Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 75

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Recently failed RfAs?

I was looking for a list of recently-failed RfAs, like there is for recently successful RfAs, and I couldn't find it. Did this exist, or am I just imagining it? I was looking for this because I wanted to see which RfAs had been closed recently, without digging through the page history. I only managed to find an alphabetical list. I found exvicious at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies/E, but only because I remembered the name. I eventually found a chronological list at User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological), but this seems to be updated less frequently. Would it be possible to make this all clearer, rather than spread between 'official' pages and 'user' pages? Carcharoth 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological) is updated frequently; it appears just about up-to-date to me. If you're looking for a list of failed RfAs, sans the chronological order, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies, which is linked from the top of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. -- tariqabjotu 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info about the update frequency. I'll try and be a bit more patient. I was already aware of Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies, as that was where I found Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/E... but thanks for that link as well. :-) What do you think about the material being split across Wikipedia and User space. Is that a problem or not? Carcharoth 17:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think NoSeptember's page should be moved to the Wikipedia namespace. It doesn't pose as a problem right now on NoSeptember's userpage, but I just think moving to the Wikipedia namespace would be more logical. Nishkid64 18:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no problems with any of the pages in the The NoSeptember Admin Project being moved to WP space if people want them there, but I also don't want to create a bunch of WP space pages that others don't want. I think the amount of updating that other people do now may be an indication of how interested people are in a particular page. User:NoSeptember/Desysop and User:NoSeptember/RfA voting records get updated a bit more often by people other than me, so I usually consider these the most popular pages. Although I include User:NoSeptember/Admin stats and User:NoSeptember/List of Administrators as my favorites. Anyone who wants to update any page is welcome to do so. Curiously, now when someone gets desysopped, there are 4 (sometimes 5) pages to be updated (1 2 3 4 5) :). NoSeptember 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Actually, the one that I was interested in (and which hasn't been updated) is User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological). Basically, what I am after is an expanded version of the weekly list that the Signpost does of all those promoted to admin during the previous week. Expanded to include all submitted RfAs and what happened to them. ie. RfAs submitted this week, RfAs that succeeded, and RfAs that didn't succeed. At the moment, updates seem to be made to long alphabetical lists. I would update User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological) myself, but I'm not sure what the best way is to do this? Go through the history of WP:RFA and watch for the nominations that go up and note the result when they are removed? The two in particular that dropped off the list when I wasn't around, and I didn't have watchlisted, I needed to dig around to find them: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/exvicious (I had forgotten how to spell this, and the lack of a capital 'E' meant I had trouble finding this one using Special:Prefix - I was loking under "Ex"...); and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Transhumanist. Admittedly, both of these are listed at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies, but you have to remember the name of the candidate. Currently open RfAs can be seen on the page, but is it not worth having a section to place the "results" in. This is currently done for successful RfAs, so I can look at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins to see the recent successful RfAs, but there is nothing equivalent for the whole RfA traffic (ie. a list of the RfAs submitted in the last week). The unsuccessful ones are organised at the alphabetical page noted above, but that is useless for anyone wanting a list of the RfAs that failed in the last week. Carcharoth 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The quick updating is an issue as you say if you want to find recently unsuccessful ones. Before WP:RFAF was split into subpages, the way to find them would be to look at a diff comparing a week old version to the current version, which would highlight the added entries of the past week. Now you have to do it with 27 subpages (unless you know the letter). I set up this page to make it easier. NoSeptember 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Request

I would like to be a Admin for Wikipedia. I stay up late at late and see alot of bad things happen on Wikipedia. I would like to power to block someone if they mis-use wikipedia. Thanks, Senator Heimermann 02:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk. Newyorkbrad 02:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I should be intermittently reloading that talk page to see what you are about to say... ;-) Maybe I'll be patient and wait for you to stop writing! :-) Carcharoth 02:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
A diff will probably have to suffice now: [1]; Asher deleted most of the text on his talk page about six hours later: [2] John Broughton | Talk 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2

Is there a reason this is not being closed for the better part of a day already? - crz crztalk 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was also wondering that. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of adding a !vote, but am not sure if that is OK after the 'deadline' has passed. Regarding the closure point, I would have thought that borderline cases would be allowed to run further to allow a consensus to develop one way or the other, but the proper way to do this would be to have a bureaucrat officially extend the closure date so that people can see how many more days are left. If this was done, I would then add my comments and !vote. Carcharoth 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
NB. 4 support votes added after the 'deadline' and 3 oppose votes added after the 'deadline' (as of the 61/17/4 tally. Carcharoth 03:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
RFA lottery... - crz crztalk 03:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am running for RFB. Right now... :) - crz crztalk 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, seems like an unfortunate coincidence, with all Bureaucrats absent for most of the day. Ok, in order to be fair here, in light of the fact that it's a close call and, quite importantly, that the RfA has been overdue for a significant amount of time — and the history shows that the candidate had 80% support closer to the original deadline, and that has dropped to 78% during the time past closing, hence impacting the outcome in a very effective way — I believe the fair action here is to grant a 24-hour extension, as of now (not counting from the original deadline). The only "problem" is that, at this time tomorrow, I'm not going to be here to close it, but I'm sure Essjay or Taxman can do it, and I don't think that it would be fair to close now, in light of the present situation. Hopefully, this will be enough to patch this up. Redux 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Erm... If it was above the traditional approval range at closing and is now within traditional range - how does leaving it open longer for more RfA Russian Rulette make sense? I don't understand. Please gauge the consensus - as of now or as of yesterday - and close it already. - crz crztalk 03:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The extension seems fair because the RfA was left open for a significant amount of time past the original deadline, and during this time, several people participated, impacting the outcome. And it is a fact that when a RfA is overdue, but not officially extended, that can have a very real impact on people's decision to participate. In this case, it seems to be a necessary remedy, in light of the circumstances surrounding the end of this RfA.
But furthermore, RfAs runs until a Bureaucrat closes it. Unfortunately, there was nobody to close it sooner, and a close call became even closer — and it is a very close call. Particularly, it caught my eye that there had been no opposition since the 24th, and then on the 27th, several new ones rolled in, most of them after the original deadline, dropping the support consensus to 78%; as well as that the number of supporters in the last day also picked up again. This makes it a very close call, and since activity picked up during the last day (and in fact, past the original closing), it should be helpful to allow the community extra time to develop consensus. Redux 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable to me. I'll go and add my !vote now. Thanks. Carcharoth 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I support it. In fact, I wish RfAs that were in the "margin of discretion" were extended more often than they are, in the interest of gaining a better idea of community consensus. If there's no traffic for days, sure it makes sense to close it, but it's a discussion not a horse race. :) -- nae'blis 14:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

24 hour extension incorrectly implemented

Um, the proposed 24-hour extension "as of now" (ie. 03:40 28 November 2006) seems to have been incorrectly implemented by Redux. The extension should have been to around 03:40 on 29 November, not the 28 November. See this edit here (which granted a 1 minute extension, not a 24 hour extension). This is particularly unfortunate because the original reason for the extension was partially to avoid the "the deadline's passed, I won't vote" effect. I only noticed this when looking at the summary at WP:BN. Possibly another 24-hour extension from when this is corrected might be needed, though that could be incredibly messy. I also note that Redux said he won't be around tommorow, so I'm going to leave a note at the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard as well. Carcharoth 05:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As it's clearly a mistake and the crat's intention is known, surely someone else can just correct the date? --Tango 12:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought about doing that, but at the time it still wasn't clear which way the RfA would swing (it looks clearer now). If I'd spotted the mistake a few minutes after it happened, I would have corrected it, but this was a few hours after the event. Also any actions that could impact on a close RfA (even if the action is technically correct) tend to get examined with a microscope. I left a notice at WP:AN and WP:BN, and seeing as no admin or bureaucrat responded if seems no-one else was WP:BOLD enough either. If I could have done this differently, I'd appreciate any advice. At the moment, as I've been accused of incivility and lack of good faith on the RfA page, I'm going to keep out of it (other than to correct a minor misunderstanding). I would appreciate some indication from others as to whether I went too far with my comments on the RfA, where I drew attention to what I thought was inappropriate behaviour by crz. Carcharoth 12:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for bringing it up. Sorry about the mixup; in my time zone, it was still the 27th when I edited the RfA... Redux 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
As Carcharoth requested, I'll clarify that it would have been perfectly fine for anyone to fix the date slip. As Tango mentioned, it was a clear, honest mistake (caused by the time zone thing), and the actual intention was clear to see (to grant a 24-hour extension from the time of my post). Redux 13:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Your doing a great job Redux, crats can use discretion and make mistakes. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear from my initial post (which was only pointing out the mistake and saying that it was unfortunate in context, not judging the action), I agree. Next time I spot something like this, I'll correct it. The other reason (in addition to the ones mentioned above) that I didn't correct the mistake was because I had read about this during the recent Doug Bell RFA. :-) Carcharoth 15:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Calling what Doug did there vandalism is a blatent misuse of the term vandalism. It did not look like a bad faith edit that set off the whole thing hehe. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the obsession with %%?

Hold on a second here, what's with the obsession over a couple of percentage points? This is an exercise to determine consensus, not snout counting. There is not (and should not be) a firm number to apply to determine passing requests, otherwise we might as well remove any fantasy that this is not a vote. It should not matter if supports are at 78% or 80%, there should be enough data for a 'crat to close it just fine as is. The only reason I bring this up is that the above discussion seems to place an irresponsible emphasis (well intentioned as it may be) on refined numbers with clearly implied thresholds that should not exist. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the concern is that it is very near the point where historically failure is close. Of course it is not a vote, but it is a close race. I agree that the numbers need not be overemphisized. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Rough thresholds should exist - but the problem is that the perceived difference in the voting within the 12 hours after scheduled end - 81% to 78% - is too silly for words. It's within margin of error, within margin of sanity. The two or three extra votes did not change anything in the picture, did not deliver any powerful new arguments, no new diffs, no new nothing. I don't care if crats close it adversely to my nominee - that's fine - but I continue to protest against the senseless extension. Please do not penalize Kafziel for my opinion! Thanks. - crz crztalk 17:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The extension makes perfect sense to me. People were voting, and other people were not voting becuase it was past due. This creates a disparity, the solution is to officially extend the deadline and remove the abiguity. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
HighInBC is right. The extension should be purely because it was not closed on time and people continued voting and discussing. It might help if there was a clear statement from the bureaucrats on what happens when a close RfA is not closed on time. Carcharoth 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is a "clean the slate" RfA. By this, I mean that a fair number of users have identified an issue that concerns them (civility in this case). If this RfA fails and the candidate addresses these concerns over the next few months, the next RfA will pass overwhelmingly. Although Wikipedia:Consensus != Consensus, it does seem that the way to achieve general agreement here is to close the current RfA as "no consensus", address the issues brought up by opposers over the next 2-3 months, and then start another RfA. SuperMachine 17:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
So go oppose it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with crat decisionmaking. - crz crztalk 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, I did oppose it (weakly). I was pointing out that the opposition in the RfA is based on recent behavior that some considered to be uncivil or combative. If these concerns were addressed over the next few months, I believe there would be overwhelming support in the future. If the idea is to achieve some sort of general agreement that Kafziel should be an admin, this would be the way. I do realize that RfA operates more on the basis of achieving a certain threshold of support (which Kafziel may or may not have reached). SuperMachine 17:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Supermachine, what does your comment have to do with the Bureaucratic closing process of an RfA? Also, how does closing an 80% supported RfA "achieve general agreement"? It seems to give the 20% opposers an inordinate amount of weight beyond that already imbued by the process. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
My comment was merely a suggestion on how a general agreement might be reached. It wasn't directed specifically at bureaucrats, I was basically just "throwing it out there". Seems there's a lot of tension surrounding this RfA, so maybe it's best for me to just stay out of this. SuperMachine 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The opposes would only have undue weight if it was closed as failed, but if it does not succeed with such high numbers it will likely be no consensus, which would be accurate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the RfA was extended because the %age changed by a few points, rather that it was changing quite quickly. The idea was that in 24 hours, it could change by a few more points, and that would take it below the point where it can reasonably succeed. --Tango 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the focus on % is to some extent driven by the nice pretty colours seen on the summary at WP:BN. I like those colours, but if they act as red rags to bulls, attracting people to RfAs for the wrong reason, then the colours may need to go. Bureaucrats and others can see the numbers without needed colour prompts. Carcharoth 17:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, everyone. Since the extension I granted has somewhat divided the opinions, I thought it would be best if someone else closed this RfA — I thought I wasn't even going to be here, but as it turned out, I am, but won't close it. I've managed to get a hold of Warofdreams, and I've asked him to take care of this. He should be closing the RfA as soon as it expires (again). I hope this is satisfactory to all. Redux 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this so well. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The crats blew it

I am in mourning over the ludicrous treatment bestowed upon Kafziel. RfAs deteriorate. Every one that has non-trivial opposition does. My second one did. So does every other one. It's an empirical fact: given enough time, all RfAs with non-trivial opposition will slowly descend in %age support. Voters are naturally attracted to borderline RfAs, and tend to give a lot more weight to the oppose section, with snowballing effect - as the oppose section grows longer, the more formidable it looks, the more the temptation to take the position of righteousness and simultaneously sink someone. Everyone knows this. So do the crats. If they don't they should resign.

RfAs have pre-announced time limits for a reason. An extension is called for when radically new evidence comes out in the last few hours of an RfA and an opportunity to change one's view needs to be afforded. In this case, the bureaucrats simply screwed up by not showing up for thirteen hours. When Redux finally logged in, he found a "situation" - me asking why the RfA wasn't being closed promptly. Instead of minimizing the damage by closing the RfA right then and there, he punished the candidate by giving fickle voters another 24 hours to consider the RfA. The level of support predictably deteriorated - as it always does - and the candidate lost out. No new evidence was presented, no new opinion was expressed.

Like I said: RfAs have pre-announced time limits for a reason. Time limits give everyone some certainty of expectation, and minimize opportunistic opposing. The bureaucrats blew it: not by closing the RfA the wrong way, but by unfairly dragging it along with predictable consequences. They owe Kafziel an apology. - crz crztalk 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say that I disagree that RfAs are always on a down spiral. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Christopher Sundita are two such cases. Sam was 9-11 and then went 59-8 to end at 68-19 and scrape past. Generally they do, but in the case of non-famous users, people are likely to go around digging for some faults and find some non-standard pattern and use it to oppose. It's mostly only later when it is pointed out that they in fact are doind better than some landslide RfAs, that things turn around. As for the comments about "fickle", it appears that the electorate is currently in an optimistic mood and has been promoting rather liberally, whereas a few months before, when there were many candidates who usually would pass 98%+ only passed at maybe 85% because there were a few large-scale conflicts which made people's trust threshold go up. So I didn't think that this was a time when candidates got battered excessively. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
They don't. They have the right to do that; we've trusted them with the right when we've voted for them in their RFBs. "Fickle voters"? Please don't make me lose respect for you. Take a break for a while... I think you're becoming too emotionally attached to the situation. – Chacor 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The WP:B page says Wait at least seven days. It was stated no crats were available at the time, and the reasoning of the extention seems valid. Kafziel lost due to lack of consensus. Did the delay adversly affect him? Yes. Is the the crats fault? I don't think so. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with HighIn here. Delays do occur. While I think it is true that leaving contentious RfAs open longer will probably make them more likely to go to no consensus than anything else, it is hard to see how having what amounts to a larger sample size of users could be intrisically a bad thing. Furthermore, I don't think anyone owes Kafziel an apology. If Kafziel would have strongly benefitted the project having admin tools a few months earlier than Kaf will get, that hurts the project not Kaf. In any event, I am confident that if Kaf runs again in two months Kaf will become an admin and most likely get to be within the WP:100. JoshuaZ 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel quite certain that had this not come at the conclusion of a month where we had quite a few candidates with easy 90%+ finishes, this probably would not have ended this way. The close call I'm sure would not have been as close during a normal period. Regardless, the twenty-four hour extension, in my opinion, was unnecessary, and the absence of the bureaucrats during the thirteen-hour period only reinforces that (isn't that an extension already?). Redux's explanation – Ok, in order to be fair here, in light of the fact that it's a close call and, quite importantly, that the RfA has been overdue for a significant amount of time — and the history shows that the candidate had 80% support closer to the original deadline, and that has dropped to 78% during the time past closing, hence impacting the outcome in a very effective way — I believe the fair action here is to grant a 24-hour extension, as of now (not counting from the original deadline). – appeared to be a series of reasons (close call, fairness, etc.) that did not fit the conclusion (the extension). Nevertheless, I do not think an apology is necessary here, not only because apologies made at request don't really mean much, but also because Kafziel stated in the RfA that he was okay with the 24/37-hour extension. Also, I must say Crzrussian's desire to get this RfA through is quite astounding; the repetitive notification of the bureaucrats (although not really wrong), this comment, and the rushed RfB are proof of that. -- tariqabjotu 05:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have some pride issues I need to work on. - crz crztalk 05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe Redux was concerned that a few oppose votes had gone in since the deadline, and another user has said he did not vote support because he was not sure if it was kosher after the deadline. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian, once again, the "situation" was not that you were calling attention to a RfA that had expired over 12 hours earlier. The "situation" was that there was a close-call RfA that had expired half a day earlier. That you were calling attention to it is a service to the community, and to the Bureaucrats. Now, used to be that !votes, votes, participations, or anything that was cast past closing time was automatically discarded by the closing Bureaucrat — in fact, if you can find cases like this back in Cecropia's time, you will find that he used to seggregate those as cast after expiration —, but things have changed. Community feeling now is that the RfA runs normally, even if past the original deadline, until a Bureaucrat closes it, in the spirit of it being a consensus-building exercise, rather than a vote. That means that, by the time I came around yesterday, consensus was within discretion. You'll get no argument from me that it was less than ideal that no Bureaucrat managed to drop by for the better part of that day, but that happens, although thankfully, it's unusual. But that was the hand we were dealt in this RfA, and that is what I had to work with.
Now to clarify why I felt that the extension was necessary: As I said before, when a RfA expires but goes unclosed for a substantial amount of time, that affects, or can affect, people's disposition to participate, especially those who are not regulars on RfA. I decided on the extension, which is a well-known resource to be used in close calls, such as this one had become, as a means to compensate for the time during which uncertainty, caused by the fact that the RfA was overdue for a significant amount of time, but yet remained open without any official extension, could have affected definitively the outcome — as indicated by the shift in consensus that took place during that time, noticing that there is no way of measuring what would or could have happened if all users had been positive that it was still ok, and in fact constructive, for them to participate. A lot of people tend to think "ok, this one is already in the books" when they see an expired deadline at the top of a RfA. The goal was that, given the circumstances, the candidate would have a fair and honest chance of being reviewed by anyone and everyone who would be willing to weigh in. I undestand that it is very easy to read something into this; in fact, I've seen more than one case where, after an extension was granted, users interpreted the measure the exact opposite way you did, and decided to oppose, or even changed their !vote to "oppose", because they had felt that the extension was meant to, or would have the effect of, "ensure the candidate's promotion". Of course, that was not the case.
And in the end, the extension itself had barely any impact on the outcome when the final result is compared to the state of affairs in place when I came by 24 hours ago. There was more opposition, but there was also more support, and although the support consensus did drop further, it wasn't significant enough for it to have been the decisive element in the final outcome of this RfA. Redux 06:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your exhaustive post. I understand all of it, except for "the shift in consensus" which you observed. It was three percentage points, 81% to 78%, if I am not mistaken. That completely falls through the margin of error cracks here as to carry no meaning. - crz crztalk 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
But notice that: 1) The RfA was always closer to the minimal support necessary when it was approaching its original deadline; 2) It went from just above the minimal support necessary to the margin of discretion exactly during the (many) hours when the RfA had already expired in terms of the deadline set, but remained active nonetheless. This situation introduced an element of uncertainty and unfairness (to both the candidate and the community) that I hoped to correct by "giving back" (figuratively) the time during which no one really knew when exactly the RfA would be closed, and thus anyone could, and many would, hesitate to participate. I couldn't very well say "closed, too bad if you were still thinking about whether or not you should weigh in". In this context, whether I promoted the candidate or failed the RfA, it wouldn't have been completely fair. I'm sure it's very easy to see how anyone could say: "what do you mean failed? If I knew that I could support 11 hours past the deadline, I would have, and the candidate might have succeeded", and a similar argument could be used by those who would have meant to oppose had the candidate been promoted then. It's the fire and the frying pan, if you think about it. It was a very long delay, during which much was uncertain and consensus shifted visibly. I concluded then that an extension would compensate for this, at least to a certain extent, and help lessen the problem.
Noticing, of course, that the RfA was, in the end, a tough call, and it was failed at 77%, meaning: any Bureaucrat could have (although not necessarily would have) failed the RfA at 78%, which was where it was 24 hours ago. Redux 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. - crz crztalk 11:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-Crats Closing Requests?

Given the above, wouldn't it be sensible to allow non-'Crats (maybe limit it to just admins but I can't see a reason why) to 'close' (i.e. add the relevant templates) an RfA? We could create some new templates and backgrounds to indicate a 'closed and pending decision' RfA. It would thus still need a Bureaucrat to decide whether it suceeds or fails, but this would avoid situations such as the above occuring? If the Bureaucrat wanted to re-open the nomination to allow for a greater consensus to develop, he/she could do that, announcing an extended discussion period of x hours/days.

I don't see any obvious problem with such a proposal - anyone trying to abuse it would be spotted pretty quickly, its pretty obvious when a week is up (and I guess we could exclude nominator(s)/nominee from closing their own debate). --Robdurbar 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't like it. As mentioned above, nowadays crats no longer discount votes in after the deadline. I suppose for obvious ones (unanimous or near-unanimous support), but definitely not for those hovering near 73 or 78%. – Chacor 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It might be easier and lead to less policy-creep if we simply changed the closing time wording on the RfA header to something like "Ending after 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)". This wording would inform participants that it will run at least until a certain date and time. If it takes a few hours for a bureaucrat to show up, no big deal. SuperMachine 14:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. Kafziel Talk 14:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, there's really no good reason for non-crats (or especially non-admins) to close requests—at least, none that would outweigh the potential problems. If an RfA's tally stands at a point where the outcome (success or failure) is clear enough for a non-crat to make the call, then if it gets left open for an extra few hours – or even an extra day – it shouldn't materially affect the outcome. If the RfA is close, then we don't want a non-crat going near the decision. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Closing at a specified time encourages vote counting and percentages over consensus. What if the templates are placed on an RfA by an admin before consensus can be adequately determined by the bureaucrat? A decision that seems clear to one person might not seem so simple to another. It's better to have an RfA run long than to resort to counting votes. Kafziel Talk 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Here, here! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a solution looking for a problem. This whole thing is blown out of proportion. We limit this action to crats for a reason, and a little but of impatience is no reason to change that. Lets not forget that a crat may want it to be left open in a close call, wheras someone else might want it closed at the moment of expiring if it is just above 80% and looks like it may fall(not refering to anyone speficic). This is the crats discretion, and they have not violated that discretion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no problem here. It doesn't matter if discussions carry on for more than a week. If the %ages are likely to significantly change after the week is up, then obviously consensus hasn't been determined yet and the RfA should stay open. If the %ages aren't likely to change, then it makes no difference. Either way, the RfA shouldn't be closed as soon as the week is up. I like the suggestion of changing the header to "Ending after", in fact, we could take it even further and leave the timing entirely up the the crats - once they think consensus has been determined, they close the RfA, regardless of how long it's been open. This would require us to trust the crats, which seems to be unpopular with some people, of course. The only significant issue is making sure the RfA has been open long enough for people to see it, but I don't think we need to determine a set length of time for that, that crats can decide. --Tango 14:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a wording change might be beneficial, though I'm not sure "Ending after" is the clearest option, and I certainly think an open-ended RFA could be fraught with peril. But the only situation non-crats should be closing RFAs is when the candidate has withdrawn/botched it so bad it's unreadable, in my opinion. -- nae'blis 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey lookit that! Back in October a few people discussed changing "Ending" to "Due to end" on the template talk page, then forgot to implement it. :P -- nae'blis 15:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold - crz crztalk 15:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It was changed in October, but it was changed back because it apparently messes up the bot. I've changed it back to "ending" because of this. --Majorly 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone mentioned open-ended RfAs up above. This reminded me of an idea I had about how to modify the RfA process to deal with issues of desysopping, if that was ever needed, and enabling the community to indicate whether consensus on a particular admin has changed. The basic idea involves leaving the RfA page open indefinitely, so people can change their votes if a particular admin starts to cause problems. Those who hadn't participated in the original RfA would be able to register their oppose or support in a different section. This would give an idea as to whether a particular admin retains the community's consensus over time, or has lost the trust of the community. One problem though is that anyone who gets upset by an admin would be able to 'retaliate', so I'm not actually sure how this would work in practice. If bad-faith oppose votes were dealt with, it might work. Carcharoth 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A good idea, but I can think of two problems straight off. First, it would lead to a host of admins too timid to do anything that might upset anyone, even if it were the correct course of action. Admins need a level of protection, as they do have to make unpopular decisions on occasion. Also, the good faith has already been put in the user by granting them sysop status, and keeping the RFA open is like saying 'We don't trust you' - if they show themselves to be truly undeserving of that faith, then it will show soon enough, and the status gets removed. Keeping the RFA open is asking for trouble, and would show a lack of trust and good faith. Proto::type 16:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I think one way to deal with that is to have a minimum level required to reopen the RfA. But that makes it similar to other proposals. Carcharoth 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That was my idea as far as I remember. The proposed solution to the problem Proto brought up was to have a lower support (i.e. higher oppose) percentage required to desysop an admin than to sysop them in the first place, and to insist that the consensus stayed there continuously for a certain length of time (a week in the original proposal), so that people had time to change their minds again; perhaps it should be longer. However, there was a lot of disagreement with it when originally proposed (because of the WP:RFDA element and because it was based on vote-count). --ais523 16:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as a matter of nomenclature (hey, this is an encyclopedia), note that you can't have a 78% consensus. You can have a 78% vote-count.

What the consensus is (and if there is one) is something I'll leave to others to determine. The consensus could be to promote to admin, not to promote to admin, or do something else entirely even.

Perhaps the parties should get together and discuss the options and maybe come to a consensus-through-compromise, in this case? Possibly the candidate may need to promise to work on particular issues that the people who have opposed have brought up.

Kim Bruning 16:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No canvassing

From what I understand, canvassing has been forbidden on Wikipedia since about May 2006. Shouldn't there be some link to any guideline or other page clarifying this? 87.78.182.246 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • WP:SPAM. And it was equally forbidden before May, for that matter. (Radiant) 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thing is... It depends on how one defines "canvassing". According to WP:SPAM#Canvassing, notifying others should be perfectly fine. The main concern is "vote-stacking". However, that doesn't mean that other wikipedians may or may not decide to vote oppose based on their own opinion of what "canvassing" entails. - jc37 15:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    If I were up for RfA, would it be ok for me to add a notification of my RFA to my sig (Talk | Contribs | RFA), would that count as canvassing? I don't think it should because it's not asking people to "vote James086 #1" or "James086 for admin 2006!", it's simply drawing attention to it. I'm not going for RFA, it's just an example. James086Talk | Contribs 01:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template for candidates user pages

Would it help to have a template that all candidates put on their user (and user talk) page saying "This user is currently requesting adminship, please comment here."? It might increase the chances of people that actually know the user finding out about the RfA without the user having to go around telling people, which is frowned upon. --Tango 14:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is one, {{Rfa-notice}}, but it seems to be used sporadically. Perhaps posting it should be formalized as part of the nomination process? Accurizer 15:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Some people don't like to advertise such things, I don't think it needs to be formalized. Putting a notice on your userpage will most likely get every anon who's article you voted against on an AfD finding the place. I personally prefered the opinions of those who knew what RfA was. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, some people who frequent RFA have a tendency to oppose candidates who self-promote their nomination. Thus, this template may backfire. (Radiant) 15:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There used to be a userbox (I thought), but damned if I could find it when I was running. So I opted for the rfa-notice template above, which was a little more garish but got the job done in a neutral fashion. I figure the nomination discussion on the user's talk page (for non-self-noms) doesn't hurt either. -- nae'blis 15:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I found it. - jc37 14:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Bad-faith votes could be discounted, couldn't they? In any event, if community consensus frowns upon promoting a nom, I think the template (and userbox if there is one) should be deleted, so that they are not used innocently by a candidate who is unfamiliar with the consensus. If there's no consensus yet perhaps we should try to reach one. Accurizer 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Clarify: By bad faith votes I was referring to what HighInBC was talking about. Accurizer 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I for one read over 50 RfA's and came to the conclusion myself that I should not post anywhere that I am running. Not because it is forbidden, but that people who did so have a historically less likely chance of success. Just like people who respond to each of their opposes(something I did though). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes those bad faith votes... Yes they can be ignored but it is very disruptive and sometimes hard to notice. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Rfa-notice template is exactly what I had in mind. I'm suggesting making it compulsory, so it's not self-promotion, so it shouldn't cause anyone to oppose (and if it does, the crat will discount it - you can't oppose someone for following the rules). Just as when you ask for planning permission you have to put up a notice near where the building will be so people know about it and can comment before the permission is granted, there should be some way for people to find out about RfAs without having to regularly check the RfA page. If someone knows a good reason not to grant adminship to a candidate, then anything which helps that information reach the RfA is a good thing. --Tango 15:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Compulsory, so you can't be opposed because of it? I like that idea! --ais523 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (to Accurizer) Yes, but they aren't bad faith votes per se; some voters genuinely believe that this is a kind of vote spamming, which of course is t3h 3vil.
  • (to HighInBC) In my experience, responding to votes can backfire but so can not doing so. The important point is how one responds to votes; lengthy diatribes that boil down to "how dare that user vote against me" tend, for obvious reasons, not to work.
  • (to Tango) there doesn't appear to be a good reason for making it compulsory; m:instruction creep comes to mind. And note that you cannot by default filter against certain reasons; if it becomes known that oppose-votes under a certain reason are stricken, this will only encourage people to not give their reason but oppose anyway. (Radiant) 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    The point is that such opposes wouldn't be made in the first place once it was acknowledged that the template was compulsory (I don't think anyone would want to oppose someone for following a compulsory step in the nomination); in this case, making something compulsory would give candidates a 'safe' method of publicising the RfA. --ais523 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    But what could happen is that those who don't like "advertising of RfAs" would oppose RfAs that are flooded by support votes with no particular reasoning, or votes overtly revealing a bias towards the candidate. Of course they would have to provide a real reason, and would dig around for a reason to oppose, and might well find one, or be more likely to oppose on minor matters. It only takes a small groundswell of opinion opposing at an RfA to see it go down in flames. Carcharoth 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a lot to be said for a regular crowd at RfA running the rule over candidates. That is more objective than voting by those who know the user well, as they may be unable to keep the proper perpective (either way). Ideally, you would have a mix of both (those who don't know the candidate and those who do). Carcharoth 16:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
To Radiant: By bad faith I didn't mean those who vote in the negative for perceived ballot box stuffing, I was referring to a user voting against a candidate because the candidate *voted* against them in XfD (as raised by HighInBC), legitimately warned them for vandalism, etc. Accurizer 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
A policy should prevent a problem. Which problem would compulsary notices solve? Why should the freedom to have or not have this notice be removed? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I still like the custom template I had on my user page. And this really is a solution in search of a problem. As far as I know no-one has ever opposed because of a userpage notice. Grandmasterka 08:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I can think of one time (maybe.) Grandmasterka 09:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this is kinda closed, but how about one just like {{administrator}}:

<div style="position:absolute; z-index:100; right:20px; top:10px; height:10px; width:300px;"></div> <div style="position:absolute; z-index:100; right:10px; top:10px;" class="metadata" id="administrator">{{click|link=Wikipedia:RfA|image=Admin mop question.png|width=20px|height=20px|title=This user is undergoing a Request for adminship.}}</div> [[:Category:Wikipedians currently undergoing an RfA|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Which creates the above. Cbrown1023 01:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you move this into your user space and link to it or something please? JDtalk 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I'll do it for you. It's now at User:Cbrown1023/RfA. JDtalk 09:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Templates

Any good reason not to use voting icons as seen in Commons:Category:Polling templates? It would seem logical to use them here, as well as on WP:AfD. Any opinions? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

They don't add anything but images to RFA, which is already sorted, so it's easy to count !votes. Perhaps at AfD, but then what's the advantage of clogging the servers with image downloads? If anything, making it easier to count !votes there facilitates people regarding it as a numbers game instead of a discussion.--Kchase T 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This came up about a year ago, if I remember correctly. Per Kchase02's comments, there's no advantage to the extra server load of the images, and the !votes are already sorted so counting isn't an issue. On the client side, rendering a long page like RfA can be trouble enough for people with older browsers and slower computers without throwing hundreds of extra little images at them. Images are also used on Commons because some participants may not share a common language; this isn't a problem for decisions that are confined to the English Wikipedia. Further, we want to encourage and emphasize discussion and reasoning; there is a concern that templates and pictures would tend to instead encourage knee-jerk and rubber-stamp responses. I don't mean to come down hard on you, but I will note that on the few occasions in the last couple of years where voting icons have appeared, the community response has been somewhere along the lines of kill-it-with-fire. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I love killing these templates with fire. Kusma (討論) 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
We routinely do kill them with fire (well, with the deletion button, at any rate) under the "recreation of previously deleted material" criterion. Basically, they falsely imply that our processes are adjudicated through vote counting. (Radiant) 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That's actually kind of a silly objection. Even older browsers and slower computers only have to download the image once. The rendering time it takes to draw all those images is negligible. By far, the biggest portion of any voting discussion is the text. Especially in places like WP:RFA. The only problem I'd see with it (other than aesthetically) is users "improvising" and us seeing giant schlongs as "support" icons. Other than that, there'd only be three images for a browser to download -- support, oppose, and neutral. And perhaps comment. ... aa:talk 08:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Last time this came up on TfD, I wrote a script so that a user could see the symbols without them having to be in the wikimarkup: User:ais523/votesymbols.js. It puts images on XfDs, RfAs, FACs, impromptu straw polls, etc.. (It still has a few false positives.) See Image:Votesymbols.js-enhanced SfD.png for a demonstration of what it looks like, and for copyright info on the images (which aren't clickable-linked like images normally are). --ais523 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really excessively proficient with kompyuterz, so tell me if I'm wrong about this. But TenOfAllTrade's comment: On the client side, rendering a long page like RfA can be trouble enough for people with older browsers and slower computers without throwing hundreds of extra little images at them. So if there's a symbol each for support, neutral and oppose, doesn't the browser just download 3 images, and replicate the rest? It doesn't actually download each image X number of times, does it? riana_dzasta 09:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it only downloads each image once. But the server still has to deal with large numbers of templates, and it has to link each image, and the page takes longer to download due to the extra HTML; the edit screen also becomes more unreadable. This is why a client-side solution like mine is better for older computers (as long as they understand JavaScript) and for the servers. --ais523 09:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, makes sense. I also wonder how a sensitive RfA candidate would react to this. Not a good idea, overall, Imdanumber1, sorry :) riana_dzasta 09:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Requiring Javascript seems like a bad idea to me. I work in the software industry, and I can tell you that many companies, especially in the insurance industry at least, have conservative policies regarding Web security that sometimes prohibit Javascript (and always prohibit ActiveX and Java is somewhere in between). I think taking the leap to requiring Javascript, even on project space pages, is something to not be done lightly. —Doug Bell talk 09:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
We aren't requiring JavaScript for RfA; the script merely exists so that people who want symbols can add them themselves. The alternative would be to have the symbols there, wasting server time, and use custom CSS to turn them off; this method would mean that they would be on by default, giving the impression of a vote (which TfD has generally agreed to be a bad thing, even if RfA is a vote). --ais523 09:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The symbols are misleading.

An extreme example might be 50 '+' symbols with comments like "Nice guy, never had trouble" , and one '-' with the comment "stalked me to my house and shot me 5 times with a 9mm. Here's a link to the police report."

Hmmm, so a quick glance tells me this person should be promoted... but a closer reading of the comments suggests maybe this person shouldn't really be on wikipedia at all ;-)

More common/realistic examples might include chronic incivility, a clear demonstration that the candidate does not understand wikipedia's guidelines, etc...

To make a long story short, it's not a vote, and putting up vote-symbols makes it all very misleading.

Kim Bruning 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC) in case you're wondering, the canonical example of such a comment on AFD was always "*delete, copyvio." Kim Bruning

I don't think we need the icons, either, but I don't see how a strong of fifty pluses and a minus would be any more misleading that fifty "support"s and one "oppose." Although on your facts, I guess it would be a "strong oppose." Newyorkbrad 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course they're misleading, which is a very good reason why they should be opt-in rather than opt-out; people viewing the symbols should be aware that they aren't any more definitive than bolded support or oppose, or the heading under which the comment is entered. --ais523 16:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is the benefit of having misleading symbols on an RfA? SuperMachine 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Purely cosmetic, just like the bolding of support and oppose (just as cosmetic, and just as misleading). Some people like the way it looks... --ais523 16:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I can think of few things that would make RFA worse than it already is than dinky little images. Is there a dinky symbol for "nuke from orbit" - better, "strong nuke from orbit". -- ALoan (Talk) 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out the list of indicator symbols near the top of WP:RfCU for a collection of symbols that could theoretically be used. (N.B.: Not advocating it!). Newyorkbrad 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the fish, but I would go for if it was a bit less unclear; and is not much better. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the images are used at Commons, so they should be used here, too. Let's have a vote. Support if they should be added, Oppose if they shoudn't.

  1. Support. I don't see anything wrong with using them. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. No, no, and thrice no. Why should we do the same things here as they do on commons? We discuss things, the consensus above is pretty clear so far, and Polls are evil. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Even the supporters of these things admit that they're "misleading" and "purely cosmetic". So the benefit is zero and the cost (server load, annoyance, etc..) is obviously non-zero? A vote isn't going to change that. SuperMachine 17:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep. No vote needed. Kafziel Talk 17:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose use. Template used for irony. --Deskana talk 18:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

These things are like cockroaches - they just refuse to lie down and die. Template:Support has been to WP:TFD at least twice and speedied a few times too; Template:Su; Template:SS; and various other similar ones. Perhaps I am being antidiluvian, but what is wrong with using discussing things in reasonably plain text? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

- i am ok with a simple Support or Oppose - (note, image size increased to enhance irony. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • "Well, the images are used at Commons, so they should be used here, too"--sorry, this makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Why shouldn't it go the other way--we've long opposed them here, so maybe Commons should figure we're on to something. In any case, the real difference of course is that commons is multilingual, so it makes some sense. This will never happen here so there's no point in having a poll about it. Chick Bowen 00:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    The reason that Commons uses the images is simply so that people who don't speak a language a vote/!vote is in can tell what recommendation it's making. --ais523 08:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the images aren't being used on Meta, so they shouldn't be used here either. So there :) (Radiant) 15:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose I mostly oppose this not due to believing that it violates principle, preference, or policy but for the sake of Wikipedia's 56k users. I can't imagine how annoying it would be for them to wait endlessly as the RfA page loads 50-100+ support/oppose/neutral vote images for each admin candidate.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Once they load the first support image, all of the others down the page will appear at the same time (provided they are the same image). A computer won't download the same image 100 times for 1 webpage. If they visit the page, they will download 3 images, support, neutral and oppose (if we only use 3) and then those 3 images will be all down the page. Check the discussion above. James086Talk | Contribs 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reason of server load. The server lag is bad already, with tools like edit counters. Why add to it with some pretty pictures for a system that works fine with text? James086Talk | Contribs 13:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't understnad is how come does Meta have vote templates, but we don't. It doesn't make any sense. Booksworm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 08:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Because here we're supposed to speak English. In both Meta and Commons, that cannot be taken for granted, so they resort to voting templates. Also, the discussions there are "true votes", unlike here, where we're trying to reach consensus. Titoxd(?!?) 08:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose We musn't let the Metapedians have their way! GizzaChat © 08:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see why metapedians like me would be particularly in support of the templates; more to the point is that metapedians would be those most likely to participate in RfAs altogether (I'd expect to find a lot more metapedians than exopedians) on WT:RFA, and they'd be more likely than exopedians to worry about server load anyway (because exopedians are more interested in writing articles). --ais523 09:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. I am personally against the use of these little pestering images. Let's just stick with votes that can be read in a text-based browser, hmmm? (Oh, and by the way, aren't polls supposed to be evil? :) Yuser31415 19:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons I expressed in the second comment in this section.--Kchase T 19:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Just stopped by to say I noticed most of the archiving here being done by a small group of individuals, and to offer the services of User:EssjayBot II to do regular archiving of the page. Thoughts, comments, objections? Essjay (Talk) 01:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I see no problems with (re?)instating your bot at archiver. --210physicq (c) 01:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As archiving by hand is usually superior to bot archiving and we have people who do it, why should we use a bot? Kusma (討論) 08:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It is? The bot hits 100% on archiving to exactly the right page, exactly on schedule, and never misses a post that should be archived... Essjay (Talk) 02:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Just, will the bot also maintain the topic list? Kusma (討論) 07:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem with the bot archiving this page, given that it's already being used on a number of other high-profile pages already. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes doing it by hand is the best way to archive dead discussions, where line comments are added which are not related to the core topic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We could sign Essjaybot up to do most of the archiving, with a longish time period before archiving (7 days?), which wouldn't preclude manual archiving of threads that finish up sooner than that. Newyorkbrad 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dumb question

In light of the controversy on the extension, would anyone mind if the RFA template was changed to say "ending no sooner than XX:XX"? Ral315 (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't think that's too good, considering pileons nowadays... – Chacor 15:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to (essentially) say "ending on XX:XX unless a bureaucrat extends the deadline", which is what no sooner would really be about. Virtually any scheduled date in wikipedia is changable by someone; it's not really necessary to state anything about unusual exceptions. Plus no sooner than implies it's not unusual to extend the deadline, when it fact it is unusual. John Broughton | Talk 15:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That wording also ignores early closings of an RfA, which is what I think Chacor means by pileons. Though early closings only apply to negative pileons, I think. Carcharoth 15:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Following several discussions of this nature over the last few months, and checking with the BotOps, I've changed the template to say "Scheduled to end". This seems to be a consensus way around the inaccuracy of the previous wording. -- nae'blis 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change in heading format (minor)

I suggest a minor revision in the heading of a nomination, primarily to make it clearer when one person is nominating another. The current format is:

 CandidateName (talk · contribs) –  Nominating statement goes here, sometimes by the candidate, doing a self-nomination, sometimes by another person.

I suggest:

CandidateName (talk · contribs)
Nomination: – Nominating statement goes here, sometimes by the candidate, doing a self-nomination, sometimes by another person.

The reason for the proposed change is that it's jarring (to me, at least) to have a paragraph start with info on a person and then discover, halfway through the paragraph, that such person is not the one talking; rather, it's someone else nominating that person. By putting the two (info on candidate, nominating statement) on separate lines, this juxtaposition doesn't occur.

I'm tempted to just follow WP:BB and insert this one word into all existing nominations, but perhaps I've missed something about the format, so comments are appreciated. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 16:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually kind of like the way it was. I don't see anything wrong with it. Usually the "I" comes pretty quickly if it's a self nom. -- Renesis (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I looked for examples to illustrate my point, and, not finding any, I'm going to drop the matter: if I can't re-enact my confusion, it's difficult to make a case that others are/will be confused. John Broughton | Talk 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... this Christianity article

Why is this article in the middle of the RfA page? I checked the history, but somehow, I can't figure out who put it there, and why nobody has reverted it. I would myself, but I feel like there must be some reason it hasn't happened yet that would keep me from doing so. Still... what? -- Kicking222 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Looked like some prankster edited this... :P --Majorly 23:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a genuine mistake to me. I've reverted it.-gadfium 23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Meh. --Majorly 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#Major edit glitch. Looks like WP namespace had some problems today. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least there's some good reasoning. I'm not even sure why I couldn't find that diff in the history- maybe I just passed over it accidentally. But anyway, that was really weird, as are the other edits shown at the Village Pump. -- Kicking222 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
See also Main Page, interesting diff there, and Bugzilla:7071. Though I doubt this is related to what happened above, it's just interesting that it has the same result. ;) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions

Is it me, or are people abusing the privelege of asking optional questions? I know that these questions are supposed to be just that —optional— but people still look to them when voting in the RFA's. If the process is supposed to be "no big deal," then why is it that almost every candidate have to sift through 5 "optional" questions from 10 different editors? It's unfair and very annoying to bombard the candidate. RFA has become so unpleasnant nowadays. Orane (talk • cont.) 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think asking questions is fine however the people (both nominees and voters) must remember that they are optional. If questions are just silly, then there is no need to answer them, however sometimes they are important to the outcome of the RfA. James086Talk | Contribs 09:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it "RfA is an evil gauntlet run" time again? :P
Joke notwithstanding, I don't see what the problem is. Sometimes, people need the information in the questions to !vote accurately. They're "optional" in the sense that you are not required to answer them to have an RfA, but I don't think they were ever intended to be optional in the sense that no matter what you do with them, it won't affect the outcome. As for "annoying", I hate to see what an admin who gets annoyed by people asking questions to help them decide will end up doing when random people they've blocked swear at them over email, or when people rage because their vanispamcruftizement well-written article got deleted. -Amarkov blahedits 15:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the questions are really stupid. Optional questions should be used to test the candidate's potentitial aptitude in handling admin responsibilities; NOT ask personal questions and preferences. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions should be for whatever someone believes is necessary to form an opinion. -Amarkov blahedits 16:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No, the personal questions part can be misused. IIRC, we had an instance of people voting for a candidate based on sexual preferences. Can't remember the details though. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've seen something of the kind. Those votes should really just be thrown out, anyway, and I'm not sure that restrictions on askable questions would work. -Amarkov blahedits 16:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That's bizarre (Nichalp's example). However if I know which RfA Journalist is talking about, I found it helpful to have optional questions, given that this is the candidate's third request. More than 5-10 questions is a bit much, though, like Hamedog's RfA. riana_dzasta 16:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The above RFa is an example. I have no problems with one or two questions. However, sometimes, editors take it overboard. As a community, can't we decide on a number of questions to ask the candidate? We could add a couple more to the RFA template—obviously, the existing ones aren't sufficient if so many people find it necessary to formulate 10 additional questions. After this, if there are any "optional questions," they can be addressed on the RFA's talkpage, or the candidates' take pages. Orane (talk • cont.) 17:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
If a question is completely irrelevant to adminship (as with the sexual preference example), there should be no problem with a candidate politely declining to answer. If someone opposes due to this, it would be a bureaucrat's perogative to place less weight on their opinion. I don't see any real need to set a limit on the number of questions. SuperMachine 20:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: questions should be asked that are relevant to the candidate. For instance, if the candidate says they want to help out at WP:RFPP, a good question could be "In what sort of situation would you fully or semi protect a page?". Questions like "Is a sense of humour important in an administrator?" or "What are your feelings about Ignore all Rules?" are generally irrelevant unless the candidate specifically mentions them. --Majorly 20:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No they aren't. The humor thing, maybe, but if I'm supporting someone who takes IAR to mean "ignore all process if something is obviously bad", I want to know that. -Amarkov blahedits 21:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe. I can usually work out their attitude to that kind of thing in their answer to question 1, but if it isn't clear it seems reasonable to ask. I'm looking at Wikiwoohoo's RfA with 15 questions, compared to Daveydweeb's who has one totally relevant optional question, relating to his username change. --Majorly 22:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a relatively straightforward reason for this discrepency. Daveydweed has no opposition, while Wikiwoohoo has about 20% opposition. When there are concerns about a candidate's suitability, that often leads to optional questions. The highest number of question will usually occur when a candidate is in the 70-80% range. SuperMachine 22:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


I think the optional questions are completely relevant, and optional. It would indeed be instruction creep to try and qualify what questions can and cannot be asked, just as trying to qualify what criteria people can and cannot apply. There's no problem here that needs to be solved. Move along. —Doug Bell talk 22:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Except for the fact people often go neutral "pending answers to questions". They are optional only in name. --Majorly 22:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
When people believe they can evaluate a candidate properly without answers to the optional questions, they do so. Neutral votes are basically irrelevant to this matter. It may even be the case that without these questions, some people would have opposed rather than remaining neutral "pending answers". I agree with Doug that this really isn't a problem to be addressed. SuperMachine 22:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
SuperMachine, if a user goes neutral or opposes pending answers, why can't they just wait until the answers come? You don't have to announce to the world "Hey guys, I'm not voting yet because my questions have not been answered!". Frankly, I see no point in voting if your question has not been asked. Nishkid64 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
One point would be to inform the candidate that if they provide more information about themselves, they may pick up some support. I don't see any harm in taking a neutral stance, whether it's because you're waiting for additional information or any other reason. Worse case scenario is that there ends up being a large number of neutral opinions. SuperMachine 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to mention that although optional questions are great for RfA's, some of them are getting out of hand nowadays. It seems people want to just have a "say" in the RfA, so they feel an obligation to ask questions, which may or may not affect their decision on the user. Nishkid64 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
There are many things about an RfA that are only optional in the sense that it is possible to pass without them. An attempt to make anything strictly optional is, in effect, telling people what criteria they aren't allowed to use, which, as Doug said, is pointless instruction creep. I've yet to see someone opposed only because they failed to answer all the questions. -Amarkov blahedits 22:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Only a tiny percentage of RfAs have what might be considered an "excessive" number of questions. At the moment, one RfA might have reached this level. The majority have a handful of optional questions that the candidate spends a few minutes answering. The only way to solve this "problem" would be to come up with arbitrary rules for optional questions. This truly seems like a non-issue, though that's just my opinion. SuperMachine 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
By no means was I suggesting that optional questions should be limited or regulated. My comments were just merely a complaint. Nishkid64 23:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be a terrible idea to limit the number of questions, but I don't think oppose !votes based on someone not answering a question should be counted. Opposing because of the answer is fine, but if someone doesn't answer, it probably has a good reason, and candidates would understand that explaining more about themselves should attract support votes (if they are a good candidate). It's good that I have never seen an oppose based on the lack of an answer. James086Talk | Contribs 07:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions are not a big deal - coming from someone who has had at least 25 RfA questions. But then, I was going to break a record and yeah, for when I had an RfA, I was kinda new and was borderline (and required a nice gutsy judgment call from Linuxbeak -- Tawker 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The problem with too many questions is that some people will oppose a candidate who doesn't answer all of them. I don't think this requires regulations, but if e.g. some user insists on asking ten questions of every candidate, we should tell him to knock it down a notch regardless. (Radiant) 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The likelihood of a user getting extra questions piled onto them increases if their edits are mildly questionable, they have sub-par answers to the questions already asked, or their edit history doesn't showcase their attitudes about certain policies. For example, I had seven questions in my RfA. A later conversation clarified that the "Why do you want to be an administrator?" question is optional because, most times, it gets answered in the first question (such as in Husond's RfA). The other questions were asked (I'm assuming) because there was very little in my editing history (at that point) to show what my attitude would be in the face of G11-class spam, or how likely I would be to give rules the bird.

Really, it just depends on the editor. I think we're all smart enough to see if one person is filling RfAs up with questioncruft and call them out on it without needing to institute an actual policy or guideline about it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

True. And if the questions were unreasonable, !voters would not oppose for not answering. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes this does seem like a growing problem, maybe there should be a limit of 10 questions. Just an idea. — Seadog 03:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
With a limit on questions, there would seem to be an incentive to game the system and get some friends to fill the quota with powder-puffs. And even if that doesn't happen, I'd hate to explain to an editor with a really good question that, sorry, the limit has been reached.
I like the idea of handling exceptions (overly questioning editors) on a case-by-case basis, and revisiting this policy if indeed things seem to get out of hand, consistently, in the future. But acting now seems to me a bit of instruction creep. John Broughton | Talk 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree a limit would be faulty, but a limit of questions per editor might be another idea. — Seadog 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
While I could support a limit on questions per editor rather than a limit on questions in general, I still think it'd be creep. I have faith in all the RfA folks to beat down abusers, regardless of written rules. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/asams10

I just stumbled accross this, and I'm not sure what the procedure is for RfAs that are half over without being transcluded. Could somebody with more experience in this area take a look at it? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The nomination is not "half over" - the nomination begins when they are listed on WP:RFA. I've reset the timer to take that into account. Titoxd(?!?) 04:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah thanks, I'd assumed it was half over seeng as the page was started 3 days ago and the standard length for an RfA is 7. Cheers! Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Tonywalkton

I've nominated User:Tonywalton, but I can't sort out the format - apologies, jimfbleak 13:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Minimum edit count before qualifying for RfA

This was discussed (polled) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 14. At that time, a large number of people said "it depends" when asked for a minimum threshold of edit counts they would support as a requirement for an RfA candidacy, so no consensus was evident.

Instead of just reopening the discussion and asking for more opinions, I've done a small analysis, of RfAs closed in November 2006. There were 33 successful RfAs listed at Wikipedia:Recently created admins, and 30 unsuccessful RfAs listed at User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological). Stratifying by the number of edit counts:

  • If the threshold for candidacy were set at 1000 edits, 9 of the 30 unsuccessful candidate requests would not have been made; no successful candidate would have been ineligible.
  • At 1500 edits, 14 unsuccessful requests would not have been made; no successful candidate would have been ineligble.
  • At 2000 edits, 15 unsuccessful requests would not have been made; 1 of 33 successful candidate would have been ineligible.
  • At 2500 edits, 17 unsuccessful requests would not have been made; 4 successful candidate would have been ineligible.
  • At 3000 edits, 19 unsuccessful requests would not have been made; 5 successful candidate would have been ineligible.

One more bit of data: of the 14 unsuccessful nominations of candidates with less than 1500 edits, 13 were withdrawn (2 by bureaucrat, 4 by admin, 7 by candidate). Only one such RfA went the full seven-day period, with a final vote of 10/31/12. John Broughton | Talk 18:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you need more than one month's worth a data before you can draw conclusions. I don't think November was very representative.--Tango 19:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll bite: for the period April-October 2006, what month(s) would you say was (were) representative? John Broughton | Talk 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to look through the stats - I'm not sure any single month is likely to be representative of a longer period, and if it was it's probably just a numerical coincidence. In November, however, I remember multiple people commenting that RfA was going much smoother than usual and candidates that would usually get picked up on trivial things were being promoted unanimously (me, for instance - I have less than 2000 edits and didn't have a single "needs more edits" oppose). --Tango 01:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer that we keep the unwritten rule of "enough edits"; if a Wikipedia editor had only 500 edits, but was an admin on Commons, Wikiquote, Wikinews, and Wikisource (and was seeking the mop to clean up backlogs), I think most people would be willing to ignore their edit count. Most sub-1k RfAs seem to burn themselves out anyway. Nice stats to read, though; quite interesting. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflictx2}I will personally consider an RfA if I see a user with over 2,000 edits and at least 4-5 months of experience on Wikipedia. Also, although you may be comparing edit count, you should also take a look at RfA's for people over 3,000+ edits. Some of those are successful and some are not. Why? It's all because of certain lurking variables such as decisions, editing patterns, etc. There is no minimum edit count threshold for RfA's, but at least this (even though it's not that representative of the overall RfA record) will show some users not to submit an RfA when they might only have a few hundred edits. Nishkid64 19:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah those stats are interesting and I also do not thing there should be a written rule on how many edits a candidate should have. — Seadog 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I would strongly support a minimum edit count (with the exception of related experience Commons, Wikiquote, Wikinews, and Wikisource). It would lessen the resources expended evaluating unlikely applicants. TonyTheTiger 19:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, good stats and all, but I definitely don't think there should be a written rule for the number of edits necessary for an RfA. If a user has, say, 1000 edits, but has one FA/GA, a good balance of edits to all namespaces, and handles conflict well, I would support. Since some RfA candidates have a ridiculously low amount of edits (<100), though, it should be strongly suggested that candidates have over 500 edits, though it shouldn't be a complete requirement. –The Great Llamamoo? 19:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I support Llama man's idea; even if they have experience in other wikis, they have to get used to the english version too. Also, to use an example, I have over 3000 edits, but only about 600 to mainspace; maybe there should be a minimum requirement to mainspace instead/as well. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 19:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we ought to just present these facts as they are to the user. Many good faith RfA's are made with extremely low edits, simply because they don't know and don't know how to find out what is "enough". I think it would be a useful service to everyone involved to mention that currently, RfA's do not frequently succeed under 1500 edits. -- Renesis (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the need for this? Do the b'crats think it would save them time? I kind of doubt it, since these seem like the easy RfAs that wouldn't take much time or risk of controversy to close. People seem to like casting the 20th "per x, y and z" oppose in these RfAs so it doesn't seem like there's any shortage of participants. If you don't want to participate in these RfAs, obviously you aren't required to.

The only thing I could see is if promising contributers are leaving Wikipedia in frustration after a premature RfA, is that even happening though? Also, I can't see "Sorry, your RfA fails automatically since you don't even have enough edits, can't you read the rules!?" being all that more of a positive situation for newer editors to go through. So like the previous 50 or so times this has been proposed, I think it's still instruction creep. --W.marsh 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is sad to see very good newcomers leave after a failed RFA. — Seadog 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Also the bad thing about a stone hard edit count requirement is the fact that I would be happy to support a user with 600 main edits but has a FA. — Seadog 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
People who leave the project just because their RfA failed probably were not too committed to start with, or did not understand that adminship is not a status symbol.
I would very much disagree to adding any rule based on edit count. One should think very carefully when adding new rules, and this rule has no merit. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't really do anything anyway. The only thing I can see it would do is save time. The people who nominate themselves with no chance of sucess obviously don't read very much, so they're likely to miss any rule as to minimum requirements, anyway. It's not going to spare hurt feelings, because I really doubt that it's less hurting to say "No, you're not allowed to do this, because you're not a good enough editor" than to just have an RfA fail. -Amarkov blahedits 20:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...good point. — Seadog 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How about placing some sort of Before You Nominate Yourself or Someone Else page in front of the nomination page containing details and statistics like those which appear on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Statistics, giving those who might not know if the RfA they are submitting is likely to succeed. Perhaps somebody could rustle up a program like Wannabee Kate or Interiots Edit Counter where a prospective candidate could find their number of edits and length of time on project before calculating the chance of a successful outcome based on previous RfAs. I do agree that each and every editor needs to be judged on the merits of their contributions to the project, not just edit count or time on project, something that seems to leave !voters blind to the benefit so many candidates could bring to the project. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know how many times this discussion has been recycled, and what the period is for it. Personally, the problem I see with this is that it again puts the focus on edit counts, not edit quality. It's simply not needed, the current system is working. Ideas to make this point to people more obvious might have some merit, but the instruction creep is just not needed. —Doug Bell talk 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no. --Deskana talk 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not 150 edits even? No one is going to be administrator through RfA with that few edits and it also happens to be threshhold to vote in the Arbcom vote. This would at least eliminate the complete newbie candidates. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd support this only if I thought it would be the end of these discussions...but it won't because then people will just want to discuss raising the limit. —Doug Bell talk 01:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yet another solution looking for a problem. There are very few noms with less than 150 edits, and any that do appear get either withdrawn or closed early within a few hours - they aren't an issue. --Tango 01:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Not only that, but if someone thinks they can be an admin after 75 edits, do we really expect them to read all the requirements/suggestions? We'll just go from closing "joke" RfAs because there's no shot in hell to closing them because of some guideline; that is to say, it'll happen no matter what. We don't need an additional rule to go by (/me hugs WP:SNOW). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The irony is that we do have a policy in place - it's just not in writing. It's clear that over 30% of the people who vote in RfAs think that editors need more than 1000 edits, and will vote against them otherwise (and I'm being conservative here; it's more than likely that at least 30% percent have set their threshold at 1500 or more as one way to measure "adequate" experience). And, of course, it only takes 30% here to MAKE a policy about who isn't going to be an admin; it really doesn't matter much what the other 70% think, once 30% have decided to reject a candidate.
So with our unwritten policy in place, when an editor with less than 1000 or 1500 edits is nominated, we know it will take up a certain amount of time and effort to dissuade him/her, or to let the process run for a while until WP:SNOW can be invoked by a kind-hearted editor or admin. Sometimes, as with TehKewl1, in November, who had 1167 edits, the process continues to the bitter end (10/31/12). (Note: this was his second RfA.)
I'm all for avoiding instruction creep, but when a policy exists, I'm not sure what we gain by not actually letting anyone know. And yes, many people still won't read or notice a limit, but some will. For the rest, wouldn't it be simpler for the first knowledgable editor who notices such a nomination to invoke Wikipedia:You don't have a snowball's chance of becoming an administrator without at least 1500 edits and be done with it? John Broughton | Talk 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If anyone codifies this, a guideline (with its option for the extraordinary exception) would be a better bet for those who spend hours on each edit and make copious use of the "show preview" button. Just in case.--Kchase T 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My problem with this is that I think we don't need to add any more emphasis to edit counts than exist already. It is stupidly simple to run up the edit count doing pointless things (or even things with a point), but that doesn't do anything to make you a good admin candidate. It's not that someone with 100 edits is ever going to have a successful RfA, it's that there are lots of people with more than 1500 edits that are denied on experience qualifications. Putting all this focus on edit counts, without regard to either edit quality or edit content, is misleading. So guideline, no, essay, maybe. —Doug Bell talk 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I would have said, minus any of the many mangled phrases I tend to strew across my comments. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting) Fine - an essay, Wikipedia:You don't have a snowball's chance of becoming an administrator without at least 1500 edits, but don't just run up your edit count, which points out that a large percentage of candidates with over 1500 edits are still unsuccessful and that it matters what an editor does as much, if not more, as how much an editor does]]. John Broughton | Talk 13:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WIkiproject Canvassing

What precedents exist for wikiproject canvassing? Can I post on a wikiproject discussion page that I am running? TonyTheTiger 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It would be frowned upon, I think. A notice on your user and/or user talk page is about all that's accepted, as far as I know. --W.marsh 19:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaming

This seems to be a more visited page: can people please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recently created admins#Rename? and Wikipedia talk:Recently created bureaucrats#Rename? Thanks. --Majorly 22:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Preemptive notification?

I've run across a few users who have userboxes saying they hope to one day become admins, but in my dealings with them have noticed problems with civility, abuse of process, etc. Is there any good way to get a notification if and when these people ever put up a request for adminship? I know I can watchlist the main page, but then I will hear about tons of requests I know and care nothing about. --Dgies 22:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My gut feeling is to not prejudice against 'squeaky wheels' and treat their RfA's as one would any other. I'm coming down on the side of 'assume good faith' without having investigated the instances you have in hand, but my gut says don't be preemptive and hold out hope that they've learned/grown/mellowed by the time they make it here ... if they ever do. The larger question, though, is how to weight past activity, as an extended present or as a time-resolved series. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Usually, you would watch the possible RFA page, even if not created still. That is how many are acknowledge about RFAs. However, I would trust the community to know when a candidate with civility problems applies. -- ReyBrujo 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait, it's possible to watchlist a nonexistent page? Does that really work? --Dgies 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, go to its edit page, click watch and it will show up in Special:Watchlist/edit as a red link and when the page is eventually created, it will show up in the watchlist as a new page. Tra (Talk) 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I've used this approach before. It works great for a first RfA, but less reliable for a second or third as the naming conventions vary somewhat. —Doug Bell talk 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin experience on a non-English Wikipedia - transferable skills?

As an aside, how similar are the policies on other-language Wikipedia's to EN Wikipedia? I suppose the pillars are the same, but I have no idea about individual policies (and I suppose guidelines are likely not to be similar at all). -- Renesis (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I can think of one user who was an admin and maybe a crat on another wikipedia, but has been banned by the arbcom this year for high levels of abrasiveness and also for strong POV pushing. In some less widespread languages, the users are all overwhelmingly of the same ethnic group and religion, so what may be considered mainstream there in terms of political views etc, may be regarded as extremism here. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Policies and such vary wildly between other-language Wikipedias. In particular anything smaller than, roughly, 50000 articles (and that means most of them) tends to have a simple and informal structure and is small enough to not yet need most policies. Some of the bigger ones work very differently from ours; for an example, see Wikipedia:Adminship in other languages. (Radiant) 14:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I used to be an admin on the Norwegian Wikipedia too. As Radiant says, other languages tend to be more informal and true consensus can emerge in more cases since there are fewer people. Disputes usually solved on "Tinget", the counterpart of the Village Pump, or on the users' talkpages. There is no arbitration comitee or mediation comitee (and in truth, I don't miss them either.) The criteria for speedy deletion are "spam" and "obviously unfit for the encyclopedia", which tends to mean that as long as nobody could possibly object to deletion, it can be speedied, in uncertian cases we tkae them to the deletion page. Vandals are blocked much faster on the Norwegian Wikipedia, a piece of ugly vandalism typically earns an immediate 2-hour block even for a first time offense while less serious vandalism or user tests might be given a single warning (either a kind test-type message or mean vandalism-type message). Not much emphasis on process in the sense of that "things must run for seven days before being deleted", but if they are closed early and someone objects reversions of admin actions are not considered a really big deal, even so wheel wars are very uncommon (most admins don't try reimposing an action which has already been reversed). The Norwegian admins have a feature to mark edits as "approved" (not vandalism), so that other admins on RC patrol don't need to check them. I have noticed a certain rise in complaints of various admin actions over the last months, but nowhere near as serious as it can get on the English Wikipedia. There are certainly similarities between being an admin on en: and on no:, but I think the English adminship can be a lot more demanding. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The Spanish Wikipedia has a very unilateral speedy deletion process that I dislike. I got bitten quite badly as a newbie over there. That's why I'm learning Portuguese! :-) (Not entirely, but I do like their policies better.) Grandmasterka 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Even the german Wikipedia, which is relatively large and occasionally has given wp-en ideas, is pretty drastically different in some ways. Their AfD for example, was still pretty similar to wp-en's VfD days (that's a bad thing) last I checked. It's acceptable to block users simply for not being productive, or for annoying established contributers... stuff that would get you screamed at for being the most abusive admin evar on wp-en. While being an admin on another Wikipedia is a start, it's important to remember that wp-en has some pretty um, unique, standards for behavior and candidates should always reasonably establish that they have a handle on how things operate here. --W.marsh 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions, redux

A previous discussion on this point can be found in the talk page archive.

I see that the practice of some editors of cutting-and-pasting the same "optional" questions into most RfA discussions continues. While I believe that may be an abuse of process (or verging on a violation of WP:POINT) and a bit of an end-run around the fact that there is a consensus on the "official" standard form questions, I've not been too bent out of shape about it, particularly because it doesn't violate any particular policy or guideline. However, I now see that a standard optional question being added is to ask the nominee his or her age. That is inappropriate in this day and age. No nominee ought to feel obliged to disclose personal information in order to stand for adminship. If a person chooses to do so without prompting, so be it, but there ought not be a scintilla of pressure, real or perceived, to have to answer such a question.

It seems to me that if there are to be "optional questions", they should be included in the "discussion" portion of the nomination page and not with the sanctioned questions. That should minimize some of the problems with the optional questions, or at least remove some of the patina that they are somehow "de facto" standard questions. Agent 86 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it matters greatly. Candidates who don't answer this question are unlikely to be opposed for it, and if they are the 'crats won't take it into account. --Majorly 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I solved that in my RfA by stating I was a teen and that was it. Cbrown1023 00:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant. It could be a lie, but who cares, at least you answered... =) --Majorly 00:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The specific point isn't whether or not !voters will oppose or not. The issue is putting nominees in the position of having to answer a question regarding their personal information. In other contexts, in North America most states and provinces would prohibit this kind of question under privacy or human rights legislation. If a person chooses to put this kind of stuff on their user page (or elsewhere), so be it, but they shouldn't be asked to do so for adminship. The broader point, which I would have left alone but for the privacy issue, is the de facto creation of not-so-optional questions. Agent 86 00:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This question should be discouraged. It doesn't matter that they are unlikely to be opposed for declining; I think every candidate wants to answer all the questions and this could put some in an awkward position. -- Renesis (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur, it does make people feel uncomfortable. If their minors or if they just do not want to reveal their age, then this question is definately a no-no. It violates WP:CHILD and WP:PRIVACY (not really privacy, but it has some info). Cbrown1023 00:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Care to rethink this response? WP:CHILD is a proposed policy and WP:PRIVACY is defunct. I would be concerned about an admin not understanding policy and making administrative decisions based on proposed or outdated policy because the WP:ALPHABET sounds nice. It might cause some people to vote oppose on an RfA. —Malber (talk • contribs) 03:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest preventing anybody from asking questions which could be used in future to stalk the candidate or where a truthful answer about anything off-Wiki could affect the RfA in anyway. I'd like to see any questions about the real life name, age or specific location of any candidate banned. This is stuff that nobody needs to know in order to assess how well an admin can do their job, they should look at the evidence available. Lots of these optional questions are a result of users going through the candidates contributions and their user pages and using a question to prove a point, to disrupt the RfA or to try and to provide material which could sway voters towards a particular decision. Normally it's to provoke an Oppose. There also needs to be less curiosity when somebody signs differently to their account name, and perhaps a suggestion that users who wish to remain anonymous ask for a username change before submitting an RfA with respect to the questions that popup from time to time over signatures. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"How old are you?"
"Old enough to run for RfA. Next question?"
Problem solved. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I should've answered that way! Cbrown1023 01:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think questions requesting personal information should be banned. I can't see any reason why the information would be important, and it puts people at risk. We're always saying children shouldn't put their personal information on the site, and then we go and specifically ask for it? It's crazy. --Tango 12:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But do we want really young admins? That is, younger than 10? I ceratinly wouldn't care but others might. --Majorly 12:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If you can't tell they're under 10 without asking them, then they're obviously mature for their age, so their age is irrelevant. --Tango 13:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, but some people don't like it... --Majorly 13:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather have an admin whose age is ten instead of 110. Still, either way, if they are trustworthy and have proven themselves, they should be given the mop regardless of age. Unless of course, we're ageist... | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't care if people don't like it. It doesn't hurt the encyclopaedia, so there's no reason not to let young children be admins if they're competent. Wikipedia policy is not based on what people like. --Tango 14:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There was a New Yorker cartoon some time ago with the puppy sitting in front of a computer screen, saying something like "The great thing about the Internet is you can be a dog on the Internet". Personally, I don't think we should even ask if someone is human - that would be speciesism.
Perhaps rather than deleting this optional question about one's age, editors could drop a note to the candidate whenever they see the question appear, suggesting that the candidate simply answer Old enough to run for RfA, as was described above. If this happens enough, it might well catch on, at which point the question will presumably go away. (I'm doubtful, given the emphasis in Wikipedia against censorship, that a consensus could [easily] be created to actually ban this question.) John Broughton | Talk 14:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This site runs on discsussion. Limiting discussion would be contrary to the goals of the project. There are no codified standards for becoming an admin, so everyone has their own personal standards for voting support or oppose. Any registered user is allowed to participate in an RfA discussion. Therefore, optional questions should not only be permitted, they should be encouraged. And since we have open standards, the content of the questions should not be limited.

Also, several of you are under the impression that asking for personal information is somehow illegal. Quite the contrary, you will probably eventually find that this is a common question on any job application. Being an administrator may be no big deal, but there is a lot of potential for abuse and little accountability. I'd like to know if I'm getting myself into a Lord of the Flies situation. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read some of the discussion; we're not talking about asking for personal info being illegal, we're talking about how it applies to guidelines and whatnot and whether we should shy away from it. Your comment about additional questions also seems a bit off the mark; while discussion is indeed important, we're trying to ensure that RfAs don't become fifty-question pages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue isn't entirely about legal standards; however, it should be stated that in many jurisdictions, you cannot ask a job applicant their age. You can ask upon hiring, but not before. Agent 86 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no guidelines or standards to selecting an admin. Perhaps if there were there wouldn't be a need for optional questions. Given that I'm not the only person asking additional questions to the standard three, I would say that there is not consensus that the three are sufficient. And anyone shouting that asking questions is a "violation" of WP:POINT seriously needs to sit down and actually read that essay and try to see the difference between policy and a guideline. Besides, it's interesting seeing the nominees try to answer that question. The question of the possibility of this place being run by adolescents may be important to some. —Malber (talk • contribs) 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by that... technically aren't we the you's (I know, bad grammar... argh) of tomorrow? Cbrown1023 03:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Malber, while you're pointing out what others need to read, let me ask you to read the matters at issue in this discussion. No one has suggested that optional questions ought not be permitted. No one is shouting, either. The key issues are (1) that blindly slapping the same set of "optional" questions on each and every RfA may constitute an end-run about what consensus has achieved thus far regarding the standard questions and that it may be disrupting wikipedia to make a point and (2) that asking someone to disclose personal information is unacceptable. There is no age restriction to read or edit WP or to get an account. As to the ageist position that some may not want people who are adolescents running the place, calendar age ought not matter if a nominee has proven his or her self through their editing and contributions. Agent 86 04:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the argument here. The impression I'm getting is that candidates are getting too many questions that someone always asks, despite not being standard questions, and that this is unfair because people are opposing for it. I'm not supposed to gather information I want because people might not pass if it is known? -Amarkov blahedits 05:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Agent 86 wants more rules. The most question an RfA has ever had is around 20. This pales in comparison to the 60+ questions at prospective Wal-Mart employee has to complete on their job applicaation. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have not asked for more rules. I have simply stated that (a) it is an invasion of privacy (at the very least) to ask a candidate to provide personal information in order to gain adminship, which is unacceptable and (b) that the "optional questions" should be moved to the "discussion" part of the RfA and (c) have suggested that some repetitive posting of some so-called "optional" questions may not be in the spirit of consensus in that they may be an end-run around what the community has agreed and are possibly disrupting things to make a point. On that latter issue, it might be said I'm looking to apply the rules we already have, not add new ones. Agent 86 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Agent86: The questions I've been asking relate to general administrative functions. The first relates to general policy and the nominee's philosophy on policy/process. The section question tests if the nominee has actually read the blocking policy. The third focuses on a specific criteria of the speedy deletion policy. All of these relate the the responsibilities of being an admin. The fourth question is new and while it does not directly relate to being an admin, there have been criticisms of Wikipedia that it is run by adolescents. For now this is a test of the community's reaction to this type of question. Being optional questions, the nominee can certainly decline to answer, or come up with a creative way to answer it. Or they can be truthful. It's really up to them.
As for your concern about cut-and-paste (I actually use a template from my user-space) to every RfA, I've taken the personal policy of only applying these questions to RfAs that are not already snowball accept and RfAs where only the three standard questions have been answered. If I see one where other users have asked their own questions, or the questions would be redundant, I don't apply the questions. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not the most attentive person to RFA, I've never seen a direct "How old are you?" before Crazytales (I've seen it commented on or brought up as a sort of "evidence" from userpage/talk page diffs elsewhere, but never directly asked). If I had to guess, I'd say this comes out of some concerns over age and maturity over at the ArbCom election. -- nae'blis 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


I believe asking personal information should actually be banned, as it is an invasion of privacy. The "I'm old enough" answer should be sufficient. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle withdrawn?

Kizzle seems to have withdrawn from his RfA, but three more !votes have come in since. I'm not sure what to do here, but perhaps a 'crat decide whether to count them or not.--Kchase T 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

They could be marked as coming in after he withdrew. His withdrawal message was not prominent and easily missed. I left the votes there because they were good faith votes and the exact count is not that important here, since we are just measuring community consensus. I suppose it would be OK to remove them too. NoSeptember 03:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if someone has withdrawn from an RfA, the !votes don't matter at all, so there's not much for a 'crat to decide upon... EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sganeshkumar 1989

I'm not sure what to make of this one - the candidate signed the acceptance statement in May 2006, and has transcluded it today. Is this OK? riana_dzasta 10:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the questions were not answered and the formatting was bad, I removed it and suggested that he clean it up and try later (he has only 800 edits and hence not much chance of success at the moment). He replied in my talk page that he'll try in March. Tintin (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, an eleven-month nomination process! Bet that's a record! —Doug Bell talk 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)