Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 110

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105←Archive 108Archive 109Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112→Archive 115

Two proposed tweaks for RFA process

In light of recent RFA events, which have shown "some of the things that can happen and can cause problems", I'd like to propose two small process fixes to handle these better in future.


1. Voluntary desysopping and RFA

A user who voluntarily resigns the bit, can request it back at will. However, if that user instead seeks RFA to reconfirm it, then I think thats an irrevocable choice - once they've said they want to be reassessed formally by the community, and the community start to give views, then for better or worse that's how it goes. The community will either approve them, or not.

Rationale: - The only reason to jump out of the process would be the thought "the community isn't going to approve me / hasn't approved me so now I want adminship back anyhow". Since the intent of RFA is to assess communal trust, and the intent of giving back the bit at will is the presumption the community still feels confident of the resigned sysop... so a sysop who resigns the bit and then seeks RFA, I think for better or worse has waived the right to later claim auto-adminship "just because they don't like the answer".


2. RFA suspension in exceptional circumstances

If, during an RFA, an allegation is made or other exceptional event or disruption occurs to the RFA which has the effect that it may cause the RFA to be indeterminate as to how properly/improperly it was affected, I would suggest a provision whereby a 'crat can temporarily suspend the RFA (possibly after optionally asking the candidate's preference as well?), until the matter is resolved.

Rationale: - This avoids the devil's choice whereby a candidate watches their RFA be snowballed by rumor and counter-rumor, or must withdraw. Although RFA is no big deal (its said), a failed RFA or repeat RFA is seen by many as a big deal and a reflection on the editor. An option to suspend an RFA until sudden matters that happen and cause much drama and wild impact can be clarified, and the RFA then continue in an orderly fashion, would help by avoiding both these options. Instead, the RFA is frozen, and resumes in a while, when everyone has had time to reflect and information has come out. Again left to the crats to decide when that should be. Fairer all around both to the community, the process, and the candidate, in extreme cases.

I don't say the wording's perfect but as basic ideas... thoughts?

FT2 (Talk | email) 00:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Number 2 is already the case, is it not? If the crats want to do something weird with an RFA in weird circumstances, they would do it. #1 is an important question (and personally I agree with your take on it.) But, I don't see it as a tweak of the process; to me, it's something for the crats to clarify how they intend to act in the future. If they want to, which maybe they don't. Sufficiently oddball cases can be handled on an as-needed basis- we don't necessarily need a policy ahead of time. Friday (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

These are both questions that have been perceived by the community as causes of concern when they happen. It therefore makes sense to decide if we feel these are sensible ways to normally handle them if they happen in future, now we know they can happen, for a smoother ride if they happen again. If they're already options then all this does is note in the RFA process that that's so, so everyone knows it. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I raised point number one (and some other things) earlier in the week on the bureaucrats' noticeboard. See here. At least one bureaucrat said that the issue is for the community to decide, while another gave a longer response. Deskana: here. Cecropia: here and here. As always, look at the full thread for the context. Carcharoth 09:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, for the community to decide. Which led to it being posted here for discussion :) FT2 (Talk | email) 19:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One comment about (1). I don't think that should cover the admin who runs at RfA not realising they could just have asked for the tools back. If someone says, "You do realise you could avoid this whole process by just asking a crat to restore your sysop flag," and this is news to the candidate, they shouldn't be prevented from abandoning the RfA and getting resysopped. This shouldn't be too bureaucratic. WjBscribe 06:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That should really depend on how the RfA itself is going - if it's 100% support and they just didn't realise they could have their tools restored without an RfA, then I would support closing it early. However, if concerns have been flagged up in the RfA, they shouldn't then be able to say "Hang on, I can have my tools back without this" and get resysopped; that would negate the whole principle of accountability. Personally, I would generally prefer that any former admin who wants their tools back should go through an RfA anyway, but I wouldn't advocate making this a strict rule. (Although, having just resigned, I can promise that I will not request restoration of sysop access without an RfA.) WaltonOne 18:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Broadly agree, that's good commonsense. I reckon we should add a note to that effect at WP:RFA - "if you gave up the tools in non-contentious circumstances, you can usually just ask for them back; no need to RFA." But once an RFA's started, someone should ask 1st thing as a standard question, "Are you sure you want to RFA given that you can just ask for the tools back? If so, why?" If they go "ooops, didn't know that!" then I think that allowing the RFA to close would be fine :)
Otherwise, any objections or criticisms of these? Thoughts? FT2 (Talk | email) 23:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

:O

very green today, no? – Gurch 08:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is good news. Pedro :  Chat  12:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't matter any more. It's looking much less likely that anonymous page creation will actually be re-enabled – Gurch 12:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh. I hadn't realised that. Still more good admins are needed (goes the mantra) Pedro :  Chat  12:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Gurch, could you link to a discussion of this? Village Pump? Mailing list? Carcharoth 13:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. Found it: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Uhh...nevermind and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anon page creation, Carcharoth 13:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why everyone's so worried about it. There is no apparent consensus to turn it on. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Emperor

I think someone should either figure out a way to include this page in the list of current nominations, or maybe change the clock on the page somehow. John Carter 15:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When the cantidate transcludes the page, the "clock" should be started from that moment, I presume. - jc37 16:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not anyone, though. Unless the candidate or his nominators figure it out, there won't be no RFA.--Tikiwont 16:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Transcluded now & time changed --Herby talk thyme 16:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I would have left that (the transclusion) to the candidate, but whatever. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
My bad - just used to working places that help people --Herby talk thyme 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That's great thanks. There were some problems and I think a few people offered to help so it was down to who got to it first. (Emperor 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
Herby, you never need to apologize for being helpful. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Um - it wasn't an apology --Herby talk thyme 17:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
...and this is why I shouldn't edit while mentally exhausted... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If it means anything (and it probably doesn't), I read "my bad", as an apology too. : ) - jc37 19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Amount of time between requests

Hello, I've only run for administrator privledges once, and I was wondering if there was a specific amount of time that needed to pass before running again. Thanks. --Astroview120mm 04:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing set in stone, though editors will certainly oppose if they feel it's too short, and, more importantly, that whatever caused them to oppose the first time has not been addressed. I personally am leery about a renomination any less than 4 months after without some rather extraordinary circumstances. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The important question is how long it takes to address the concerns of the opposers. I someone really feels they've done that - they should run again. But there is a general expectation (for good or ill) of 3 or 4 months passing before adminship is asked for again, as Bbatsell says. WjBscribe 06:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
2 months seems to be the lower end. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
As said above, the average is normally three months between requests (my second nomination was a day under three months after my first one closing), though some people wait for as little as a month or as late as a year (or more). In the end though, what people want to see is that a candidate has addressed the concerns raised in a previous RfA. Acalamari 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Biggest Green Week

Seems like we officially have the biggest green week ever...unless someone can prove different --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ 05:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC) ...

Username S O N S% Ending Duplicates? Report
Matthew Yeager 0 0 0 0% 17 November 04:06 No Details
Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17 0 1 100% 16 November 23:30 No Details
Bencherlite 10 0 0 100% 16 November 17:16 No Details
Emperor 12 0 0 100% 16 November 16:00 No Details
TeaDrinker 30 1 0 97% 15 November 20:40 No Details
Geometry guy 44 1 0 98% 15 November 19:58 No Details
Gimmetrow 46 7 0 87% 15 November 02:41 No Details
VanTucky 64 2 3 97% 15 November 01:25 No Details
Ioeth 21 0 2 100% 14 November 21:28 No Details
SebastianHelm 39 0 0 100% 14 November 02:05 No Details
Rifleman 82 32 1 0 97% 14 November 16:42 No Details
Herbythyme 67 0 1 100% 14 November 13:35 No Details
EncycloPetey 38 0 0 100% 14 November 01:39 No Details
David D. 42 0 0 100% 13 November 22:59 No Details
Spellcast 38 0 0 100% 13 November 19:56 No Details
Nightscream 20 0 0 100% 13 November 14:00 No Details
Lid 30 0 0 100% 13 November 05:18 No Details
Neranei 82 1 1 99% 12 November 08:13 No Details
Rigadoun 37 0 0 100% 12 November 07:32 No Details
Cremepuff222 81 3 0 96% 10 November 23:49 Yes Details
LaraLove 134 20 5 87% 10 November 12:47 No Details

Last updated 05:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC) by Tangobot

Commons RfDA

I happened to drop by Wikipedia Commons and noticed that it is currently undergoing its first de-adminship procedure created on an ad-hoc basis. (The de-adminship section was simply inserted at the top of the RFA) Essentially one admin was found to have broken almost all the possible rules on image copyright rules, and the community is swift to take the mop away from him. It seems that judging by the response, there is probably little disagreement on consensus to desysop or consensus to remain sysophood. :P

Of course, such a thing is near impossible to ever occur here in the near future, but I thought it would be interesting to share with you all. ;) - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You know I love when you share ;) the_undertow talk 07:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem was that we had no system/procedure so it is "policy on the hoof" for now but it is something that we will address when this one is over. --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It'll probably become permanent. Users tend to go for the tried-and-tested. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure - but the argument is what percentage decides - 75% in favour of removal (roughly RfA standard) or much less. Some are suggesting a reverse of RfA so that 25% in favour of removal would mean it happened. It will be interesting....--Herby talk thyme 09:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm....why are we talking about Wikimedia Commons here? We are English Wikipedia:-)--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 10:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
SJP, Wikimedia Commons is a sister project to Wikipedia, I think this discussion was originally started to discuss a possible de-adminship procedure on the English Wikipedia...Qst (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think every single de-adminship proposal has now taken up its' place at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, so this was more a "just so you know" or "in case you are interested" note :) Daniel 11:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Heck, I thought that's what arbcom was for...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Resignation message

Just a note to let people know that I have resigned adminship, principally due to real-life pressures. If you want a fuller explanation, see my userpage. WaltonOne 13:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

:( —Qst (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
A sad day that was. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there another way to become an admin?

I tried a requst for adminship but mine failed! But I'd love to become an admin. So here is what I want to tell ya. Is there another way to become an admin instead of this Requst for adminship? If you find out leve me a message on my Talk page and tell me what I've got to do. Got It? Bye .Beko120 14:25 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no other way. Wikipedia:Proposed adminship was put under discussion a few months back, but it was eventually rejected by the community. Qst (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Even when you want temporary adminship (ie, election officers), you need to go through a RfA, IIRC). -- ReyBrujo 14:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Administrator privileges can be directly appointed by the site founder, our operating foundation, and to certain technical persons. These appointments all have to do with the business operations of the site, not community editing and cleanup work. RfA is the only "real" way for an editor to get the janitorial priv's of sysop. Being an admin does not make you a better editor, serve as a badge, or make your edits any more "right". Adminship represents that the community trusts you to carry out decisions that they have formed consensus on, really nothing more. — xaosflux Talk 14:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Beko, as said above, there is no other way for you to get promoted to adminship. I know Rfa can be hell, but you need to gothrough it to get promoted. What I suggest you do is improve, and try again in 4 or more months. If you are good enough, you should get promoted. Cheers!--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
People, people, no feeding the trolls. [1] Pascal.Tesson 17:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Your RfA failed only one month ago, and at that time it was due to inexperience (only being on Wikipedia for 2 weeks). You still don't have much experience on Wikipedia; at the end of the day - we are here to build the encyclopedia — not to gain adminship. Qst (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I will never become an admin now! Beko120 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, nobody is saying that — I'm not going to stand here all day and explain to you what is expected in administrators, so maybe this page can. Qst (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now read the page but this is my last attemt for adminship so I will need help from another admin so I can get to the new admin school and be a new admin. Beko120 18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I good idea would be for you to get an admin coach. Lradrama 18:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me who are the admin coaches? Beko120 18:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Admin coaching. GlassCobra 18:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You should know that being an admin is often not a whole lot of fun. Most of what you do is after discussion or at others' request. Most of the messgaes on my talk page are "why did you delete this?" type complaints or vandalism by somebody that I've managed to offend. You will always manage to do somethings "wrong," assume good faith generally stops applying with respect to you, and anything you do that is perceived as wrong is "Admin Abuse!" Mr.Z-man 18:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I've only gotten one complaint. You probably just need more ink. :) the_undertow talk 18:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I have got a admin coach requst so that means I can be an admin soon! Beko120 18:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a great start, and Lradrama's suggestion was a good one. Good luck. the_undertow talk 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You'll get tuition in working as an admin so once you've been doing that for some time and have gathered the experience and knowledge together, you should be ready to put a good RfA together. Don't rush things, make sure you take it one step at a time and work on improving in terms of quality not speed. And enjoy it! :-) Lradrama 19:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Kidnap another admin and have your brain transplanted into his or her skull. DS 02:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I got an admin coach as you know now that is the first step in need the next step. So if you want to tell me the next step leave me a note on my talk page. Beko120 19:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA: Discussion or Vote?

The interactions of various editors with one another at the RfA for VanTucky has led me to question once more whether RfAs are a discussion or a vote. If it's a vote, no reasoning should be given, and a simple 4 tilde signature should be left underneath whichever of the three one wishes to cast their "ballot." If it's a discussion, challenges to opposes (both by those who support the candidacy, and by the candidate themself) should not be discouraged, as appears to be happening at the RfA in question. These challenges are being looked at as some kind of "evidence" against the candidate. If the RfA is truly a discussion, this should not be the case. If it's a vote, then we should do away with anything other than the 4 tilde signature in the voting area. K. Scott Bailey 20:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a hybrid of both, and to force RfA into this false dichotomy has been rejected time and time again by the community with good reason. —Kurykh 21:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
My point, I guess, is that it seems to be neither. When discussion of opposition is viewed as evidence against a candidate, it's my opinion that the process is injured. K. Scott Bailey 21:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that what the opposers wanted was the candidate to defend him/herself. Also, a few ubiquitous opposers does not a broken process make. —Kurykh 21:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, some opposers cited the fact that he defended himself as proof against him. Others said he should let other people defend him. RfA has serious issues. Is it broken? Perhaps not, but it's VERY far from perfect, and far too often, good admins, who have pissed off the wrong well-connected folks get torpedoed. K. Scott Bailey 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You are pointing out issues of human nature that are beyond any process's control. Switch to any extreme of the vote-discussion spectrum and you will only see more problems, with the current problems still unresolved. I'm not saying that the current process is perfect, as none are, but to place the blame of the problems in the wrong place is a common mistake we see these days on WT:RFA. —Kurykh 21:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
RfA is always open to suggestions for how to best improve it. The problem is that most solutions attempt to change the process because of issues with participant behavior. (for example, if it were just a straight vote, we'd have no way of telling if people were voting for bogus reasons or not) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If no reasons are given then closing bureaucrats need to ignore the support or oppose. If a reason is given and clarification is asked of the user who gave the reason and no clarification is given, the support or oppose needs to be ignored. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Completely ignoring support or opposition without comment is the wrong way to go. Especially in the case of support, a member of the community is saying they trust someone to be an administrator - that they have the necessary qualities for that role- which is a significant thing in of itself. Often people assume support without further comment to be "per nom". Opposes present a slightly more difficult question - the fact that someone does not trust another to be an admin is problematic. Whereas a supporter presumably feels that the candidate has all necessary qualities, the opposer presumably feels that one or more is lacking. Failing to specify which makes the bureaucrat's job more difficult - they cannot tell "oppose as user has red hair" (a frivolous rationale) from "oppose as the user is frequently mistaken in applying deletion policy in discussion" (what I would venture is a good rationale). The onous is placed on opposers to explain themselves more than supporters partially precisely because it is harder to interpret opposition than support, and also the tradition that adminship is not a big deal - in other words that there should be a presumption in favour of granting it and that a case needs to be made to rebut that presumption. A "bare oppose" thus carries less weight that a carefully reasoned one, but I think one should still be loathed to disregard it altogether - especially if coming from a user in good standing. WjBscribe 03:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
To address the particular source of your question, I can't see anybody objecting just to VanTucky's having replied to those opposing his nomination. I do see two people (Barryob, Eliz81) opposing because they find these objections uncivil, and consider this incivility reflective of VanTucky's general temerament. This sort of reasoning sounds entirely fair to me. One further user, Irpen, refers to the replies but does not state how they are linked to his opinion of VanTucky; this is a tad unclear, though I would guess that he is drawing the same conclusion as Barryob and Eliz81. All in all, I think you're misunderstanding this situation. (I make no comment on VanTucky himself, about whom I know nothing.) — Dan | talk 02:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The usual objection is to people responding to each and every oppose when they are in substance the same, particularly if this is done aggressively. It is however expected that candidates will respond to criticism in some way (and opposition has resulted where candidates have not done this). It does create an unfairness in that candidates are expected effectively to keep smiling while being kicked in the teeth. But that is always going to happen where someone is trying to demonstrate skills that include patience and a good ability to interact with others even under pressure. There can also be a criticism where candidates fail to "control" overly enthusiastic supporters who engage aggressively with opposers. The ability to minimise drama is often seen as an asset in an admin candidate and some expect them to ask supporters to ease of opponents if things are going too far, and maybe even apologise to those whose good faithed opposition is responded to aggressively. Challenging the reasons for opposition is in my opinion a good thing, challenging every opposers tends to turn the RfA into a battleground. Ideally a candidate should be able to respond to the substance of the opposition without showing disrespect towards those expressing it, however hard that may be in the circumstances. WjBscribe 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not.--Hu12 02:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  • To me, "vote" simply means that the decision is made by determining what percentage of people agree with it. Having discussion also does not preclude a vote, and it's quite clear that bureaucrats at least take into consideration the amount of support for promotion. -Amarkov moo! 04:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
In my oppinion, it is both a vote, and a discussion. The votes backed with better reasoning carry more weight than the ones with little reasoning.--SJP 03:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but that is such a crock and so is the entire "RFA is not a vote" myth. Without coming down on one side or the other of whether or not RFA should be a vote, it seems obvious to me that, in its current incarnation, it is most certainly a vote with a discussion whose primary goal is to motivate the voting (kind of like a political campaign but without the candiate involved) and to identify spurious votes of questionable validity. However, I've never heard of a b'crat saying that he/she discounted the 1FA vote by 50%, the "no WikiProject endorsement by 75%" and the "never vote for a self-nom by 100%". Perhaps b'crats do that all the time (seems doubtful to me) and perhaps they only do it in cases where the numerical count is in the "discretionary range". I haven't been around RFA much in recent months so I may be off-base as to how RFA is run these days. But what I wrote is my impression of RFA. As far as I am concerned, RFA is mostly a vote with some leeway for interpreting and weighting votes in the so-called "discretionary range".
--Richard 07:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A vote in most governing bodies I'm involved in is very different from an RfA as I see it. In a vote, you have discussion - then you tally the votes once that has been completed as a seperate activity. Often the votes are anonymous and the tallying process is fairly immediate with few changes made, if even possible. The RfA process is certainly a hybrid, as it offers the opportunity for evidence to be provided which allows a view to be changed as the discussion goes on - and for positions to be stated early in the process. Not trying to be argumenative, just talking =)...cheers, Ryo 18:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Do I know this editor?

A good way to check your interactions with an RfA candidate is to run the RfA candidate's talk page through Wiki stats. Then search the Wiki stats for your user name to see whether you posted on their talk page. You can also run your own talk page to see whether the RfA candidate posted on your talk page. There might be an easier way to do this. If so, please let me know. It also would be nice to have a tool that brings up sequential posts such as if I posted on a talk page and the RfA candidate posted on that talk page right after me. -- Jreferee t/c 08:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Keepscases disrupting with nonsense questions

He has placed questions in which he asks the candidate to write a haiku about WP and another where he asks something about a WP movie script. Is this warn-able, block-able, both, or neither? This editor also has been shown to take as little as 1-3 minutes between RfA votes, which is tangential, but not unimportant. K. Scott Bailey 03:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a friendly warning in that user's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's disruptive nonsense. Please warn him. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I love a good joke on RfAs now and again, but that's rather ridiculous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This is very ridiculous, but how much disruption is it really causing? It does not really seem too much of a disruption. I can see civily asking him to stop, but blocking...come on. Its not too big of a deal. Thats just my oppinion. Cheers!--SJP 03:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
His haiku question
Really puts the candidate
Under the spotlight
the_undertow talk 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether poetry or other creativity is sought,
At Requests for Adminship it is misplaced;
The attitude that the candidate has brought
Is on what a support or oppose is based.
Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
!voting up, or down

candidate suffers great stress

from silly questions

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore his invalid questions. No one, besides him, will oppose.--SJP 04:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:HAIKU is
where muses should release their
creative talent
:) --Iamunknown 04:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't disruptive in any way. Frivolous, perhaps, but some candidates might enjoy the lightheardness. Those who don't should feel free to ignore it. --Tony Sidaway 06:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think you stopped him too early. He didn't get to my RfA!  :-P — Coren (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, then. K. Scott Bailey 13:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I was being facetious, obviously. I was just half wondering if I'd get a "Compose a limerick about the AfD process" or something like that.  :-) — Coren (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Frivolous, really
Those questions that he poses
Why not ignore them?
-- GlassCobra 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA causes
People to freak out about
silly little things.
EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Only one mention
Of RFA poetry
Turns everyone rouge. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Much talk and debate
Support, neutral, or oppose
And stress all around.
  --Kyoko 00:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Even worse than that:
Socks participating too.
Enormous headache...
EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If someone had said:
"write me a double dactyl"
then we could block him.
--JayHenry 04:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Doubly dactylic
profoundly prophetic, I
blundered the ending
–Outriggr § 05:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Keepscases Keepscases
Poses odd questions on
RfA's and, therefore,
Stands in the dock

!Voting and commenting
Semidisruptively—
One man's opinion, or
Time for a block?

Newyorkbrad 04:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, here goes:
Questions to candidates
Should be made serious;
Quite understandable
For easy review.
How often would one with
Administratorship
Have to be writing a
Frickin' haiku? J-ſtanTalkContribs 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
To be both blunt and honest:
Writing RFA poems is CREEP gone amok,
Such criteria is only for schmucks,
But then, we're all geeks
In a cabalist clique,
So forget it, who really gives a !@#$! bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 05:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come on now, folks.
Silly questions are okay.
Just look at Q8. — WODUP 08:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Uh, Bibliomaniac15, that's a limerick. Double dactyls and haikus only!!!! And by the way, I totally agree with his decision for flight. Way cooler. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:IAR bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 22:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Who cares is he askes odd questions. I am not aware of any policy against it. Is there any? Don't think so.--SJP 14:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The point of my post was that I considered it somewhat disruptive, which is not allowed. Others disagreed, finding it simply a humorous diversion, which is fine. I have no problem being wrong, and admitting so. However, it seems you wait until the end of a discussion, discern who had the better of it, and then jump in on that side of it. (See your note to Dorf below, on his bold move in closing the doomed nom.) That can tend to offend other editors, and I would recommend not doing it. K. Scott Bailey 15:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Errrrr I'm sorry K. Scott Bailey but how did that remark help this (admittedly gone totally off topic) thread? If you've got some kind of issue with him take it to SJP's talk page, or yours, but not here. Your comment is the thing that can offend editors. I sugest you review your own posts before slighting others. Pedro :  Chat  16:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My post had everything to do with what I saw him doing. He waited until someone had told Dorf he had made a procedural mistake, and then made the same general comment. He waited until it was clear (from many of the genuinely creative poetry posted in this thread) that I had misjudged the intent of the questioner, and then piled on. The things I did during RfA were nothing of that sort at all. Did I offend a few people? Certainly, and I have apologized at their talk. Does this have anything to do with SJP on this thread? No. Should I have taken it to his talk? Perhaps, but since the behavior in question happened here, I dealt with it here. My apologies to you, if you were offended by my tone or anything else in my previous post. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 16:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No worries, It's not a big issue. I don't need to "fight SJP's corner" and although I disagree with your assessment of the nature of his comment it's really not something to row about amongst so much poetry! Best. Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, SJP had already expressed his opinion before the "consensus" emerged. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It would have been nice if K Scott had also noticed that before his comment, but there we go. I did, for the record, but felt it better to allow K Scott to realise his error. He didn't. It's not an issue for me any more. I'm sure if SJP was that offended he'd have commented. My thanks to Bbatsell for his input however. I'd quite like K Scott to strike his comment but that is up to him. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
We should encourage him. This kind of bizarre stuff is a good litmus test for candidates. I want to know how they'll react to the stream of gibbering nonsense they'll get from editors once they start deleting articles. Friday (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Even poetry
On the RFA talk page
can't stop the drama
--JayHenry 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly
but amusing distractions
are always welcome. J-ſtanTalkContribs 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to ask people to not vote for their friends?

It looks like there are lots of people who show up at RFA to vote for their friends. This of course makes RFA way less useful, because it's not really supposed to be about who your friends are. Would it be reasonable to ask people to not vote in RFAs if they are friends with the candidate? (By "friends", I mean either from real life or a chat room.) We don't have much of a way to enforce it, of course, but we could at least ask. Friday (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you show some examples of this? I honestly wasn't aware that Wikipedians had many friends on here from RL. GlassCobra 16:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have a way to produce examples- how do I know who is friends with who? So I could of course be way off base with this concern. I'd assumed it was just something that people would agree does happen. Some RFAs see huge amounts of votes compared to others- I assumed the high vote counts were generally associated with people who hang out in the chat rooms. Friday (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If we're talking "Wikifriends" (i.e. editors you have collaborated positively with over time on this or another wiki project) then we can hardly encourage them not to comment - they should be the ones to add extra strength to supports, or to counter unfair crticism from opposers. If it's RL I agree with GlassCobra. I don't know a single person in RL who even edits wikipedia, yet alone is interested in the project side of it (mind you maybe I just don't have enough friends......!) Pedro :  Chat  16:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is something that we can actually patrol. I agree with Pedro that limiting wikifriend RfA involvement is a bad idea, but real life friends... unless that friend created an account specifically to participate in the RfA, they have just as valid a voice as anyone else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Any requests that serves to stifle people from voicing an opinion is discouraged, including asking people to not have their "friends" vote. People typically make friends on here because of the quality of their contributions. Aside from that, the barriers to becoming an admin are too formidable and too stringent as it is; asking people who like the work of other people and thus are their "friends" is a distasteful idea. --David Shankbone 16:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Conversely, you also have people who vote against someone based upon one interaction they had with that person they did not like. That's more of a problem than friends voting in support. --David Shankbone 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(←) I'll throw out an example: Mine had a lot of votes because of my participation in a large wikiproject. I'm sure this is true for many candidates. And, really, what definition of friend are we using here? I've gained a few friends in my time here on WP, one of them being my nominator. But we wouldn't be friends were it not for a mutual respect gained here, which justifies the support they give. Unless the candidate is canvassing for votes, I don't believe there is anything wrong with it. If an editor participates in a project, or various projects, and their work gains them the respect of a large number of editors, many of whom feel so inlined to register a support, then I believe those are the most useful votes because they have that one-on-one experience with the candidate.

Another example: I believe Balloonman (I could be wrong) had a co-nom and support as nom from his wife. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. If they're constructive editors with a respectable history, those who know them personally would know best. Lara❤Love 17:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said. (At least my wife doesn't have an account here, or I'd be guaranteed an oppose: "Spends too much time here, needs to finish redecorating the bedroom"...) BencherliteTalk 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Haha! That could definitely be a downside, all right. GlassCobra 17:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oh Yes. I told WifeOfPedro about my RfA the day before it closed, and then made sure she kept off her laptop. "Oppose, get on with the washing up" was something I didn't need ...........! Pedro :  Chat  20:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is misinformed. Candidates get a lot of votes because they are a good candidate (or bad). If you worry about people passing because their friends vote, people also fail because their enemies vote too. So it's all even. 82.19.15.225 17:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to ask people to not vote for their friends? No. This has been an ongoing concern since before I got here. "Friends" voting, the you-name-it-cabal, these are part of the "political" aspect of the process. What I think I have seen, though cannot document, is that new users that start at about the same time seem to bond and to share participation in the admin building areas, including RfA. Then, they tend to drift away from RfA. Last year this worried me. I was afraid that people might be !voting based on personal/political connections and not on the merits/demerits of thenoms. In retrospect, if this has been detrimental to the project, I've not seen it. Looking at admins that I might have had some worries in particular about, I'm happy to say my concerns were not realized. Generally, if consensus errs, it is on the side of caution. I believe that all of us who care about Wikipedia enough to participate at RfA care enough to not let someone wreck it, even out of friendship. The process has always been and always will be "broken' in the sense that no human endeavor is perfect. It works, though, at least as well as any other "political" process. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Who would know the candidate better? I have both supported and opposed friends. I don't think we should be discouraging people who are familiar with the candidate to give an opinion. 1 != 2 05:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You have the maturity to give an honest appraisal of your friends. A huge number of our editors do not. There's a reason I worded my concerns the way I did. People familiar with the candidate should give their opinions, certainly- that's not the problem at all. What is the problem is people voting for their friends. I suppose this is really a specific case of the general problem of "a great number of RFA participants vote on their whims, rather than giving a reasoned analysis of the candidate." Friday (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Friday, I think it's time you wrote an essay about this. "Friends of Wikipedians should not edit RFA", perhaps? :) --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Does it count as an essay when it's only one sentence? Something like "Wikipedia works better when we don't divide other editors up in friends and enemies." I dunno, it just doesn't pop. Friday (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
RFA has always had a popularity contest component to it, that's a bad thing and it gives uncertain results for sure. I don't know how you would ever reduce that without running aground on WP:AGF...RxS 16:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
RfA is (to an extent) a popularity contest. Wikipedia is also a community. The strength of the project comes from it's community. A community generates people who are more or less popular than other people in the community. Let's not work against what makes Wikipedia work, by denying the community element of RfA, even if it could be viewed as giving uncertain results. Better that we have a few admins created through popularity, than we have no community. Just a thought. Pedro :  Chat  16:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the community needs to collectively decide that promoting competent admins is more important than being "nice" and supporting everyone. I am suspecting that this is one of those changes that the community will be unable to make on its own. If the community were inclined to be so sensible, we wouldn't be seeing what we're already seeing . Friday (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
And the community comes second to writing an encyclopedia, and while keeping those interested in community (and not everyone is) happy, an effort to keep them happy doesn't extend to promoting unfit admins (if that is indeed happening). I don't think Wikipedia's strength comes from it's community in the sense that there's a shared community consciousness...it's strength is in individual editors interested in contributing to content. But I may be splitting hairs, there's always going to be friendships created and alliances built so who knows. Maybe there should be a WP:NOT extension to exclude community building :) RxS 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Valid points, but at the time WP:NOT includes "A Community" I'll resign my tools and remove my account. And I would not be alone, I'm sure. Pedro :  Chat  21:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the collaborative community of Wikipedia is one of the things I like about it. What's more, I've got well over a dozen people that I've met here as friends on Facebook (folks like Jimbo, Riana, Majorly, Lar, Ryan...); I consider them all friends, albeit ones I just don't regularly talk to about unrelated stuff. At the very least, the camaraderie helps to alleviate wiki-stress, which burns out our editors slower, which improves our overall encyclopedia. It's all connected. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not trying to harsh anyone's buzz here, and I'm not seriously suggesting WP:NOT a community. I'm just trying to get the priorities right. Community comes after the aims of the project. A collaborative community is a natural result of editing Wikipedia, but it's not why we're here after all. It certainly is all connected and Wikipedia would be poorer for it's loss but there is a limit to how much of a negative impact it should be allowed to have on the actual encyclopedia work (which is probably obvious). This is in the context of RFA being a popularity contest at times and how (if at all) it contributes to promoting unfit admins. Long winded point...RxS 06:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the essence of what you're saying, but it's exceptionally difficult to tell when people are !voting for their friends because they are friends; my aforementioned list of friends (which is far from complete) includes people who, aside from being my friends, are also outstanding contributors, and as such, I would likely support them because of the trust I have in their judgement. From an outside observer, it might look like I'm supporting them because we're friends, rather than because of the enormous respect I have for them. Does that make sense? It's such an ephemeral subject that I don't feel like I'm making much sense. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
People's friends are part of the community too, and if they trust the candidate as an admin then that is just as valid as someone else's trust. This is not a factual determination where bias can have an effect, I don't see how one can be biased towards or away from trusting someone. Trusting someone is a subjective decision, and if it was made by a person who knows or even likes the candidate then all the better. 1 != 2 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

early closure

I decided to close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daven200520 early. It would never have succeeded (trying to avoid the unloved SNOW). Please beat me over the head if you think I was being too bold. — Dorftrottel⁠ 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like common sense to me. The nom had not edited since the oppose-storm started. It's a shame that a questioner was watching it more intently than was the nom. Answers to the additional would have had to been pretty good to overcome that deficit. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You realise it was actually a self-nom, do you? S/he signed differently though (as "Jayson", although it links to User:Daven200520) and wrote the self-nom in third person.[2] — Dorftrottel⁠ 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to close an RfA early, cite WP:SNOW. It doesn't matter if it's unloved; that's the policy/guideline/whatever that is driving the action, and it's never a good idea to make it look like you're doing something "just because" (and it's a lot better than saying "it's a waste of time"[3]).
Also, if you're going to get involved in closing RfAs, follow all the instructions (sorry for how dickish that sounded; it's not intended, but it is the best way to drive home my point). RfAs should be added to the appropriate Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies sub-page (which I'm doing right now). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Generally a sound close, but you should avoid closing an RfA you have commented on unless the candidate withdraws. Incidentally, if anyone does close an RfA early per WP:SNOW, please remember to add it to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. Giving a bit of encouragement and advice to the unsuccessful candidate, as Dorftrottel did, is also always good - we want them to get improve, get more experience and try again rather than leave because they feel unwanted. WjBscribe 02:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. I agree with EVula that phrases like "waste of time" really are best avoided. WjBscribe 02:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree, will avoid that on future occasions. As to explicity citing WP:SNOW, I stated that I was being bold, so I figured that would sufficiently indicate application of IAR, but I'll try to remember that as well. Also, yes I forgot to include it in WP:RFAF. I somehow thought that it had been replaced by Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship. — Dorftrottel⁠ 02:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Dorftrottel, I personally think that you did the right the. Next time, if you run into a similiar situation, close it right though:) He did have as much of a chance as a snowball has in hell. It was for his own good that you closed it. The criticism may have been too much to handle if it went on, and because of the stress we may have lost the next Pedro or the next Wimt. YOu never know. Cheers!--SJP 11:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Kind as you are SJP "losing the next Pedro" could be viewed as a good thing! :) Pedro :  Chat  13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Never thought of Pedro as being someone hated by some people.--SJP 14:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did say something to that effect when I told the user about the closure.[4] Btw: I also suggested WP:ARL and WP:XFD as useful go-to points.[5] What else could be useful suggestions? — Dorftrottel⁠ 18:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that he do some vandal fighting, do some article work, and try again in at least 4 months, in addition to what you told him. Cheers!--SJP 19:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Why vandal-fighting? Article writing is, by definition, infinitely more constructive. Vandal-fighting doesn't teach a user how to be an administrator, because deciding between "Yes, this is vandalism" or "No, this isn't vandalism" and mashing the appropriate button is ridiculously easy. Administrator candidates don't gain the discretion that is generally required to be successful at RfA through button-mashing. Daniel 06:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree, with the reservation that pure or almost pure vandalism-fighters often don't succeed at RfA not because they lack the necessary discretion, but because too many don't trust that a good level of discretion has been established. May seem like splitting hairs, but it's a difference. If I were to really tell a user *how to become an admin as quickly as possible* (as opposed to "a good user, and possibly a good admin some day"), I would primarily tell them to be civil (=shut the heck up) at all times, even against their own good judgement, because curiously, civility is generally far higher-rated than good article/wikispace contribs. Everybody's darlings with no clue whatsoever often reach more than 100 supports, while one or two occasions of being incivil can sink an RfA single-handedly. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what would be Really funny...

... is if an IP ran for adminship! I know, I know, i just told them not to stuff beans up their nose, but wouldn't it be funny? J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It can't be done. Apart from all the other issues, there's no techical way to provide sysop status other than to a registered account. Newyorkbrad 16:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I know, but how often do you get the feeling that IPs read directions like that? I know that it can't technically happen, but they could run. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:RFA There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account ... So that solves that! Pedro :  Chat  16:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, have you found that the majority of IPs care to read such things? :) J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
J-stan is correct about IPs not taking care to read things like that. For example, the help desk. How many times does an IP or new user miss the big notice with big, bold red letters at the top of the page which tells them that this page is for questions on the topic of Wikipedia only and go on to ask a question like can you help me with my English coursework? Can you tell me about Charles Dickens. It's a common occurance... Lradrama 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The point being that an IP creatng an RfA would snowed on transclusion before any debate could take place, due to the technical restrictions and the above. The process could not proceede. Let's not give people ideas..:) Pedro :  Chat  21:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
A bit confused by your wording. Note: I am not saying that an IP has a snowball's chance in hell, just that it might be possible for them to run. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Technically possible to run, technically impossible to pass, and against stated instructions is the thing!!! Hence SNOW as there is not point running something though a process when it cannot pass the process. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I remember it happening once, it was removed due to being technically impossible. 1 != 2 22:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/68.39.174.238. Hut 8.5 11:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat action and under-70% RfAs

I have moved this discussion from my talk page to this more appropriate venue, since it brings up oft-discussed issues, so all can read and comment as they wish. -- Cecropia 16:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you honestly not envision a scenario where several of the opposes were quite frivolous, and you would promote a candidate that was below 70%? K. Scott Bailey 04:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I will have to move this counter-question to you RfB, where it belongs. -- Cecropia 04:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not my RfB. I was simply asking you (as a fellow questioner, but most importantly in your role as a 'crat), what your opinion was on this. K. Scott Bailey 04:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
My bad. I should have cross-checked. Here is my response: I never like to make an absolute pronouncement on a hypothetical, but I can come close on this one in a firm "no." 70%, as I have said, is already marginal, in fact it is beyond marginal. 75% is marginal. The lower we go in promotion decisions without explicitly demonstrated community desire to "move the bar," the more we ask bureaucrats to be subjective, and the more bureaucrats are subjective, the more RfA becomes a bureaucratic decision with community advice, rather than a decision of a consensus of the community, as neutrally considered by the bureaucrats. You have to know I have been a consistent advocate of the latter position. I particularly note your mention of "frivolous" opposes. Well, then, except in the obvious cases, such as trolls and socks, the bureaucrat becomes the master of the quality of an oppose. If we accept that, the 'crat would be duty bound to review all the supports, and knock out the frivolous ones there as well. -- Cecropia 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is my (very large) problem with what you have to say. First, your note that 'crats would have to scrutinize every support is simply incorrect. Support comments are simply akin to saying "I trust you", and thus are statements that do not necessarily bear scrutiny. Per long tradition, opposes (and neutrals, to a much lesser extent) draw far more comments and scrutiny, as they are saying "I don't trust you for X reason" and thus are (and should be) more scrutinized. Additionally, it only takes ONE oppose to completely negate THREE supports (per your own logic). This creates a drastic need for b'crats that exercise MUCH more discernment than it seems you are willing to. B'crats were never intended to be simple ballot counters, which is one of the problem I have with the current system. K. Scott Bailey 04:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of an RfA vote. It is not about who a voter personally trusts. It is about who is a good candidate for Wikipedia. My hunch is that a large percentage of support votes do not have the best of Wikipedia as their objective, but the best of the individual voter. That's what I call frivolous! Since votes are open, there is a huge incentive to vote for a candidate. In addition, oppose voters have to be more meticulous about explaining their votes. All told, I think the 75% factor is probably even still to lenient. — Sebastian 01:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
First, I have seen many supports I would consider frivolous. Second, I have exercised much discretion, with extensive verbiage, but have tried not to have my judgment override community sentiment. Third, I agree that bureaucrats are not simple ballot counters, but where do you manage to make the assert5ion that "B'crats were never intended to be simple ballot counters"? You seem to have been here since last February, The bureaucrat system is nearly four years old. In the beginning 'crats were expected to be almost nothing but ballot counters. -- Cecropia 05:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It is categorically impossible for a support to be frivolous. A support is simply an "I trust you" from the user. I often now leave simply a sig in my support. I always try to write a well-reasoned neutral/oppose. As for my history on the project, I lurked for several months(Nov05-Jan or Feb06 or so), simply reading and exploring the processes of the project. I then edited periodically (from my office, mainly) for a year or so as a productive IP. I signed up for an account in February. I don't know for certain what my history here has to do with anything, but as long as I've interacted with the project, it has seemed that the 'crats were given discretion to throw out frivolous opposes. It appears WjBScribe would agree. I find it difficult to believe that you don't see the vast difference between support votes and oppose votes, relative to the scrutiny that the latter deserves compared to the former. Difficult, and a bit disturbing as well. It shakes my faith in the 'crats a bit, to be honest, knowing that a great candidate, who has a raft of opposes based solely on something like "he failed my article at FA" might fail with say 70% or so of the vote (the frivolous ones included). 05:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kscottbailey (talk • contribs)
You don't think a support can be frivolous? That means you don't think someone may support someone they don't really know, or support someone because a friend supported, and so on. Your history at Wikipedia counts when you make an assertion about how something has "always been" when I personally know it is not true and must ask how you know this. You are asking 'crats essentially to agree with you that someone is a "great candidate" and that therefore they should ignore opposes that you deem "frivolous." -- Cecropia 05:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Not asking them to agree with me, I'm asking them to use good judgment. If 1/2 the opposes of a FA reviewer are "he failed my article at FA", then a good 'crat should have the right--and the responsibility--to throw such tripe out, or at least to look into it further, and make certain that the admin candidate was at LEAST uncivil or SOMETHING in failing the articles. K. Scott Bailey 05:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
'Crats do take these concerns into account. -- Cecropia 07:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Am I understanding you correctly, then, that you very well might pass a sub-70% RfA, if say half the opposes were of the type that had concerns that the 'crats would take into account? K. Scott Bailey 13:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you are concentrating too much on the numbers issue, which I believe you are opposed to anyway. Bureaucrats are committed to doing what is necessary to have the community make the decisions in borderline situations whenever possible. When a 'crat sees a situation where there is "frivolous" behavior going on (to use your phrase) s/he might extend the nomination for 24 or 48 hours. This is not just to allow more editors to weigh in, it also gives the "sides" in the debate a chance to try to demonstrate their positions and perhaps change the mind of wavering or uncommitted "voters." There have also been cases in which (before closing) a 'crat has canceled and restarted a nomination that has gone so off track (infighting, bogus claims) that no valid result could be discerned. So I am saying that, yes, bureaucrats are not just button-pushers; but the way to handle a worthy but ambiguous RfA is to encourage the community to make (or clarify) its decision, so the final result can be within the expected zone of decision, and then the bureaucrats are clearly empowered to consider broader issues. As I alluded to at the beginning of this discussion, making a commitment that you would ask of me (would [you] promote a candidate that was below 70%?) doesn't demonstrate flexibility on the part of the bureaucrats, it merely lowers the bar, so next time someone will be asking: "would you promote a candidate that was below 69%?"
In sum, we have already nibbled down the lower bar from 75% to 70% (over the course of about a year). If the community now wants different criteria for granting the bit, it should be done in a more straightforward manner. -- Cecropia 16:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Not, I hope, to re-open old wounds, but there is a precedent of the 'crats discounting opposes. There was quite a stir over Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 in which Carnildo was resyssopped with, shall we say, a bit less than 70%. This was a special case, and produced a great deal of discussion. Aside form that, I would like to believe that the community at large would see what was going on and respond by countering the frivolous votes. I've seen the community respond in the past, to oppose or support, when "irregularities" occurred. People monitor RfA without voting, and a perceived injustice or irregularity would probably become the subject of intense discussion on RFC. I'm not talking about votestacking, but a sort of group conscience that pervades the community as a whole. Most of us are pretty passionate about this project and respond vocally if we see something we think is wrong. Also, if the 'crats agree, they can extend an RfA to allow a clearer consensus to develop. I've seen that too, and it made the difference between success and lack there of. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I have found Cecropia's comments to be very insightful. While a bureaucrat should indeed take action if there are irregularities in a given RfA, it would be a very bad idea for bureaucrats to take upon themselves the burden of separating "serious" from "frivolious" votes. In many (most) RfAs in the past that passed with low support there was either favoritism on the part of bureaucrats, or improper behaviour (vote and promote), or the bureaucrat was inexperienced and made poor decisions. Such things generate plenty of bad blood. It is best if bureaucrats indeed attempt to interpret the community consensus rather than create it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1400 admins

I was looking at that large bar at the top of this page when I noticed that the number of admins is now 1400. That just seems like something worth announcing so I took care of it. :) Captain panda 02:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's also worth noting that of the 16 RfAs in progress, the lowest support is 94%. Eleven candidates have unanimous support. Just something to keep in mind next time there's howls of "RfA is a tortuous gauntlet that no one can pass!". ;) Chaz Beckett 02:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thats the greenest I have ever seen it. ViridaeTalk 02:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems we go through recurrent bouts of sanity alternated with "Oppose Less than 76.3% mainspace edits and only 17 featured articles." Raymond Arritt 03:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
16 RfAs all passing

I think that is more impressive than 1400 admins. 1 != 2 03:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore would be proud - RfA is going green. November 2007 is now officially The Green Month. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
HA! :-P nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh, what's the record # of admins created in a month anyhow? :) SQLQuery me! 05:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I should run again just to put some red up there. SashaCall 05:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've got a drawer of socks that I've created for various reasons (usually as jokes). I could put one of them up. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
68 - October 2005 and again in December 2005. Dragons flight 06:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If I had run one day earlier, it would have been 69 in October 2005. No comment on the number. Just sayin. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a nice round number. And we are seeing lots of brilliant candidates of recent times. Not many self-noms, which from what I have seen, tend not to be as successful. Lradrama 19:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
37 this month so far. If we keep this up, we'll have 70+ this month. This is, after all, The Green Month. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If a highly qualified editor who has upset POV warriors were to run then it would not succeed. Most of the people running now generally avoid controversial situations at all costs and never make controversial edits or improve highly controversial articles. If they did do such things then they would have unavoidable made enemies in the process from POV warriors who would oppose their RFA. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting achievement: in four lines, you somehow manage to simultaneously flatter yourself, put down the current candidates as too meek to edit complex articles and discard the opposition you got on your RfA as coming from POV warriors. "Highly qualified candidates" usually have more tact. -- Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pascal. Could you advise how your comment furthers the aims of this project? Pedro :  Chat  22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Possibly Pascal is right. I do note that his statement itself makes several not necessarily well founded assumptions, such as "put down the current candidates...". I personally see no "put down" in the statement being referenced. And I do note that at least one admin who does work diligently to deal with "POV warriors" is having his actions and character currently discussed elsewhere. While Pascal's statement may have some relevance to the editor he's commenting on, the statement of that editor I think still remains valid. -- John Carter (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If it's relevant to a current RfA make it on the RfA main page. Sorry, but this an ad hominum argument by Pascal that serves no purpose. Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And somewhat related, I just loaded Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and for the first time ever saw "There are no pages or files in this category." Also, none of the dated deletion categories has a backlog of more than 1 day. I've seen the CSD category in single or low double digits multiple times lately. Of course, AFD has 178 discussions due for closure, WP:RM has been backlogged for weeks, etc... But all in all we also don't currently need to say that we have an urgent need for more admins in these areas. I do believe we have a significant need for admins with proven ability to sort out troubled disputes. How can we find candidates with that sort of expertise? GRBerry 03:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion Notice on the RfA main Page

This has turned up and yet I don't believe there was agreement for it (although I initiated the thread requesting it back here.) I've three concerns. 1) No consensus in the first place. 2) Use of the word "vote" 3) It should be on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Front_matter. I'm loathe to remove it, and I'm certainly not going to put it on the header myself. Thoughts? Pedro :  Chat  11:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its needed; we have a page for that already, no? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

- * I removed it. I'm not aware of any settled consensus on the point and the reference to voting possibly reflects the reality but definietly not the spirit of the policy. In my opinion we elect 'crats to determine consensus and they will (or should) take matters like this into their assessment of the discussion. The whole think looks like instruction creep to me. Spartaz Humbug! 12:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that solved that. Pedro :  Chat  12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of implanting a link to the page detailing the process of transclusion. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've slightly tinkered with the wording [6] but I think that was positive. We had an RfA recently where no-one seemed to know how to transclude it. Pedro :  Chat  12:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_110&oldid=1091650879"