crafted answers discussed in concert with the nominee? What sort of Orwellian process are we running here? Adminship is intended to be given to anyone reasonable, without much of a hassle to get it, since it can very easily be taken away again if it turns out to have been given unwisely. Therefore there is no need for this sort of inquisition. Honestly it seems some more recent admins are trying to turn it into some sort of prestigious club, which is not in keeping with Wikipedia's aims. --Delirium 11:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Delirium, that is uncalled for. A good administrator would never have elaborate signatures, hence the selection process that obviously filters for them. I guess making this post removes my possibility of ever being a candidate. --dgcaste 19:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

The guide says "Do not post 'thanks for voting' messages to the voters' talk pages...", yet it seems to be fairly established practice. Which is correct? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The guide is an essay, not really a guideline, in my understanding. If you frequent WP:MFD (I don't, but I stop by from time to time), you'll see that a lot of strange nonsense is tolerated in the user space. I don't support mass thank you messages from RFA candidates, but I don't oppose them either - let the candidates do what they want. YechielMan 13:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay, I finally got an answer! It only took seventeen weeks... -Amarkov moo! 14:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition

I think we should offer advice on how to present a request. Here's my idea:

Your RfA is a job interview; the nomination is the cover letter, and your contributions log is your resume. RfA contributors will analyze both to get the sense of a type of administrator you would be. In the real world, employers spend 30 seconds or less on each resume.[1] RfA contributors also spend a small amount of time looking at each nomination

Before answering the questions, take a look at the answers provided by successful applicants to get a sense of effective answers. Make sure you already have some experience in the admin field you're talking about. For example, applicants interested in cleaning out WP:AIV should already be an active RC patroller.

That's what I have in mind for now. Any other ideas? -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I object to the sentence "Before answering the questions, take a look at the answers provided by successful applicants to get a sense of effective answers." GRFA shouldn't be trying to help potential admins preen themselves by modeling their answers based on the answers of others. Answers should be original. Nevertheless, the rest of what you've written sounds reasonable enough. Picaroon 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Picaroon regarding removing the sentence that says "Hint, hint: You can go out there and borrow heavily from the answers of successful candidates in order to improve your chances." John Broughton | ♫ 16:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

(This is not aimed at Selmo at all, it's aimed at people with the mindset espoused by the above proposal.)

RFA is not a job interview. It's a quick but thorough check to see if a candidate should get their advanced janitoring licence. Up to them if they actually want to use it afterwards.

If you don't have the time to check a candidate thoroughly then you are wasting all of your own time, and a lot of other people's time besides. If your priorities are elsewhere, then they are just that, elsewhere. Please don't waste our time and the candidate's time just trying to make yourself look good. Because guess what? It's not working. :-P

--Kim Bruning 20:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed messages

It's said, in this wording or that, more than once in this document (which, BTW, strikes me as the single most balanced and NPOV projectpage I have yet to see in all of WP, and I quite sincerely mean that — mega-kudos), that this is not a political process, and treating it like one will just harm one's nomination, yet then I run into this passage: "Once the RfA has been created, it is a good idea to work in concert with the nominee to carefully craft the nomination before listing it at WP:RFA. You can advise the nominee on their answers to the questions, fix any errors that might have been made on the RfA either by yourself or the nominee, and generally prepare the RfA for a successful run." This seems to be telling the nominate "Well, we've been saying it's not a political process but <shhh> it really is one, and you'd better get a good political advisor." It just does not jibe at all with pretty much the entire rest of the guideline. There's just something very "PR" about this passage. I don't have specific wording changes to recomend; just saying this part may need some (fairly subtle) work. Just the very use of the words "craft" and "run" in this context tell me that a PR professional had a lot to do with its wording (I've been one in a former life, so I should know. :-) Those are terms-of-art in the trade, along with "prepare", "in concert", and "advise" the way they are being used in that passage. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this instead:

"Once the RfA has been created, it is a good idea to ask the nominee if he/she would be okay with you offering feedback on what they answered to the standard questions, before the RfA is listed at WP:RFA."

-- John Broughton (☎☎) 19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new redirect for the page.

I've added a new redirect to the Guide page. It is WP:Guide to RFA.--Kylohk 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To vote or not to vote — that is the question

Somehow I am saddened to find that the term "vote" appears 9 times on the guide to requests for adminship and "consensus" appears only 4 times.

"The Quakers have an excellent approach to thinking through difficult problems, where a number of intelligent and responsible people must work together. They meet as equals, and anyone who has an idea speaks up. There are no parliamentary procedures and no coercion from the Chair. They continue the discussion until unanimity is reached. I want you guys to do that."Quotations of Rickover from The Rickover Effect (1992) by Theodore Rockwell, ISBN 1-55750-702-3

Since there is no criterion for a RfA voter other than interest in voting, I was going to change all the uses of "votes" to opinions, but I truly suspect that we (or at least you) do mean votes. Nicola Pratt is quoted as saying in the Essjay controversy: "The ethos of Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute, regardless of status… What's relevant is their knowledge as judged by other readers, not whether they are professors or not."^[1] If I hold with Pratt, perhaps voting is okay...

Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

^ MacLeod, Donald (March 7, 2007). Students marked on writing in Wikipedia. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.

[edit] Small question...

I see that in some places, "RfA" is preceded by "a", and in others by "an". I suppose both make sense depending how you read "RfA", but I think that we should keep everything consistent. Any comments? *Cremepuff 222* 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen everyone who has used the contraction say "an RfA" instead of "a RfA". It should be "an RfA" to remain consistent. Acalamari 20:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GRfB

I'd like to propose an addition to what RfB contributors are looking for. In the spree of like seven RfBs or something, they all seem to be looking for involvement in WT:RFA. Should we add that? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start a poll (if there isn't one already) on what the community wants from a 'crat. I do believe this should be included, but we should gather some opinions before adding this section. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elaborate Sigs?

I understand what is not allowed in signatures, such as images, templates, and external links, but are things like "special characters" this really something that RfA-goers look for? Look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Random Editor. One of the things DHMO acknowledged in his nom was TRE's "non-default" signature. Also, take me for example. Even though I don't plan on having an RfA in the near future, I don't get pestered because I use a long s (although I was called J-ftan once. CURSE YOU, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND YOUR S's THAT LOOK LIKE F's!). J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about those whose stance is neutral and final consensus

To quote from the project page: It is the job of bureaucrats to determine consensus when closing a request for adminship. As RfA is not a straightforward majority vote, there is no precise "pass" or "fail" percentage, and the bureaucrat may discount comments which were made in bad faith or are of questionable validity. However, as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances.

Are neutral comments counted as being a percentage of the non-support, or only those who actively oppose?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Or is it just like AfD? This is not worded in the best way - it should make clear that it is only those who actively oppose the nomination that can shift consensus away from those who support it, if that is the case.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And I presume that is the case, but it's not the most clear wording as I said.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)