Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 121

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.

Archive 115

←

Archive 119

→

Format of talk page for nom

I want to start a talk page for a nomination, but I can not seem to get the formatting right. This is only my second nom, and another admin helped me with the last one. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Once it goes live (transcluded), mathbot adds the edit counts and starts the talkpage. Starting it sooner than that? No idea. Ask Rudget, I've seen him do what you're asking before. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts on that whole Kurt/Self-nom issue...

...are located at

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/On Kurt and RfA

, if anyone's interested. Feel free to give some feedback here, or on that talk page, or mine, or wherever.

Disclaimer: This is me being serious about RfA. Nothing like the

how-to

fun that you've come to see alongside my name all too often!

H₂O

) 07:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's mildly irritating to say the least - and of course repetitive, but I believe that the crats more or less know how to deal with it - the broken record theme is pretty much ignored as frivolity. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also loathe to call him on
WP:POINT as it's mostly reserved for those user's who are deliberately distrusting wikipedia. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C}
) 07:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, but just to be sure, I've tried to say that he isn't "violating" WP:POINT, despite commons misconception. He's making a point, but not a WP:POINT (save that for another essay too!). H₂O
) 09:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC) No no, I was agreeing with you : ). He isn't disrupting - he has a point, but it ain't no wikipedia point. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this goes for most non-question opposes in RfA. It seems that every oppose along the lines of "I don't trust this guy" is questioned relentlessly, while supports of "Nice guy" go unchallenged. Unless an oppose makes a factually incorrect statement "I oppose since he can't tell CSD from PROD", I really think we jump too much on opposes. Just because Kurt has a similar view of most RfAs, doesn't make it any less valid than my view of supporting the majority of RfAs I comment in. MBisanz ^talk 07:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Good essay DHMO (even if you did drag me into it!). Wisdom is also correct above, as are you.
WP:100. In summary, Kurt's stance and opposes do no harm, and it's time we all realised that "baiting him" (to take from your essay) is indeed pointless, rude and not in the spirit of a collegial atmosphere. It should also be noted that Kurt's extensive work across Wikipedia means that his "out-of-the-norm" comments at RfA still leave us with a net positive set of contributions from him ...... Pedro : Chat
09:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, although, can we cite
WP:POINT with the infamous blue link for those users who continually call him on it constantly? : ) Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C}
) 18:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree especially with your last point; [1] makes for interesting reading (and I've added mention of it to the essay). Oh, and sorry for dragging you in, but I needed an example everyone was familiar with (for better ~~or for worse~~!). H₂O
) 09:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In the beginning, I was one of the purporters of the notion that Kurt shouldn't be allowed to make comments such as he did. I now both regret and disagree with that view, and my former support of that view. The fact that everyone is allowed a say is much cited, and the fact is that Kurt isn't the only one at all (to make mass opposes). He seems to have become the unfortunate many-referenced epitome of what many claim is the "standard RFA troll". = Not fair. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a Bureaucrat, although I don't agree with Kurt's stance on this issue, I do not dismiss or ignore Kurt's oppositions as frivolous. Editors are entitled to their opinions. Kingturtle (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
If he has become known as a troll, it's only because of his own behavior. I thought of him when I read this arbcom finding [2] - would you say that Kurt's comments foster an climate of camaraderie and mutual respect? The lingering issue with an essay asking people not to respond to Kurt is that people are unlikely to see it before they see his comment at an RFA. — Carl (
CBM · talk
) 12:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Or possibly because people misuse the word troll. The label "troll" is inherently divisive due to the vagueness of the term, the general applicability and misapplicability, and the inability of people to agree on what it means. That is why I don't use the term and I encourage others not to use it either. Be specific rather than vague about complaints. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the conclusion to that essay puts it better: "Is it fair to treat Kurt differently, just because we disagree with his opinion? It’s not. Leave him alone." I agree entirely. Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of reasons to consider him a troll that have nothing to do with RFA. Raul654 (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. We obviously have widely different definitions of what a troll is. To me, a troll is someone who starts a discussion with a provocative post, and then steps back and watches the ensuing chaos. Someone who makes a comment on a situation, and debates points with people, is not, in my, view, a troll. People seem to conflate tendentious editing with trolling. They are, in fact, different things. To quote: "The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often erroneously used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem." Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Great essay Water. I agree. I've personally treated the "I view___________as prima facie evidence of ___________" as an in-joke. Entirely unfair to a long time editor (or any editor). I don't know if Kurt reads this section or not, but I apologize and vow to stop doing it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent essay. Even though Kurt kept my RFA from being unanimous (70/1/0), he's still entitled to his opinion. Editors can !vote support or oppose for any reason they like. In fact, he has supported several times. Useight (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. The most one can do is refute his argument or offer a counter position. A lot of times we go beyond this. And we cannot ignore or discount his opinion as some have suggested, especially since osme are opposing per his opinion. Dloh cierekim 20:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it curious, and perhaps enlightening, that so few are able to see any merit in Kurt Weber's position on RfAs. And linking that with trolling verges on the bizarre IMO. --
talk
) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yah, but could that be because you agree with him? Though I disagree with him (and others) strongly, I recognize the importance of leaving them alone and letting them have their opinions. Water put's it well. And besides, consensus is ever changing. Today's dissent/protest vote may be taken as common sense/consensus next year this time. That's what makes the concept of consensus so important. Dloh cierekim 20:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I may agree with some of what he says, just as I may agree with some of what you say. I doubt that you have ever seen me oppose a self-nomination simply on the grounds that it is a self-nomination, for instance, and I doubt that you ever will. I simply find it bizarre to equate "trolling" with "disagreement". --
talk
) 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Now on that we can agree. <<grin>> Dloh cierekim 21:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As my common stance is referenced in DHMO's essay I've written down my thoughts at
User:Pedro/Net Positive. In case anyone is bored and wants to read some rambling old rubbish from me! Pedro : Chat
22:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You switched from administrator to editor half-way through. Was that deliberate or some kind of Freudian slip? --
talk
) 23:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh :) Hardly Freudian, I like my Mum but not in that way! But yes, thanks now corrected. A slip, if anything, which I hope demonstrates that IP/user/editor/admin etc. all have identical "status" (horrid word) here IMHO. Cheers for the heads up though. Pedro : Chat 23:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant Freudian as in Freudian slip, not as in Oedipus complex. ;-) On which subject I'm quite shocked to see how poor Freud's article is now you've drawn my attention to it.

Your "equal status" hypothesis will have to remain a topic for another day. --
talk
) 23:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I also noticed how naff the Freud article was. Now there's something that should be at least GA. Guess that's a project rather than RFA discussion really ...! Pedro : Chat 23:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out briefly the troll who dropped by my own RFA with this weird wikipedia:edit count concept. Everyone laughed at that person and ignored them. Even back in old roman times, nothing ever came of such behavior.
I'm so glad that humans are such sane, logic-driven creatures.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC) O:-)

I guess since the hecklers won't leave the opposers alone I should just ignore the hecklers? Really, what ever happened to respecting the other user even if you don't agree with him? Why are we being subjected to this group-think follow the herd or else nonsense? Dloh cierekim 01:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
They're not hecklers, per se. In a consensus system, oppose opinions are very valuable, and people learn to respond to them. This response could be either positive or negative, though the documented best practice is to make a
response. --Kim Bruning (talk
) 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ps. my previous post might have contained a hint of sarcasm ;-)

Too many kiddie admins. But that's another story. :-) --
talk
) 01:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Enlighten me

Is there a "guide to Rfa"s? I dont mean the one seen from the nominee's point of view: I want one from the voter's point of view. Also, who exactly is allowed to close an Rfa. Would I, as a non-admin, be able to close an Rfa, say with (0/20/0) according to
WP:Snow? Thanks for your answers and please provide me with reading-material *must...read...more...wiki..guidelines...* (I hope it's not just me addicted to them..!) Thanks --Camaeron (talk
) 13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Camaeron, for the "voter's point of view"
WP:Snows and the like, any editor is allowed to help. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk
) 13:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have closed one or two... here or there... from WP:SNOW, and I'm not an admin, but it is usually left to admins because they have community trust, and regular "established" editors (I don't know what it takes to become "established") can have people jump onto their backs because of it. Trust me I have had a lot of people on my back for things I didn't do, or I did right, but on the same token, I have done things wrong that I didn't get pounded for, and things I did wrong that I did manage to get pounded for, see this edit and then check the Oppose section at number 6 for that. ~ Cheers! Dreamy ^§ 13:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've closed one myself - It just boils down to getting a feel for the likely direction of the proceedings, and whether sitting on your laurels potentially infringes on other people's time. In discussions with other editors I've had, both admins and nonadmins alike should probably wait until 7-9 editors have cast consecutive oppose !votes before considering snow closure. As a nonadmin myself, I sure hope crats and admins view such an act as an exquisite example of positive
boldness and good judgment. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C}
) 01:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Untranscluded two malformed RfA's

One not sign. Both early drafts. Transcluded by third party. Dloh cierekim 14:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

See here and here. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nshesh should come out at least, as it's not been accepted. Pedro : Chat 14:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Left notes for the candidates. Neither seemed aware. Given the state both nominations were in, I would hope those were early drafts. I guess the question also is if anyone thinks they should be snow closed or some other option? Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually now it's had 10 odd opposes we have another dilema. Close under
WP:SNOW and archive, revert everything and untransclude to see if the candidate was actually going to work on the RfA more before submitting, or just delete (which I declined to do this morning) Pedro : Chat
14:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Through the ec..... I can't see how we can SNOW close an unaccepted nomination. Pedro : Chat 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's that. Oh, well. I think I was right untranscluding and leaving messages. Not sure where to go from here. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay.
WP:SNOW. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nshesh unaccepted by candidate officially (but they did create the nomination so we can presume acceptance). However they did not transclude so this can be argued not to be a "fail" and could either have all contributions at RfA removed or be deleted if the candidate wishes. Tricky Pedro : Chat
14:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not waste too much time on formalities once they were avoided by others. The problem lies on editors opining in an RFA which is not official, and may never have intended to be. It has to be listed at
instructions page
includes steps for considerations while preparing the RFA subpage for these reasons. It's best to leave pre-RFA comments at the candidate's talk page about withdrawing to avoid any unwanted scrutiny or criticism.

IMO, just close the nomination as
WP:SNOW as unsuccessful, because it won't pass even if the formal procedures were/is/will be followed. Explain to the candidate what happened and the reasons for closure. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk
) 15:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Sudar's has been closed. Who transcludes it isn't the 100% end-all/be-all argument for whether an RfA is valid or not; I would say that accepting it has more to do with it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but even after acceptance they may realize during the preparation for an RFA subpage that they don't want to go through it. We give them the benefit to fully think things through and prepare before they come to the spotlight for questioning. :) - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, then it sucks to be them. :) If they don't want to go through it, they shouldn't accept it... however, I think this is a pointless discussion in this particular case; the editor in question obviously didn't have a clue what was going on (hence the severely malformed RfA, plus the fact that they somehow thought an RfA with ~150 edits was a good thing). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
(ecX3) Which is why I said that the latter RFA, which hasn't been accepted yet, should be closed per
overkill. Why not advise them in their talk page about community expectations and RFA history before they start the full process? (exceptions apply; i.e. vandalism) - Mtmelendez ^(Talk
) 15:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

On balance,
WP:SNOW and archive. If either editor runs in the future an early malformed RfA will be ignored as "one of those things" and won't make a difference. Pedro : Chat
15:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, is it necessary to even bother to archive a faulty RfA? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 15:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Depends, many established editors have already contributed. I'd prefer to archive it. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose in this case, yes, as opinions and analysis were offered. Although, in the future, I suppose myself and other editors should be careful when contributing to a discussion that wasn't transcluded properly so the excessive archiving (and discussions such as this) can be avoided Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nshesh

The following thread is preserved as an archive of a discussion that did not succeed, and is being closed to avoid further embarrassment by Keeper76. Please do not modify it.

Would anyone care to ~~administer the coup de grâce~~ close this? I untranscluded, but it is still ~~lying there like a wounded bird~~ open. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 17:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. And I credited you with the close.
talk
) 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
OOO. but I !voted. So I !closed? !sure, but I guess it was !acepted?? I need a drink! Dloh cierekim 18:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it seems like we've got a new flock of people closing RfAs per
WP:SNOW, I'd like to remember everyone about a very handy template. EVula // talk // ☯
// 18:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I
took the liberty of making some grammar and prose changes, feel free to revert if you disagree, EVula. -- Avi (talk
) 18:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of them I might; I generally try to avoid spelled-out phrases ("I have" instead of "I've") because it makes it sound very formal, and one of the things I've tried to do with the template is to approach a potentially sore/fuming editor in a very relaxed, casual fashion; the last thing I want is for them to feel like they are being smacked with boilerplate (despite the fact that, well... they are being smacked with boilerplate). Some of the tweaks were good, though; it's an ever-evolving template. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And that wasn't my first RfA close, as non admin.

What I meant was, I closed it, but credited your removal on the unsuccessful RfA cat N. As filed.
talk
) 18:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well. Nice template. Dloh cierekim 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll drink! Pick me, Mike! Wait, it's 1:30 in the afternoon. And I'm at work. Drat. Anyone in
Old America, please drink for me. Unless your a teenager. Then eat a lollipop for me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer
18:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've got grey goose with the name keeper' on it!
talk
) 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with drinking at work, provided you're still productive. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Remind me never to hire you for a job. That is, when I'm done drinking of course.
talk
) 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
hic**. **hiccup**. aaaahhh....thanks for the goose SM, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh LOL. -- Avi (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone needs to close this before I embarass myself further. Talk me drunk, I'm home, occifer. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/21655

Resolved
– Rudget . 14:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Partly due to the above failed RfA, User:21655 has regrettably decided to retire. His reasoning is on his user page. EJF (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a
break is what he needs. I think he just chose the wrong time for an RfA judging from the mood he was in. ArcAngel (talk
) 16:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if his responses to the RfA are any indication, imagine what may occur with the M&F™? Further, please see his talk page intro—not exactly the most inviting :( -- Avi (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Too bad there's not a way to ensure every candidate fails the first time. Seeing an editor's response to that situation is wonderfully illustrative. Friday (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As the first opposer that started the snowball rolling, and actually feeling really bad about his retirement, I would ask that we leave this, and him, be. I think he is a good editor that flipped out. (and showed other admin hopefuls exactly what NOT to do in edit summaries of one's own RfA). We've all had bad days, his happened to be RfA day. Will he ever pass an RfA? I'd like to think so. Time/wounds/heal/etc. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Friday here - I see nothing on the RfA that was in anyway "assuming bad faith" or disrespectful - just a bunch of legitimate opposes. Given the candidates responses and user page statement, he probably wasn't cut out to be an administrator - you have be able to take a lot more crap than that. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound like cold, but... so what? An editor who got hot under the collar far too frequently (hence the failed RfA) and then got further upset by it. Unfortunate, yes, but we need administrators who can take constructive criticism; 21655 apparently could not. I don't want to say "good riddance", since we should never be happy about losing a contributor, but I can't really see this as anything other than evidence that the RfA process does indeed work at times. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not at all trying to imply that I thought his RfA should've passed or that the opposers were bad faith opposers. I was one of them. The first one even. If I thought it should pass, I would've supported. But a WT:RFA post about him? Doesn't seem necessary, but in fact seems rather, well, smug. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Smug? I would hardly think so. I don't see anyone saying "ha ha, served him right". Concern and regret would be more like it. EJF (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, EJF, we'll have to agree to disagree here. Perhaps smug is too harsh a word and I apologize for it. Your post was in good faith and merely stated a fact. I was projecting what I thought this subsection might turn into and didn't want to see that for any editor that chooses to try an RfA., regardless the outcome , the chances of success, or the merits of the candidate. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a reminder to us all that when opposing RfAs we should be honest but also supportive. We want to nurture editors. It works best when the editor learns how she/he can improve. It works best when there is civility and kindness in the commentary. Even when the editor in question (and I am not referring to 21655) is gruff or discourteous, we must still do our best to encourage the nominee. Kingturtle (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely unfortunate that he retired over his failed RFA. He was just in the wrong mood to be submitting his RFA. I !voted support, but changed when the edit summaries came to light. It's never good to lose an editor, but I do think one must be more cool-headed for adminship. Useight (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Another reason not to get too concerned when editors "retire" over a failed RfA... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes we put a lot emotionally and in other ways into this project-- maybe to the point of over investment. Some retire after failed RfA's. There are many who have not retired. They've hung in and hung on and continued to contribute in other ways. While I can understand the need to "move up or move on," I have to believe that if anyone does retire after a failed RfA, it is because of their need and not due to any failing in RfA or the community or the project. None does anything forever. I certainly did many things before becoming an editor here. If it's time to go, it's time to go. And if a failed RfA is the impetus, then I say bless, release, amd move on. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is forever, that's quite true. But the issue I think you've ignored is the duty of care that nominators owe to those whom they nominate. --
talk
) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In this particular case, though, Malleus, I don't think Glacier Wolf could have known how flipped out 21655 would have gone. Nominators only have so much responsibility (and I agree they absolutely have some for finding good candidates). self-nom Rfa 2 not included. I've been on #'s talk page, hopefully he comes around. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll also add, any editor that has 5000+ contributions, a clean block log, and a 2 year old account (although admittedly more prolific in the last couple of months), is a good editor and a net positive. Attitude? Surely. Swears a lot? Yep. But a good editor, and a good faith nom. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not blaming Glacier Wolf or anyone else, and nor am I specifically talking about 21655. (S)he is by no means the only failed RfA candidate to announce their retirement recently. --
talk
) 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. I agree with you. But you put this in a section called "...21655". What's a guy to think? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Like a tired record, I'll say it again. I agree totally with Malleus and the sentiments expressed by Keeper. EVula, your recent comments at RFA (not just in this thread) basically boil down to "If they fail an RfA and leave in a huff then good - they weren't capable of being an admin anyway". Whilst that may be true, losing any good faith editor is a massive negative to this project, and I find it simply wrong to not be concerned. Your stance implies everyone will "progress" to be an admin and hence (not putting words in your mouth but..) those that don't become an admin are "second rate" in some way, and if they can't hack an RFA good riddance. This is clearly against the very nature of the project where all are welcome to edit and not everyone wishes to be an admin. Pedro : Chat 21:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA 2 was 0-10-0, and rightfully. I have a soft spot for this guy, though. I offered admin coaching/advice on his talkpage. He, I thought, was taking it. He replied on my talk page with this. I believe that makes a case closed? Anyone wanna archive this? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, a little unorthodox. I've stuck a resolved tag on top. Rudget . 14:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about putting words into my mouth, Pedro; you're only a little off. ;)
My attitude is this: if such a user is so easily put off, it's best that they self-destruct in the relatively low-collateral-damage realm of RfA, where their wiki-immolation isn't likely to affect anyone else. I'd much rather someone burn out at RfA than take out those frustrations in edit wars or belligerency towards other editors.
Now, don't get me wrong here: I'm in absolutely no way, shape, or form going "hurrah!" when someone reacts poorly to a failed RfA (quite the opposite, I think it's horrible). But I do see it as a "well, if they aren't a good fit, they aren't a good fit" sort of situation; people shouldn't do what they aren't particularly good at doing (and opening up yourself to criticism is something that some people, quite frankly, are horrible at, myself included sometimes). I'm not opposed to other editors reaching out to such candidates to make things better; I just know I'd do an exceptionally poor job at it, so I don't. I'm emotionally distant sometimes, as any number of my ex-girlfriends would be all too happy to tell you. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. When it comes to damage control, we're way better having these explosions happen during RFA than afterwards. Friday (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
And citing the new
I tried. He failed. Better now than later. Still, I'm hoping this thread closes soon. The editor in the sub-title of this thread is a good editor that contributes quite a bit to the anti-vandalism efforts. Not admin material though (yet). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer
21:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Slight proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Does anyone else think that when we visit the RFA page of a candidate, we could be shown the running percentages? It'd save having to go
WP:PERENNIAL. :P Rudget .
14:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What, Rudget, you didn't read the 118 archives of WT:RFA before this post? Sheesh. Where's your dedication? </sarcasm>. It has been proposed before, somewhere in the recent archives. There's a Prize for whoever finds the mathbot/auto-tally post and links it here first! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it was time-saving exercise. </joke> Thanks anyway. Rudget . 14:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I nominate Myself At the Moment

I have always been fond of Wikipedia, and I want to enforce the policies and enforce articles to be properly written as well. I will not let egos get in the way, and will try to do the job right. I'll admit I don't have a clean record, but I have mostly managed to find resolutions and get my content in properly on some of the important pages. I don't want anybody to think I'm bragging, but I'd also like to add the most of my contributions are still in Wikipedia articles as we speak. I have added reliable content in the past, and also recently received a Barnstar for one of my contributions as well.Kevin j (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Read
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. Follow the instructions for To nominate yourself. Best of luck, Kingturtle (talk
) 19:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a self-nom from you
civility issues as well. ArcAngel (talk
) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
*Clears throat*. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u)
20:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That is rather concerning. Kevin J., I will offer you my personal opinion on your intention to run for RfA: don't! Edit warring is not exactly looked upon favourably by the community...
§
20:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But don't rule it out in the future. Learn more about our community, and grow with us. A number of editors here started out roughly and then made terrific strides and are now valued admins. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ditto from me, Kevin j. Ask for help if you need it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tons of questions

Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Susanlesch: 9 additional questions already, and the candidate only transcluded the RfA less than two hours ago. Is there any reason why people can't wait a few hours to add the questions, and maybe even wait until current additional questions are answered before adding more, rather than overpower the candidate with a ton of questions, and then cause the RfA to fail when opposes like "hasn't answered the questions/too slow to answer the questions" (if the candidate takes their time to answer them) and "bad answers to the questions" (if the candidate answers them quickly) come in? Maybe I'm in a minority here, but I don't think that lots of additional questions thrown at the beginning of an RfA is a good thing, and more often than not, RfAs last a week, and that's plenty of time for questions to be asked. I'm interested in the opinions of others on this. Acalamari 21:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the question I asked. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't meant to be a hint to remove the question: I'm only interested in seeking opinions here. I apologize if my comment came across that way. Acalamari 21:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Posting the questions early can only be a good thing, as it allows more time to think about them. When it comes to complaining that they've not been answered yet, that's where we should be patient. Friday (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In all fairness, the patience factor is my main concern, and perhaps I should have clarifed this more in my original post. I'm not anti-question in any way. Acalamari 21:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the answer to Q7 sums up why "a ton" of questions are asked, but I'll repeat my take here - it's to see if the user is procedurally sound enough for the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm found this.

Is
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/aj00200 a real RFA? Gtstricky^{Talk or C}
22:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It would
not pass by any stretch - fairly new account and all. ArcAngel (talk
) 22:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. It hasn't been transcluded at least. Malinaccier (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bad joke. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See #Malformed above. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I should read more :) I could not figure why
User:Avruch voted. Funny vote though. Gtstricky^{Talk or C}
22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't him: Avruch indented the vote. Acalamari 22:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, he didn't, he messed up the formatting. Fixed. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried to ;-) It didn't work, it wasn't clear why, and I didn't want to futz with it further. It was transcluded at the time, I believe. It doesn't serve much purpose to search for untranscluded RfAs - with some regularity, editors "discover" untranscluded RfA's and occasionally actually transclude them. In the last week, someone found one, transcluded it, and then voted oppose in short succession.
^T
15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

So, this is kind of interesting. Yesterday I !voted oppose at
WP:SNOW, but this RFA was never closed, just removed. This just doesn't seem like the proper procedure. Can somebody explain to me if this was the proper thing to do, or what should've been done? Useight (talk
) 16:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear normal - I've never seen an RfA removed like that unless it was transcluded improperly or malformed. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought it was pretty bizarre, too. Especially the editor getting blocked. Useight (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this should be posted at User talk:FayssalF, not here. It's strange, yes, but the blocking admin is always the first person you should talk to in regards to a block. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, posted that at the same time. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should inquire to the blocking admin and the other who removed the nomination in the first place. They cited "only three edits" in the edit summary, which seems like a dismissal instead of an allegation that the user was a sock. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I only brought it up here because it involved the removal of an RFA without seemingly following traditional procedures. I will ask both Sarcasticidealis and FayssalF about this as well. Useight (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
As a side note, should we re-transclude the RFA, or just close it per
WP:SNOW? Useight (talk
) 16:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Should be closed. With only 4 total edits to date, else it becomes a
blizzard. ArcAngel (talk
) 16:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing should be done with it just yet. We can wait until we've heard from Sarcasticidealis and FayssalF before doing anything; it existing out there doesn't have any bearing on anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

When a user's first three edits are to nominate himself/herself for adminship, I don't think any formal closure is required. I just took the RFA off the page and left Bloodlila a message explaining this. Most likely it was a malicious sock of some kind (what new user can manage to create and transclude an RFA without problems?) but, even if it wasn't, I think removal combined with an explanation on the user's talk page is a much less bite-y approach then waiting for five people to come in with their inevitable opposes and then doing the snow thing. Possibly my actions were improper; I admit that I was trying to rely on
talk
) 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think you were in the right with your actions; a brand-new RfA is suspicious, and bypassing the "usual" methods is much less biting. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm fine with the insta-close RFA, I just wanted to bring it up. I agree that it is definitely suspicious for an editor to immediately start an RFA. The only real explanations are that it was either a sock or a long-time IP editor. A checkuser apparently came back without problem. I don't think the block was right, but I want to hear what FayssalF has to say about it. Useight (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns.

Closing - Closing is not the main point here per
WP:BURO
. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. There is also the fact that there are many admins helping out at the Rfa. This is a collaborative project and things can be done with the help of many people. In fact anyone could close it and inform or not the involved admin.

Block - CU has no much bearing here if none at all. Do you believe that a new editor with 0 edits who comes straight to nominate themselves (1st edit) and reverting (2nd edit) is someone new to Wikipedia? I mentioned it on his talk page as there was a {{
sockunknown
}} up there. One can go to the next cyber café and nominate themselves (but that is not the point). I'd have still used the admin tools even if there were no tags up there. The main interesting point here is that the block has been preventive against disruption (as I left the door open to their justification on his talk page - no response yet up to this minute). If they are a genuine new user then they have the talk page to explain to us their story. Most important than all is that what did strike me the most is the reverting and not the nomination. nominate yourselves at the first edit but why revert someone at the third edit?. For the user in question to answer that is not easy. Answering the Rfa questions was amazingly easy!

What is left... is
new user1, user2 previously accused of trolling
).

P.S. See their answers to RfA questions and see my block rationale. Morever, I'd no object to an unblock if any other administrator believes I am wrong. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this block (and well justified above). H₂O
) 01:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I just wanted to hear your side. Sorry if I sounded accusing or made you get defensive or anything. I endorse the block. Useight (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Not at all Useight. I really appreciate the way you presented your concerns. You have done it right. After all, admins should be accountable and ready to answer any question. We are all working together here and if someone is wrong then we must say it. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A bot request

Hi. Can somebody please add the link below to the RfA? I can't do it, presumably since this RfA was speedy deleted in the past and I can't handle that. Thanks!

See Sceptre's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Mathbot (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. H₂O
) 02:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on RfA standards

Has the idea that there should be a standard criteria been seriously brought up in the last year or so? And whats the rationale that something like this shouldn't take place to begin with? I've seen numerous editors, all with their individual criteria and I can't help but think this is a cry out for standard. This all came to me while reading the above discussion on removing the tally. If we wanted to get the RfA to appear, in fact act, like a discussion instead of a vote, we could even ammend the support basis to provide actual dif's and reasoning, like some would press the opposer's. That way, each supporter would have to prove they looked into the nominee's history, instead of tossing in a vote. Maybe even do the same for the opposers. Get rid of the kurts (and the oppose per kurts too!). Your thoughts.
talk
) 16:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has their own standards, and that causes conflict. I would presume therefore, that the introduction of an 'official' standard criteria would just cause more conflict. People would disagree with what is set in the criteria. Maybe things need to be generalised, i.e. not set figures, especially for edit counts. In this case it would be more of a guideline, not a criteria.

But I agree with you, some people do need to be guided as to what exactly they are looking for when reviewing the suitability of candidates. Kurt Weber's opposes are simply ridiculous. But the introduction of a guideline would work better than a criteria. Lra drama 16:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats actually what I meant. I know that not everyone will agree with it, but its a point of reference like any other guideline on wikipedia. We could at least attempt to make a general guideline when discussing an RfA.
talk
) 16:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I noticed on
talk
) 16:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, something along those lines would be better. It's just the actual enforcing of such a thing that would be very difficult. But the current situation we have, with varying points of view and arguments all over the place, and some voters that don't even appear to have read through an RfA can be classed as a shambles. A tad unorganised to say the least anyway. Lra drama 16:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me give you some actual oppose votes, as they are the most troubling at times. And note, these all come from TPD's RfA. Notice the first one, which threaded:

Oppose some of your early afd closures bother me. Yahel Guhan 00:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So the more recent ones don't? Dorftrottel (harass) 01:28, March 20, 2008
Of corse they do. I just remember the older ones more. Yahel Guhan 02:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This shows an obvious thing. The nominess must have either made the opposer mad at one point, or is a very lazy editor to not check on more recent closes.

Oppose due to poor understanding of non-free image policy. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, lazy. No dif's provided. And now for the worst of all three examples:

Oppose. Poor speedy deletion tagging. --- RockMFR 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This was stated, even though on the nominee's RfA talk page, A.B. posted 202 requests for speedy deletion. All of the nominees since Jan. 1, and he had a deletion rate of approx. 91%. 91!
talk
) 16:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, and this isn't just a side note. The way these RfA's are going, and have been, don't help a Bureaucrat determine anything. Especially when one person says Supper duper strong and unconditional support. And the rest say per that guy. I'm actually hoping a standard can be worked out, for nominees sake, and for the Bureaucrat's.
talk
) 16:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to Stifle (the 2nd of your examples) he had asked the candidate a question about non-free use , which TPH had answered a bit weakly. Black Kite 16:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to require !voters to supply diffs. And I think the whole !voting process is kind of subjective, anyway, so it would be impossible to get a standard that everyone agrees with. It's been discussed in the past to make the 2000 edits a standard, or 1000 edits being minimum to even apply. I personally look at many different factors, as seen on my standards page, but it would be difficult to come to a concrete conclusion on many of those that a consensus would agree with. And some of it is so subjective, we couldn't write out a formal standard, like what does "No being uncivil" really mean, for example. Useight (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was the point that I was getting at. It's a shame it'd be so difficult, because I'm sure most of us agree that the current situation is quite vague and unorganised? Lra drama 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Per the speedy deletions, "91%" isn't all that good, that would mean that of 100 pages they speedy delete, 9 would be inappropriate and probably overturned. Its also possible that he was tagging for the wrong reasons or that the speedy was declined and it was later deleted through AFD. Mr.Z-man 16:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree - 91% seems quite poor, actually. One can hope that he would be more conservative with actually deleting pages than just tagging them, but it still suggests that the number of deletions-in-error would be pretty significant. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I believe this thread is in good faith, and I agree there is a need for a more consistent expectation in RfAs and their participants. But I also can't help but notice that the "examples" chosen are from an RfA where Synergetic Maggot was the nominator, and then uses examples from that RfA and calls them "weak" opposes. Conflict of interest? (Keeper says politely,and as a supporter of the Hammer). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec x3)Yup. I just randomly tossed him in there. But I still feel the same. And only from the perspective that not everyone reads the answers to those questions. They might not of even known he asked an optional question. Now, if Stifle would have said something like Oppose per the answers to my questions, or something similar, then ok. Valid point. But knowledge of how things go on RfA is important here. Just saying something, and not being clear in the process gives way to those other opposes that are founded on unresearched votes.

I dont think it would be that difficult to come to an agreement. Has it even been tried before?

And no. Theres no conflict of interest. I never bothered to address the concerns with TenPoundHammer, nor the opposers on their talk pages. Its only a matter of the most recent RfA I've been following. I'm not so daft that I'd try to hide the fact that i nominated him. Plus, I'm tired of edit conflicts here.
talk
) 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Plus, I never called them weak opposes. That just happens to be an aesthetic fact. :)~
talk
) 16:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Please know SM, I wasn't trying to call you daft. I said "weak", you said "lazy". My error. My apologies if that's all you took from my comments above. I've been a nominator before, and have been personally upset by anyone who would dare oppose someone I nominated. You have made a good faith post here, and a good faith nomination of TPH. I didn't mean to sound condescending and I certainly didn't mean to be accusational. Again, apologies. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa. No harm done. I was kidding. I don't take admniship seriously at all (the act of making one an admin that is). I'm only upset with the lack of a standard. If TPH doesn't make admin I won't be sullen. I'm just concerned with the lack of reasoning is all. Again, no harm done at all. And if I read (sounded - read, you get me) like I took offence, my apologizes. I'm just bad at writing up guideline, and I'd like honest support in achieving a guide to adminship. This will eliminate needless RfA's where SNOW closes aren't necessary. The editor will be able to see a consensus based guideline before self nom'ing, or accepting another editors nomination.
talk
) 17:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Early withdrawl

Resolved

Done by EVula Malinaccier (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThinkBlue per his request at User_talk:Keeper76#Re:_Rfa. I would, but I know there are archive pages and what not to update, and I dont know where all those are at the moment. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I really appreciate that you understand you don't know what all needs to be done; I hate it when people close RfAs improperly. Just a pet peeve of mine. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You'll want to make a link to it at
User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological) as well as at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/T (in this case, with the name starting with a T). Useight (talk
) 23:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA %

Hey, I have just thought up of a new idea for the RfA template. Both TangoTango's and SQL's templates give the percentage of support. It would be nice for the template to use an additional template, with the text:

({{{1|0}}}/{{{2|0}}}/{{{3|0}}}) {{#ifeq: {{{1}}}{{{2}}}|0|0|{{#ifeq: {{{2}}}|0|100|{{#expr: {{{1|}}}/({{{1|}}}+{{{2|}}}) * 100 round 0}}}}}}% Support

which would show, for example:
(100/15/4) 87% Support
This way, it would be a nice way to see how progress is coming on the RfA. What do other's think?
bot
15:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't the math, (or for others, maths), working? 100/15/4 is a great deal better than 16%. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's 86%. :P Wasn't this what I proposed yesterday? :) Rudget . 15:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed.
bot
15:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll attribute the idea to you Rudget - but remember under the Wiki free license, you've given it to the public domain : ). Seriously though, that's a pretty neat idea. Nice job Sox. Better to have it displayed along with the tally than just at the crat's NB or RfA talk. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 15:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it update automatically? If so, its a great idea.
talk
) 15:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That was the part (automatic updates) that has been discussed before - adding a bot task to individual RfA tallies. The problem as I see it is that the bot would have to run pretty frequently to keep the tally "current". Even running hourly, it would seem to lag behind some of the more "active" RfAs. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't a bot adjust the percentage now anyway? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It does. Cool as this may be (and potentially handy for other purposes), it doesn't actually solve anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
What I meant, is where users update the tally at the top on their own, they just modify a template instead. It doesn't count the amount of supports/opposes.
bot
16:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
But it still requires an editor (preferably the participant) to edit the tally, so this template isn't needed there. The bots can generate the percentages on their own, so this template isn't needed there, either. As a result... it doesn't provide any use to the RfA system. Again, nothing personal, it's just the way it is. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but wasn't that bot denied?
bot
18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently not.[4][5] Perhaps we're talking about two different things? Where are you envisioning this template being used? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
On every RfA page.
bot
19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[de-indent] Ah, okay, I thought you mean on the summary template. However, I'm not a fan of the percentage being on the RfAs themselves; there's already a strong argument for removing the tally altogether, and those concerns rest primarily on the visible tally being too much of a symbol that RfA is a vote; added the percentage directly on the pages themselves is a slide towards that (in my opinion only). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting new topic EVula! I also believe that the tally shouldn't be there. Think about it: If you went to an RfA, saw 1/5/3, you would react, and probably !vote, differently than if you saw 5/1/3. Or 60/0/0 for that matter. I would support abolishing the tally all together. An analogy (and don't lecture me about !voting): Say during elections, before entering the little booth to cast your opinion, someone came up to you and said "By the way, Candidate X right now has 87% support." Or "Candidate Y has only 12% support". It introduces bias. New topic:

Anybody wanna get rid of the tally altogether?
Resolved
– Removing tally wouldn't be a good idea -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What does "Resolved" mean? Are we not allowed to keep talking about it? Are you claiming that there is no more to be said on the matter? It seems to me that we will know it is resolved when people stop talking about it, at which point nobody will need to be told. — Dan | talk 00:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I guess I jumped the gun. Just seemed like eevryone had cast it off with considerable vigour. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It can stay on BN, it can stay on every user page that adds it, it can even stay on WT:RFA. I motion for removing the tally completely from individual RfAs to remove the possilibilty of voter bias and pileon. To easy to support a 60/0/0 without looking at candidates qualities. To easy to oppose a 1/5/1 without looking at candidates' qualities. Maybe there's a good reason why a tally is there, but I'm not seeing it.

I don't see any reason to remove the tally. To do so would simply strengthen the delusion that RfA isn't a vote, by attempting to hide the evidence that it is. :-) --
talk
) 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so that's one !support. Or was that an !oppose. Crap (sorry Pedro, I mean Darn), I don't know if you agree with me or not MF. :-)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Err, it was a !vote. ;-) FWIW, I am not in favour of removing the tally. --
talk
) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think removing the tally would change the way people vote: even if the tally wasn't there, RfAs at 1/5/1 would still receive pile-on oppose and 60/0/0 would still receive pile-on support. I think the tally is fine. Acalamari 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought up in the past, and there has not been a consensus to remove it. While consensus can of course change, I still think there is little to gain by presenting people with less information.
_(1 == 2)^Until
21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's all I needed to hear. Dropping the issue, thanks good editors. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there hasn't been a consensus in the past, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea. I'll continue to state I'm for it. I'll always be for moving towards anything that encourages more well reasoned and well supported arguments/opinions and less voting without substance. - Taxman ^Talk 05:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing the tally would increase the delusion that RfA isn't a vote, per Malleus Fatuarum. So keep it. At least it's more honest. And unfortunately, pileon will still probably happen for those that tend to anyway, as it's not that hard to see which way the wind is blowing after a relatively short time into most of the RfAs I've watched. IMHO. — Becksguy (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
More importantly, what would be the problem with that delusion? Really RfA is a hybrid and as I said anything that moves it more towards the more well reasoned side of the spectrum would create greater value for the project. You ignored that part and also the damage the tally does in terms of encouraging thoughtless voting. It's not just about knowing which direction the RfA going, it's about giving the impression that the number is all that matters rather than the reasoning. - Taxman ^Talk 06:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The tally is useful for providing a quick estimate about a candidate's progress - disposing of it creates the mirage that RfA is only a discussion, and that numbers are less important than they currently are. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the tally should stay. Becksguy is right. To remove it would be crappy.
talk
) 06:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh well. Sometimes swimming upstream is still right. :) - Taxman ^Talk 06:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Taxman has a strong and rational argument for what should be. And yes, swimming upstream is sometimes right despite a "go with the flow" POV. In a rational world, tallies would not be necessary, AfDs would not count !votes either, even if unconsciously. I wish I knew how to avoid what sometimes looks like driveby or thoughtless voting. And it's a serious problem, from what I see. Strength of argument, as well as cogent and logical discussions would be the only deciding method. But then political elections would be decided on a purely rational basis also, instead of on the basis of attack ads, spin doctoring, and how much money is available. I personally wish it were so. But isn't the first step in fixing something to accept what it actually is, without filters and biases? Then decide what it should be. — Becksguy (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Well since there have been 10^googol proposals for a different RfA system and we still have this one, it appears organic change is the way to go. I also happen to think the hybrid system works and it is a rather efficient way to make the decision. The tally is one way of distilling the conversation into a measurement so that a decision can be made, but that does not need to be done before the decision is made. So in the end I believe that removing the tally is a seemingly small change, but again anything is worth it that shifts the focus to the strength of the reasoning and reduces the belief that numbers are the only thing that matters. - Taxman ^Talk 13:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The downside though is that it would perpetuate the delusion that numbers are not the most important thing that matters. --
talk
) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Since they are not the most important thing... well, I hope that I can leave the conclusion up to the dear reader. :) Well then again maybe I am presupposing too much understanding of decision theory and the best way to gather information for the decision, but I'm not sure how I can explain more without repeating myself. - Taxman ^Talk 12:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've argued this point a dozen times and it always seems to be answered with ILIKEIT, but what the hey, let's argue it again:

When a tally is the first thing a person sees when viewing a request, there will undoubtedly be a prejudicial impact and/or a peer pressure effect on that person when they come to voice their opinion, conscious or not. People should be exposed to the nomination and the questions first, and then the opinions people have expressed, at which point they can count for themselves if they find that useful for them; they shouldn't come to the debate with the numbers already in their head.

A lesser reason (but still a significant one) is that the tallies encourage the perception that RfA is only a vote. Weight of numbers is undoubtedly an important factor, but it's not a one-person-one-vote system. Opinions based on frivolous reasons can be given less weight, and opinions based on reasons that are widely agreed to be significant can be given more weight.

Absolutely everyone who actually wants to see the tallies can do so with ease, by viewing
WP:RFA
completely and just use the template: removing the tallies would have absolutely no effect on these people.

--
talk
) 01:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If somehow this information harms you in some way, just don't look. But for those who find it useful it should stay. Really, if you don't like it just don't use it.
_(1 == 2)^Until
14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Reading list for nominees

Hi, a suggestion. Would it help to tell nominees up front what nominees are expected to know? To prepare for my RfA I read about
talk
) 00:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not add it to
WP:ARL? Make a new section "becoming an administrator" or whatever. Malinaccier (talk
) 00:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just adding my two cents from my talk page - I don't agree with that being prepared for an RfA needs to be spelled out word for word for a candidate; simply taking a week or so and observing all the RfAs should give one a good idea of the knowledge necessary. I would think that learning all the Wikipedia policies is de rigueur and a pretty obvious prerequisite for adminship. Take this opinion as a mild observation.
Tanthalas39 (talk
) 00:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, nobody wants to overload anybody with required reading in areas in which they have no interest. If an interest develops later, then people will swap in the information they need. Maybe this wasn't such a great idea. -
talk
) 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Susanlesch withdrew Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Susanlesch and now wants to leave Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikinews, and Wikimedia Commons.[6] That is sad. Maybe people who know her (I don't) have something to say to her? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to happen quite a lot. A decent editor gets a kicking at RfA and feels that their contributions have been weighed in the balance, but have not satisfied those baying for blood because of some historical perceived breaches of wikiquette. Sad. I hope that Susanlesch will take some time for reflection, and come to realize that it's content contributors like her that have made wikipedia what it is, not the kiddie admins who see "incivilty" behind every shadow. --
talk
) 04:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Well, overreaction is sadly common after a failed RfA, when people take things too personally. Leaving Wikipedia in a huff is
Tanthalas39 (talk
) 04:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, PrimeHunter and Malleus Fatuorum and Tanthalas39. I just happened to see you are talking about me here. Nice of you but no need, and I'd rather not see this discussion here if you don't mind, because it is unlikely I would ever see it, besides being off topic. Take care and wishes. -
talk
) 04:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving back to the topic thread. Over at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching#Checklist_before_requesting_coaching we have a fairly decent checklist of the Big Things people look for at RfA as well as a self-coaching section of places users can help out to gain experience. MBisanz ^talk 08:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

First RFAs that aren't used

I'm nominating Cobaltbluetony for adminship in a short while, but I just wanted to ask a question here first. Tony had a first RFA back in 2006, linked (here) but it never went live. So when I'm nominating him now, do I delete that page and renew with this nom, or do I create a second attempt RFA page like mine? The former being the most making sense to me at this moment in time, but I just wanted to make sure. :) Rudget . 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was never transcluded and never considered by the community, I would just update and edit as needed to make it current. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not allowed to vote?

My vote at
SqueakBox
01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It sure is. Nobody can delete another editor's vote in an Rfa. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Squeak - it's not live yet and isn't transcluded onto the main page. You're obviously entitled to add it back when it begins. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, the Rfa wasn't ready 'yet'. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that's okay. I've decided to stop reverting your oppose. Might come handy. Hús ö nd 01:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Today's question about puzzling stuff in RfA

What really annoys me is that RfA is become a 20-question examination. Some questions are certainly fine, like recall, rollback standards... But for stuff like what's the difference between a block and ban, it's a pointless question that adds even more stress to someone who's already stressed. Is the questioner too lazy to look through the users' contribs and find that they speak for themselves? The biggest problem with such a question is that it has one definitive answers that anybody can look up in policy pages. It doesn't require any thought but it still adds stress. The questions are quite optional, and I suggest to all current and prospective nominees to ignore such a question. Maxim_(talk) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I had to do more than 20 questions to get my drivers license. I really don't think it is that much of an ordeal. While it is true that many questions have stock answers, it is also true that sometimes people either bring new insight to the question, and sometimes they show their ignorance in the subject altogether. I have found the questions to be very useful in evaluating the candidates in the past. In regards to the option of ignoring the questions, all the power to you, they are indeed optional.
_(1 == 2)^Until
17:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I find the questions tough (as they should be), they're way over my head. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on the last part of your post Maxim, remember that the "optional" status of the questions is no more than a title (at least it seems that way to me): in the RfAs that I've participated in, virtually everyone who didn't answer the questions (even one) got opposed. Interestingly enough, not answering the questions seems to lead to more opposition than gaps in policy knowledge. Acalamari 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
And somehow community consensus was, on
WP:RFCRFA that RfA is not broken... Maxim_(talk)
17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That's because the community is broken. — CharlotteWebb 17:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing about the block/ban question, and I agree Maxim that it is a policy question with a "definitive answer", is how many candidates get it wrong. Does that make them a good candidate? Answering a question without looking at two very easy policy pages to copy/paste an answer? Also, ignoring the optional questions, why ideologically sound, generally generates more opposes than necessarily policy knowledge/contribution history would merit. .02 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer

(EC)What I like about the block/ban question is that, in my opinion, anyone who does not take the 180 or so seconds to look up that difference has signified that they are less likely to take time to research the appropriate policies when the matters get more complex. -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(ecx3)I respectfully disagree (with Maxim). I understand your point, but in the last couple days there have been several RfA candidates that answered one of the various ban/block questions wrong. I see it as a barometer of RfA preparedness - perhaps even a
Tan | 39
17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(Cool new sig Tan:-) And to add to my severly edit conflicted statement above, What if a n00b asked them a policy based question? Should they, as an admin, research and know the answer, or just answer whatever they think up? RfA is a "test" (right or wrong) for future adminship. Not that we admins don't make mistakes, but RfA day is like school-picture day. Comb your hair, brush your teeth. Put a nice shirt on. Smile. Answer questions correctly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(ecxO_O)There's a huge difference between something like adminship at Wikipedia and getting a drivers' license. If you can't properly drive a car, you can kill someone. A user can look at some projectspace contribs instead of asking the same question to everyone. If I were at RfA, I'd look at User X's answers, who's passing 67/0/0 and I'll rewrite in my own words. Maxim_(talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I never did any policy homework, I actually commented instead of mindlessly reading through 40+ pages. Maxim_(talk) 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I had more than 20 questions on my grade 9 math quiz. It is not a lot of homework.
_(1 == 2)^Until
17:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's an RfA. Not real life. Practical experience is more important than theoretical knowledge. Maxim_(talk) 17:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
While I agree in principle, it's rare to see a candidate for Adminship with practical experience in blocking or banning... UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How do questions about theoretical knowledge diminish from real life experience? Also, Wikipedia is part of real life, so is RfA, it is not some role playing game, we are real people working on a real project. I don't see your distinction.
_(1 == 2)^Until
17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the one that has been annoying me the most is this "cool-down block" buzz-phrase, as if anybody is going to know what the hell it means in this context. Lucky thing I happen to read, with great amusement, every single RFA that floats by, otherwise my response (if ever asked) would likely be "Ummm... 'cool down' from what? Edit-warring? Personal attacks? Jungle fever?" rather than just "cool down from being (apparently) angry for some reason" which is the jargonized meaning. I say "apparently" believing that most of us sound angrier than we actually are. — CharlotteWebb 17:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose you for that answer. Cool down blocks are never to be used. Ever ever. Answering anything different is automatic proof that you belong elsewhere. Just kidding. Levity for levity's sake here, that's all. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've seen an admin post on a users talk page, that the admin is blocking the editor to allow them to cool down. These were explicit statements, nothing inferred. The text read (with artistic license) I am temporarily blocking you to allow you time to calm down. I won't post the diff, as that would only be throwing someone under the bus. I neither agree nor disagree with the admin actions, but post this rather out of frustration due to hearing and seeing two different things. Yngvarr (c) 18:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only admin that just made a quick check through his blocking log? :-). Bus! bus! bus! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yngvarr I do not know the context, but "cool down" is bloody vague at face value. You can ask someone to "cool down" without making it obvious whether you are referring to the person's attitude or behavior or both or neither. — CharlotteWebb 18:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be a valid question if expressed in plain English, which if I correctly understand
the writer's intent
— not that I've bothered to check who wrote this crap — would be more along the lines of:
"Is it appropriate to block User:X on the grounds that you believe User:X is angry and likely to make bad edits?"

Of course that would be too easy to answer, to the extent of being an equally pointless question. — CharlotteWebb 18:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually prefer more optional questions and was hoping for them to appear on my RFA. I kept checking back, anxious to answer them. I got a few and enjoyed answering them. Useight (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I wish we'd expand the automatic questions. Besides AOR and Ban/block and cool down block, I think there are several other behavioral and technical questions that an Admin-to-be should know. Like what is the unblock email address? Can you review a block you placed? Where do you refer someone with a major complaint (OTRS, Designated Agent, Arbcom OFFICE)? Open proxies and jumping IPs? Mediawiki space? Cascading protection & &bot=1 functions? These are all things that surprisingly few admin candidates know about IMO. MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait, what's an OTR? Why do we have so many OTRs? IPs can jump? Well, probably because the left their proxy open. How embarassing. And who's a mediawiki? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I once read that "The community grants administrator status to trusted users ...". What questions do you think would be helpful in determining whether a candidate is trustworthy? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could peruse the latest RfAs or take a look at the archives to see what questions the community generally asks for potential administrators. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I could, but that would only be a useful exercise if I believed that the answers to the questions which are usually asked would help to determine the trustworthiness of the candidate. Technical and policy questions are easily answerable by anyone who can RTFM and I don't see any correlation between the ability to read instructions and regurgitate them on the one hand and trustworthiness on the other.

What I really want to know is whether the candidate is likely to do any of the silly things I've seen the small number of dim admins do. Recent examples include, but are not limited to, reviewing their own blocks, appointing themselves an arbcom of one, issuing cool down blocks, making up new CSDs on the spur of the moment, and using the extra buttons to "win" an argument. Flat out asking people "Do you ever do stupid things?" will not, I suspect, get a very useful answer. People who do so frequently will say "Never", the clueful are likely to say "Sometimes".

Standard Q1 is fine because the answer to that can be compared with the candidate's experience. Standard Q2 should probably be inverted as even the very dim indeed can answer the current version well, so something like "Please describe [some of] the worst thing[s] you've done on Wikipedia". Perhaps I'd invert standard Q3 as well, giving something like "Please describe the last/worst dispute[s] you have had on Wikipedia". That would usually do for me, although some candidates will always need to be asked about blocking and banning and
WP:SNOW. If you genuinely have sufficient doubts to be asking the 22nd question in an RfA, and aren't merely grandstanding, have the courage of your convictions and just oppose the candidate. Better for everyone. Angus McLellan (Talk)
01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh! I really want that to be a standard question: "Do you ever do stupid things?"
Do it!. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer
01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

These are questions I have sometimes found useful. Dloh cierekim 01:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Those are some exemplary questions! Don't be surprised if I lift them for ADCO. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see Admins have a broad proficiency, which is why I ask the odd technical questions. Another question and I know this is controversial, might be asking an admin how they'd handle having their RL identity outted on a certain website. Also, maybe some thing they ~~~~ saying they understand all major policies and agree to abide by them. More for those admins who claim they didnt know they couldn't review their own block or both block and protect a user talk, before letting a review occur. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with "no-one knows what the hell 'cool-down block' is supposed to mean" - I've been here three years, and I tripped up on it. And yeah, having an opinion does seem like grounds for a speedy oppose these days. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the difference between a block and a ban - everyone assumes there's an obvious answer. Is there? The disctinction is pretty subtle. And I'd be interested to learn what people think is the difference, if any, between an indefinite block and a siteban. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing to consider: the current questions are open ended. That is, there are not right and wrong answers. Questions like "What's the difference between a block and a ban?" do have correct and incorrect answers. The problem with making such questions standard is that they quickly become a test of nothing other than familiarity with RFA. Editors with bad judgment who regularly participate in RFA will know the correct answers, editors who don't regularly browse RFA will be the ones who potentially get caught up. Questions with right and wrong answers are good for admin coaching, as they're essentially a Socratic method of teaching our customs. But as standard questions on RFA they'd quickly accomplish little beyond supporting RFA regulars from non-RFA regulars, and that's not actually a very useful development. --JayHenry (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_121&oldid=1142513352"