Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Anonymous voting

Does anyone here think that it would be a good thing to allow anonymous voting? By which I mean that only registered users may vote, but *who* is voting a particular way would be kept from the candidate and others. I worry that when I vote 'oppose', it's going to come back and bite me. - Richardcavell 02:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

But whoever votes can still be seen in the edit history.—G.He_(Talk!) 02:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say don't be afraid to oppose someone. If your reasoning stands up, there are a lot of people out there to make sure it doesn't "come back to bite you". --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As GHe said, everything's in the history anyways.--Alhutch 02:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There already is a mechanism for anonymous voting - your account name. Um, unless that's your real name... but I am quite hopeful that no one is going to track any voter to their home and beat you up over a Wikipedia RfA vote. bd2412 T 03:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that he means biting him on the wiki. You know, maybe having revenge votes cast against him in the future or something. Just my guess though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Probably that, or maybe personal attacks in worst case scenarios.—G.He_(Talk!) 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is, this is teh internets - if the worst thing that happens to you is that people say bad things about you on the internet, count your blessings! bd2412 T 15:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Touché on the real username. I'd like to start a sockpuppet account so that I can edit abortion and other medicolegal topics without getting User:Richardcavell into trouble. I am worried about revenge votes, or more precisely, cliques forming. Any voting system will always inevitably degenerate into a two-party system with each side attacking the other to gain a steady state of mutual attrition. The fact that votes are on view here makes this doubly inevitable. - Richardcavell 04:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really. That happens only when you have everything being determined by plurality winner take all systems. Since we vote up or down, not choosing candidates, that sort of issue doesn't apply (there are a variety of other reaons it wouldn't, but thats certainly one). JoshuaZ 04:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe we should make a page called Wikipedia:Users willing to make difficult oppose votes in RfA's, so that paranoid users could request help in expressing their concerns in RfA. No, I don't think that would work. ;-) Seriously, it would be very difficult to keep RfA votes anonymous while at the same time preventing sockpuppets and vandals from messing everything up. --TantalumTelluride 03:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In my book, anonymous voting misses the point anyway. If an editor has a legit reason to cast an oppose vote in an RfA, he or she should have the integrity to stand behind it. Retributive actions on the part of the nominated admin should be easy to point out as vandalism, WP:CIVIL problems, etc. Really, I don't think there's many people who receive an RfA that would "turn against" editors casting an oppose vote that wouldn't do so anyways. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA IS NOT A VOTE. Sure, we ask people to "vote here" and we often refer to people's comments as "votes". But, the point of RfA is to generate consensus. People can, do, and will change their votes based on additional information added to the RfA. If we had an anonymous ballot, that would not happen and we could readily promote people who just aren't ready. I don't think there's reason to be concerned about retributive actions based on votes or actions on contentious articles. Just do what you feel is right, while being prepared for having community consensus go against you at times; adapt, and move forward. --Durin 12:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is still voting.. still democratic (as is consensus). Denial of wikipedia as democracy and it's history of democratic control is doublethink . -- max rspct leave a message 13:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. It's policy. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Gee, guys. Did you miss the great Florida recount that ended with Jimbo elected to God-King? ;) NoSeptember ^talk 15:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes pal, we know what the official 'policy' line is. BBC etc calls it democratic:
"Perhaps Wikipedia is not about trusting the idea that the definitions it carries are accurate.Indeed, a recent article in The Post-Standard in Syracuse slammed the idea. It suggested because anyone could contribute, Wikipedia was not a verifiable authority, or trustworthy.Wiki-advocates would argue that is missing the point.It is more about trusting that humans can respect someone else's opinion in a democratic public sphere, and that contributors will not ruin the fun for everyone else." [1] -- max rspct leave a message 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered that - shock horror - the BBC may not fully understand how Wikipedia works? After all, most journalists don't even get the URL right, let alone policy/process etc. Martin 15:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So now BBC sets Wikipedia policy, and not Wikipedia? Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe YOU don't fully understand how wikipedia works? Yes Wikipedia sets policy - you pretty much make my point. Funny how the article on consensus states : "As this example suggests, the concept of consensus is a particularly important one in the context of society and government, and forms a cornerstone of the concept of democracy." Check these two books hint that academics might actually consider consensus decisionmaking Consensus democracy, deliberative democracy or participatory democracy [2], [3]. Democracy isn't necc good or beneficial per se (eg military dem, boardroom,)unless those affected by the outcomes are the decison makers. I have a funny feeling that our democratic process iz going to expand this section.. unless an admin chops it. Surely the act of click that button to edit an article is a blatent democratic step. And in answer to Infinity0's question about my handle/username ... they were the first two words i uttered when i realised i could edit!! and how empowering wikipedia is and can possibly continue to be. "Maximum Respekt!!" - Ali G -- max rspct leave a message 16:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is a cornerstone of democracy in the same way that having a vagina is a cornerstone of being a prostitute. Not all people with vaginas are prostitutes, and not all organisations run through consensus are democracies. Johnleemk | Talk 17:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, while that was probably the funniest example I've ever heard — I should barnstar you for that one — this is strating to stray pretty far from the original question of "anonymous voting." Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 17:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

While this praxis does at times cause eventual misunderstandings, it is my impression that most of the [minimally experienced] users who post here understand what the RfA process really is, even though they say "vote". I believe the word has come into use largely due to [ok, also an original misunderstanding because of] the procedural resemblance that the process bears to a vote. It's just a lot more practical to say I have voted to support than I have submitted my rationale in order to help achieve consensus sufficient to promote userX to Administrator. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We don't need to be so absolutely precise about the terminology during discussions that aren't even focusing on whether or not RfA is a vote, or voting, etc. That only causes the discussion to digress. For my part, I've accepted that I'm cheap and don't want to wear out my keyboard ;). So please, let's relax a little about the terminology stuff. Redux 17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with referring to most of our processes as votes, since we actually run discussion-based strawpolls (where the term vote would probably be accurate). I do take issue with people referring to any process as a "vote" however; we really ought to replace such references with "discussion" or "strawpoll". Sigh. Johnleemk | Talk 17:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't want to join this (pointless IMO) discussion, but you might want to read that post again... It doesn't make sense. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Um...you're right. My bad. Just strike out the first half of the first sentence. :p Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes democracy is more than just voting. But "procedural resemblance" GET A GRIP! As for vaginas and prozzies - that's a pretty sick, schoolboyish way of 'putting' things..and it doesn't stand up at all. -- max rspct leave a message 18:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia procedurally resembling a democracy doesn't make it one any more than a sluttily dressed woman being a prostitute (to continue the analogy). And why doesn't it stand up? Do kindly explain. I don't care whether it's juvenile or not -- it's clearly getting the point across. Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mind the civility, Max. The point was exactly to learn to let go of the little things. Redux 18:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A more tame analogy would be, just because one has a colorful signature, does not mean one has a colorful personality. -- 127.*.*.1 19:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thank yous

Can we develop a guideline about RfA thank you notes? As it is now, they take up extra time, don't say anything substantial and often use unessary pictures which put further drain on the servers. I'd prefer them to end but would settle for now for consensus that they shouldn't have any pictures in them. JoshuaZ 17:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What would the point of this m:instruction creep be? I don't particularly care for them, but I don't exactly hate them. If you feel so strongly, just stick a "No RfA thank yous please" sign on your talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 17:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The main concern is the pictures. Use of pictures when we don't need to is a major uncessary drain on servers. JoshuaZ 17:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything from a dev to back you up on this? The last time I recall any dev making a statement on image use, brion said we needn't be tightening our belts WRT images. Johnleemk | Talk 17:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Did Brion say that? I'd be highly interested in seeing where he said that. JoshuaZ 17:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think he said it at the pump, although I'm not really confident about it. Anyway, wouldn't the easiest and best solution be to ask him whether they are a problem now? Johnleemk | Talk 18:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what brion said it won't make much of a difference considering how many other templates with images are used on talk pages and user pages and the like. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't gotten a RFA Thank you notes in over a week so that's starting to fade away. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A drain on servers? If you read it once and then throw it into your archives, never to look at it again, is that a drain on servers? Also, does a tree that falls when nobody is around.... NoSeptember ^talk 17:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, brion said that community-use images are not a drain on our servers. Let me see if I can dig up the diff for that. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This one? --JoanneB 19:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the pointer. Consider my earlier comment withdrawn. JoshuaZ 20:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Utterly silly question

If RfA were American Idol, who would be Simon? =P —Keenan Pepper 20:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'm out of touch enough with pop culture that I had to go read the heading of that article. Someone who opposes everyone for controversial reasons? That would be Masssiveego, I'd say. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a rather flattering thing to say, you know. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No way. The canonical example would have to be Boothy. --maru (talk) contribs 06:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

On RfA, I have no idea, but on FAC, it'd have to be User:Tsavage. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerned about HRE's RfA

I'm a bit worried about HolyRomanEmperor's current RfA. It seems that there are issues about ethnic tensions and people simply voting oppose because of nationality. This is simply unacceptable, and I salute Linuxbeak for taking a stand against that. However, I'm also worried about doing that to an extreme - in other words, challenging all people who seem to be the "opposite" nationality, even when the votes appear to be in good faith. To make it clear, I take no position - either supporting or opposing - HolyRomanEmperor's qualifications as an admin candidate and have not reviewed them at all, and also strongly agree that nationality should play no factor at all and that some people are trying to game the RfA (for instance, someone with 10 edits and an account created in the middle of the RfA). I'm simply concerned that challenging (for lack of a better word) every comment/vote from someone who comes from a Croatian background may be inappropriate, when the voter has a history of contributions and cites valid reasons - regardless of whether people believe that they are true or not - about his/her opposition. For example, Elephantus (and I'm simply using his/her vote as a random example) has several hundred contributions, dating back to last year and gave a paragraph of explanation regarding his opposition with valid reasons (such as "very little understanding of either WP:NPOV or WP:V"); yet his vote was commented on by Linuxbeak.

Now, don't get me wrong here - it's always good to cite diffs and provide evidence, and there's nothing wrong with asking a user to do so. However, asking certain users to do so because of their nationality and from the same bureaucrat who placed a message at the top of the RfA seems unnecessary. We should strive to assume good faith as much as possible, and singling out voters based on ethicity doesn't seem appropriate. Tag a vote if you believe it to be a sockpuppet, challenge a vote if you feel the reasons are inappropriate, but don't challenge everyone who happens to be one nationality. In addition, I'm also worried about the effects of this on the RfA - will people, simply because they don't have any diffs, be discouraged to vote? While I support having diffs and evidence to back up claims, there have been many well-reasoned and appropriate votes, both opposing and supporting, in the past. Simply because a person is from a certain ethnic origin shouldn't mean that they should be held to different standards. Thoughts on this RfA? As always, our goal should be the smoothest RfA that seeks to determine the community's true consensus, and I appeciate all that our bureaucrats have done for us. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I had also noticed that Linuxbeak, while well-intended, is, perhaps, a bit too agressive in questioning the oppose votes and crossing them out. I don't know what a good solution is, and it is a sad thing that ethnic tensions spill over to RfA votes, but such direct involvement by a bureaucrat may make some voters feel a bit intimidated I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also worried about HRE's RfA. It's the problem with democracy - and no matter what anyone says, if there's a voting system, and there's a post to be passed before one receives a 'mandate', then it's a democracy by definition. I don't see a solution. - Richardcavell 01:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor RfA

Linuxbeak has now restarted this RfA (which is not unheard of) with a novel stricter ruleset (unique to my knowledge.) This bothers me a bit. What bothers me more is that he is now, as presiding b'crat, aggressively questioning an opposer, a longstanding RfA participant against whom no ground for suspicion has been cast. I ask other b'crats to examine the matter; I think it best if Linuxbeak recuse himself from this RfA, and another b'crat take a leading role in deciding what to do. Xoloz 03:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I will not recuse myself. I am not biased in this matter at all. In fact, I'm doing this so that HRE has a fair chance at getting a fair RFA. If you want the other bureaucrats to look at me, fine, but I'm not recusing myself. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd want to take a bit more time to consider. It is a mark of wisdom to recuse for the sake of procedural soundness. Even if you feel perfectly qualified, there is no reason one of our other b'crats can't handle this. Xoloz 03:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree... it does seem odd to add these new requirements. Has this been done before? Is there some precedence for this? Linuxbeak, if you wouldn't mind, please explain yourself a little further. The edit summaries simply say it was "tainted". Perhaps an explanation here of what you were doing. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This RfA has had sock madness, I don't trust half the votes. Whilst Linuxbeak's actions are a little extreme, given the obvious socks it is necessary -- Tawker 03:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind trying to prevent socks and meats from taking over. I do object, however, to oppose-voters having to cite specific exampes in the candidate's career to justify their vote while supporters do not. Also, I'm concerned about Linuxbeak's professed purpose here of giving HRE "a fair chance" at RFA. With all due respect, LB, is not the point here not to gather the community's opinion? If you insist on different standards of argument among opposers and supporters, you are being unfair to the community. Like the others, I think you may have gotten a little to close to this. Bucketsofg 04:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the racially-biased votes were all "Oppose", I feel extra screening of Oppose votes is warranted. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case, Kimchi: there were clearly Serbs who were supporting. Bucketsofg 04:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's put this into perspective...

1.) In order to vote, you MUST have had a user account for at least one week, starting one week ago.

Sounds perfectly fair to me. A recently-created user has almost no chance of actually knowing how things actually work... OR they are sockpuppets.

2a.) In order to vote, you MUST have at least 50 total edits, assuming you are not involved in any Serbian, Croatian, etc, related articles, OR:

2b.) You MUST have at least 100 total edits, regardless of topic, and you must be involved in more than one article.

Two things here. 50 edits is more than reasonable. It means you actually participate instead of just laying around. 100 edits is also reasonable if you are directly involved with Eastern Europe articles. It means that you're an active contributor instead of just a POV pusher (yes, it's a sweeping and incorrect generalization, but play along for now).

3.) You MUST give a valid reason to support or oppose votes. Regarding oppose votes, you MUST provide a diff and/or specific example of why you are opposing. I will immediately strike out any votes that are ethnic-related. Do not take this personally.

Note that both support and oppose votes need valid reasons. Because a single oppose effectively cancels out 4 support votes, it is only fair that oppose votes are more qualified to a minor degree.

So, there you go. If you are actually "concerned" about this RFA, then just watch my actions and comment. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, LB, assume good faith. I have almost 3000 edits and none in any Balkan topics. I may be wrong and stupid, but I'm being wrong and stupid for what I think are legitimate reasons. Look at the first part of your 3rd rule "You MUST give a valid reason to support or oppose votes." That is fair: the same requirement for oppose and support. The second part of this rule is not: "Regarding oppose votes, you MUST provide a diff and/or specific example of why you are opposing." Here you demand that oppose voters provide something that supporters do not. That's not an appropriate way to gather the community's view. Bucketsofg 04:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How am I not assuming good faith? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I had assumed that the quotes around concerned were meant to imply that I wasn't and that I was motivated by some partisan tendency. But I suppose in doing that I, too, was not assuming good faith. For which I apologise. (I still respectfully think that the second part of your rule #3 is not appropriate: both sides should be under the same strictures.) Bucketsofg 04:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Linuxbeak, if I am allowed to be really skeptical - does rule.3 stop anyone from voting 'Support, good editor', or 'oppose as per User:xyz above' ? Won't that defeat the purpose of the rule ? Tintin (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an extremely valid point, and one that I expected to be raised. Yes, it does stop people from voting that way. It requires that all votes require more thinking than normal. If you make a vote, it's not because you just felt like it, it's because you've got a real reason. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Linuxbeak is trying to do anything other than get a proper RfA underway. I wouldn't mind seeing his rules become de facto in admin voting, regardless. There should be a minimum standard before a vote is taken as 'genuine' and not just disruptive. - Richardcavell 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that now the RfA is turning into a vote on the suffrage rules and not on the candidate, which is rather unfair for HRE. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with rules imposed by Linuxbeak in HolyRomanEmperor's adminship. While bureaucrats do have some lattitude in what to do as far as adminships are concerned, this is pushing things too far. One thing clear, at least to me, is that Linuxbeak should recuse himself from deciding if HolyRomanEmperor will be promoted or not. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay... why? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 05:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Recusal makes no sense. There is no conflict of interest here. A bureaucrat has to make decisions, both during an RfA and at the end of the RfA, just as a trial judge has to. To start dumping bureaucrats who are doing their job is to invite the gaming of the system. We don't allow ArbCom to be gamed that way, we shouldn't allow RfA to be gamed either. If anything, the other bureaucrats should let Linuxbeak finish the job since he has been following it closely. NoSeptember ^talk 05:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, recusal is silly. This means another Crat has to deal with the same socking and ethnic strife, and this second crat would also only have two choices: either 1) play hardball or 2) deprive HRE of a fair and square RFA. I think its inevitable that the rules have to a bit harsher in this instance. In the end, the suffrage rules dont prevent legit users from casting a legit vote. I for one am thankful for LB's efforts! The Minister of War ^(Peace) 06:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no community consensus on any kind of suffrage. There is no rule that one should be blocked and his vote discounted for calling friends to vote (although vote stacking is clearly bad). While people should explain why they vote oppose, there is no imperative to provide diffs.

A bureaucrat should not, in my view, police RfA voting, at least not to such an extent. If there is suspicion of sockpuppetry, at the end of the vote the bureaucrat should do a check user, and not discount votes without evidence of sockpuppetry.

Linuxbeak should, in my view, not decide if HolyRomanEmperor will be promoted because he has been too passionately involved in this RfA (trying to keep the order, if you wish) that he may give people the impression that he is not impartial about the whole thing. If HolyRomanEmperor deserves to be promoted/failed, there are plenty of other bureaucrats who can make a judgement call. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find blanket accusations of ethnic-based voting very unhelpful here. While two of the original oppose votes were probably meat/sock puppets, the rest were from people with valid concerns about HRE. As I said already, only two weeks ago, another Balkans-Slavic editor passed RfA without problems and was supported by members of all ethnic groups. --Elephantus 07:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The final part of the constitution of this RfA is unfair and unevenly handed, and should be rejected. It is fundamentally not right to impose tighter requirements on opposers than supporters, particularly the importing of requirements from the failed DfA of insisting on diffs or examples. There is no reason not to require the same from supporters if this RfA is to be so-managed. Also, the use of the word "valid". It is not for Linuxbeak to determine the validity of a reason. He doesn't have to like or agree with the reason or think it sensible for it to matter. If it's presented by a non-sock, then you just need to live with it. Whilst the clearing out of the socks by a little bit of suffrage is a good move (clearly), I am concerned that a crat has decided to shape this RfA in their own image, essentially as a version of DfA. Bureaucrats control the outcome given the debate, not the debate itself, at least not in such a micro-managed way as this. There seems to be an unwillingness to entertain this fact, however. -Splash^talk 12:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Requiring a diff in order for an oppose vote to be valid is a Really Bad Idea. Whilst some kind of special attention to the discussion is required in order to ensure HRE gets a fair RFA, in order to not have it shot down by a concerted and racist hate campaign, it should not directly countermand Assume good faith. Linuxbeak, as a bureaucrat, should know better. Nor should it make it more difficult to 'oppose' than to 'support', which this does.

Inserting a suffrage rule, counter to established Wikipedia policy, is also not a great idea. As a bureaucrat, LB should supposedly be capable of making his decision based on the discussion (RFA is not a vote), and could just as easily discount any invalid votes when closing the RFA, instead of this unseemly jiggerypokery. Yeesh. Proto||type 13:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

According to you it's unfair and unevenly handed. You say that it is not up to me to determine the validity of a reason. Read this: yes it is. That's what bureaucrats do. There are also plenty of people who support this restart and the rules that have been imposed. You happen to not be one of them. As such, while your opinion is valued, it is also a minority viewpoint. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No no no. Yes, it is your decision to determine the validity of a vote. Read this: it is most assuredly not your role to invent and apply your own off-the-cuff policy to an RFA, no matter how infested with sock puppets it may be. You are capable of making a decent assessment of the validity of reasons, or you wouldn't have been made a bureaucrat. This doesn't give you carte blanche to impose your ideas on how RFA should be run onto an established procedure. I'm also not seeing the discussion where 'plenty of people supported the restart and the rules that have been imposed' - could you point me in the right direction? Proto||type 14:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Minorities matter round here, particularly at RfA, so I'm pleased to be one. What a crat does not get to do is read my reasoning in an RfA and think "no, I disagree that the editor is too new/too few edits/too risky/etc" and discount me out of hand. Diagreeing with my reasoning does not make it invalid. Otherwise, you'd effectively be determining the outcome of the RfA based solely on your own opinion. If I said "editor is a floating pink cloud", then clearly I'd be invalid. I suppose I wonder what you mean by "valid". Do you mean "something I agree with", or something else? -Splash^talk 14:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No. A bureaucrat's job is not to determine the validity of a user's vote or comment, but to determine consensus. While the latter may involve the former, a bureaucrat should not be judging the validity of every "vote"; for instance, if 10 people voted oppose on a RfA for, let's say "POV pushing" (a random example) and you disagreed with that, it's not your job or duty to say that those opposition votes are invalid; it's your job and duty to determine whether the community has come to a consensus about whether the candidate should be granted adminship. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between "valid" and "correct". "Correct" is almost always a matter of opinion, "valid" can be a matter of policy. A vote with the only reason being nationality is invalid whether you agree with it or not. A vote saying "needs over 2000 edits" is valid, whether you agree with it or not. It is the buros job to determine is a vote is valid, it is not their job to determine if it is correct. --Tango 10:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess we're arguing semantics here; I'm using "valid" and "correct" pretty much interchangeably. I would say that a "vote" based on nationality isn't invalid, it's a valid comment (as any one with a good faith comment can post) - but with reasons that are considered either invalid or incorrect. Anyways, I think you know what I mean. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Recusal (again)

In light of this comment:

"As a side note, I just want to make a note that a large portion of the 235 edits to Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina was from him creating the article itself. See here to see what I'm talking about. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)"

which I take to constitute a firm argument in support of HRE's adminship, I must reiterate my call that LB recuse himself from this RfA. Under no circumstances could I consider a closing by him in this instance legitimate, and I don't think I'm alone in that view. A partisan in a dispute must never be the judge of the outcome of that dispute. Xoloz 14:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the following: NO. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure I earlierd agree with Xoloz, but I do now. This is more participation in the RfA than is reasonable for the closing 'crat. JoshuaZ 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You must stop supposing you can give out order in that tone of voice, Linuxbeak. When you flatly refuse to recuse, do you imply that you have already decided that you will be the bureaucrat who closes this RfA, and will exclude all the others to that end? Or simply that you consider yourself eligible among the crats? For a crat to decide on arbitrary rules, make challenges to opposers and not supporters, to refuse to recuse and to deny all other crats the right to close the RfA is probably an arbitration case. -Splash^talk 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I consider LB's tone flatly uncivil. I am no dog, and my requests deserve to be met with human politeness, even if they are rejected. I believe I am offended. Xoloz 14:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the tone with which this particular sub-section began, I think it hardly behoves you to be complaining about civility. The job of a bureaucrat is to run RFA discussions in such a way that the most appropriate result is generated—not the result which upsets the most/least number of people, not the result which garners the most kudos, not the result which panders to factional struggle within the ranks of Wikipedians. What would be your desired outcome: a situation wherein any bureaucrat can be intimidated into relinquishing the reins of a controversial discussion, and the available pool trawled to find a bureaucrat who will give the "correct" result? Would you be willing to become a bureaucrat if that were the situation? Would anybody want you to become one if it were known that you would simply melt away at the first sign of controversy? Go and have a cold shower and a hot curry in whatever order suits you best and come back and try again when you have calmed down. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There are, what, 18 or so b'crats? I'd like b'crats circumspect enough to understand that a "rule-setter" in controversial case shouldn't close it; I'd like b'crats detached from their egos, and eager to recuse at the slightest legitimate concern for propriety. I am no troll, either, and I have raised legitimate points seconded by many. I appreciate JoshuaZ's remark, as I can't think of anything uncivil I said here. I phrased the request as politely as I would before any judge, and was given an... odd rebuff. Xoloz 15:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Linux using a large "no" seems to be far more uncivil than anything Xoloz said. And what do find uncivil in Xoloz's comments? JoshuaZ 15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that I said that I would not recuse here, questioned why I should recuse, and once more said no, I got a bit agitated. Should I have used all caps? No. But my stance remains. I'm not going to recuse. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Look. I have no interest in this case going one way or the other. I have never actually interacted heavily with this editor, so I'm not going to recuse myself. Period. I don't know how many ways I need to say this. As far as Splash's comments, I am considering myself eligible among the bureaucrats. As far as an arbitration case, if you want to start one, go right ahead. I'm not stopping you. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is not that you have never interacted with the editor. That's not really the key facet of deciding an RfA. The point is your extensive involvement, particularly in challenging opposers, quite aggressively, in this RfA. Arbitration can wait until the RfA is finished. -Splash^talk 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether you are actually involved with him is in some ways immaterial, given that obviously you are percieved as partial on this issue. So if you close this debate it will be seen as unfair by a small-but-not-insignificant number of people. It seems obviously fairer to HRE for the nomination to be closed by someone whose neutrality in the matter has not been called into question, regardless of whether such questions are legitimate. Of course, you don't actually need to recuse in order to refrain from closing it. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm also concerned by Linux's use of a large font and all caps which indicate a level of emotional involvement that is not effective for an admin overseeing or closing an RfA. JoshuaZ 15:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The suffrage rules I can live with. The comments to voters I cannot. I just read it all and was struck by the exact line Xoloz cites. And then later, this challenge presented to an opposer: "Define propaganda. Propaganda is in itself a POV term..." It's commentary of the sort nominators present (who are naturally and acceptably partisan) and I feel it absolutely unacceptable for someone who is adamant they will close. Marskell 15:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak, I'm sorry but I have to join the chorus and at least urge you not to close this RfA, given your involvement in it. Especially considering that you've been talking about it on IRC, which you took a pledge not to do, including saying that this RfA will "almost certainly not pass". I'm just saying this as some random guy who'd be a lot more comfortable with another b'crat closing the RfA. It's true that nothing actually requires you to recuse yourself. --W.marsh 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So another crat who hasn't had to deal with the bizarre goings on from the RfA should be made to wade in and attempt to decipher what on earth happened instead of allowing the crat who's been dealing with this mess all alone to see it through? LB certainly hasn't done anything partisan and his attempts to restore sanity should be appreciated, not used to penalize him somehow. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as they were elected to "decipher what on earth happened" then yes, under the circumstances I think they could close the RfA. --W.marsh 15:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the controversy here, what if this RfA's outcome were to be determined by a [small] college of Bureaucrats? The venue for the discussion would be the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. The RfA would be closed in a timely fashion, but the final decison could come from two or three Bcrats, maybe a few hours later. It's definitely not praxis, but this is an extraordinary situation. Perhaps this could put to rest the concerns about a) Linuxbeak not closing this RfA on his own; and b) That it would not be ideal to exclude the bcrat who has been following the developments closely. I'm just brainstorming here. Redux 16:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The existance of controversy should not make us change the procedure in the middle of the process. If we do that, we again are inviting the gaming of the system. Trolls can easily create a controversy anytime they want, we should not send out invitations for them to do so in the future. We have a system. Under that system, any bureaucrat can close this RfA, not specifically including or excluding any one of them. Let the system work. NoSeptember ^talk 16:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We elect bureaucrats to deal with precisely this kind of difficult situation, and Linuxbeak has come up with an imaginative and intelligent approach to it. I say we should let him get on with it and trust his judgment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

But he's there basically arguing with those that oppose. You don't think there is a, perhaps slight, conflict of interest? By setting these new (undiscussed or formed by community consensus) rules, and challenging those that oppose, I think he has shown himself to be slightly biased in this case. But I am more miffed at his non-explanation here, or at the WP:BN. Just seems a bit odd. How hard would it be to have a different 'crat step in here? That's all we ask. Is it that out-of-line? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting Linuxbeak's integrity, good intentions, and competence in serving as bureaucrat. Linuxbeak, if you take things that way, that is not what is meant here. A recusal would be appopriate for appearance's sake, nothing else. Things are very charged at this RfA, involving maybe meatpuppets/sockpuppets, resentiments because of ethnic conflicts, etc. Linuxbeak, while with good intentions, has been involved in that too much. For appearance's sake, Linuxbeak should be the first to say that while he stands by his actions, he prefers to recuse himself from the final decision. That he stubbornly refuses to do so is simply unwise. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The "define propaganda" comment was inappropriate, but that's the only problem I can see in Linuxbeak's actions. A buro doesn't need to step back just because of one comment that has only a minor significance. If he is the one to close this RfA and you don't agree with his decision, there is a procedure to go through - wait until then. --Tango 18:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is no such procedure. I mean, an RFC or ArbCom could be started, but it would be totally unprecedented and I think everybody agrees it would be wrong to reverse a closure of promotion: this has not been done even in a case where mistake was admitted, Luigi30. Xoloz 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is: from Meta:Requests for Permissions#Removal of access: 1) Hold discussion on local wiki on whether or not level of access should be removed; 2) Gain consensus that it should; 3) Post the request at Meta with a link to the community consensus. 4) A Steward (whose main wiki is not this one) will review the process and de-sysop the user. And this goes for all the flags. Redux 21:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree completely with Oleg Alexandrov's comments above. I first raised the issue above a few days ago and received limited comments, but apparently the restart of the RfA has drawn more attention. First, I salute Linuxbeak - and all of our bureaucrats - for striving to ensure that RfA represents the true community consensus, and I have nothing but respect for him for tackling this tricky issue. It is unfortunate that ethnicity and race has anything to do with this RfA. However, I am still deeply troubled with the manner in which this RfA has proceeded; by implementing "suffrage" requirements, we're limiting potential commenters or voters simply because of their ethnicity or editing preferences. This is unacceptable; if someone feels that a vote is not made in good faith or is a sockpuppet, it should be tagged as such, but we should not be prohibiting potential good faith comments from other people on the basis of editing or race. Secondly, while the "requirement" to have a diff in each vote "vote" is admirable, the fact remains that the RfA standards do not require oppose voters or support voters to provide diffs; there are multiple, well-reasoned, valid, good-faith comments and votes without diffs everyday at RfA. We should not, and can not, change the standards for this one RfA.

In addition, I also have to urge Linuxbeak to not close this RfA himself. While not a recusal, allowing another trusted bureaucrat would lower the appearance of involvedness. While I trust you and your judgement, the fact is that some of your actions - like questioning oppose voters - gives the appearance of bias, even if not true. We trust each and every one of our bureaucrats to make the right judgement, and we should expect another one to view this unique RfA from an uninvolved perspective. Please reconsider your position, Linuxbeak. Thank you. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I also am going to ask Linuxbeak not to close this. Linuxbeak has entered the debate on whether this person should be promoted.

Regarding oppose votes, you MUST provide a diff and/or specific example of why you are opposing

This places a condition on opposition which simply doesn't exist for other candidates. I might also point out that the RfA not only has to be closed fairly, but it has to give the appearance of fairness. This is a basic principle that judges and bureaucrats must abide by. Linuxbeak no longer gives the appearance of impartiality. This alone means that it will be unfair for HRE's RfA if Linuxbeak closes it. I know that Wikipedia dislikes lawyering, but procedural fairness is exactly what it says it is; Linuxbeak is the judge of what powers he has (not us), and he owes it to HRE and everybody else to excuse himself from the RfA of his own volition. - Richardcavell 08:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am adding my name to this growing chorus of voices urging Linuxbeak to not close HRE's RFA. Linuxbeak has shown, from his comments in the oppose section, that he may be too involved in the RFA, for whatever reason. Challenging oppose voters with incivility is not the right way to go about things, even if you question the merits of a vote. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:29 UTC (2006-04-25)

Role of bureaucrats

It is not the role of bureaucrats to "run" RfA. The community has delegated to bureaucrats the power to judge consensus in completed RFAs and to promote new admins. The community has also delegated to bureaucrats the ability to rename users upon request of the user involved, where bureaucrat believes the rename is in the best interests of the community; other than that, bureaucrats have no special power or authority over RFA or any other process.

There was, at the time of creation of the first bureaucrats, a considerable effort to be sure not to create a new class of users that had prestige, authority, powers, or responsibilities greater than ordinary admins (with the narrow exception of promoting completed RFAs). It is for this reason that the term "bureaucrat" was chosen, to highlight the role of admins as the servants, rather than the managers or architects, of RFA.

While I have a great deal of respect for Linuxbeak, I believe that his actions in this particular case are unhelpful both on their merits and because it is poor form for a bureaucrat to act as a moderator of an ongoing RFA. Controversial situations at Wikipedia are not neat and tidy and controversial RFAs are no exception. I believe we would be best off to allow the RFA to complete without any special rules. Once the RFA completes, I would expect that it will be clear whether or not HRE is deserving of promotion, and I believe that Linuxbeak and the other 'crats will be in a good position to evaluate the merits of any sock votes or votes that are of really dubious motiviation. I would hope that Linuxbeak will reconsider the addition of the header that amends the rules for this vote, since there has been some mild revert warring over it already and his removal of it would settle the matter.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Having only just become aware of this controversy, I echo UC's sentiments wholeheartedly, and encourage Linuxbeak to let the RFA run as it is intended to do. A bureaucrat is always free to disregard illegitimate votes at the closing of a nomination, but has no prerogative to prevent votes from being cast in the first place. — Dan | talk 21:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with The Uninvited Company here; bureaucrats are trusted to judge whether the community has come to a consensus to promote a certain candidate, not to "run" or "reform" RfA. While their input is certainly appreciated, it should be with community consensus and approval that any such changes are made. A bureaucrat responds to and serves the community. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Oleg and Uninvited and others. Imposing suffrage requirements, restarting RfAs which are populated with good-faith edits, and arguing with oppose votes is not the role of the bureaucrats, and Linuxbeak should recuse. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that "arguing with oppose 'votes'" is appropriate when that consists of asking participants to give proper reasons; we're supposed to be ascertaining consensus rather than counting votes. That's sometimes not so important, but if I were a bureacrat I'd be reluctant to give much weight to a "vote" that essentially said "he shouldn't be an admin because he disagrees with me" or "because he's a Serb", or just says "no". Moreover, the original RfA wasn't "populated with good-faith edits" — it was packed with bad-faith edits and sock-puppetry.

The original RfA has 54 counted votes, and 8 crossed out votes, I see with a cursory glance. I consider that to be "populated with good faith votes". Note that I didn't say "solely populated with good faith votes". Restarting the RfA may help you clean out some invalid votes, but it also loses the input of many good faith people, who may not be back around the second time. This is unacceptable. -lethe ^{talk +} 05:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Having tried to help with Balkans-based articles, and having found myself in the middle of this sort of whirlwind of arm-waving hysteria by people who have no self-consciousness about showing themselves to be deeply and unthinkingly partisan, and who treat neutrality as bias against themselves, I can sympathise with Linuxbeak.

I'm slightly worried that he's been too trusting of the pro-votes, but he's certainly justified in being suspicious of some of the antis, and his voting requirements seem sensible to me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll echo that sentiment. We agreed to trust our Crats to guide RFAs through heavy waters. Then lets do that!

The idea that the RFA will turn out fine if it is allowed to run its course seems naive to me. Sure, the Crat can dicount socks later, but in a situation as this you've got to police the discussion itself as well, because its going to get out of hand (just browse over Balkan related articles to see the collateral damage).

To my mind, its even better that LB challenges several votes, as some have taken up the challenge and explained their vote much better than they had before, thus clarifying the "oppose" camp as well. I dont see anything inherently biased in this. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that rationales for voting, and especially for voting in opposition, should be challenged and refined so that the candidate gets a good picture of what they might want to address. But it seems to be that consciously challenging many oppose voters (while not challenging any supporters) is just a bad idea for someone whose role in the process is totally centered on his neutrality (i.e. the closing bureaucrat). Christopher Parham (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now the system is very hypocritical. I could vote Support with no explanation on every RfA on the page and not receive any comment. However, if I vote oppose, I'm sure to be challenged either on the RfA page or on my talk page. I don't vote on my RfAs because I feel that there ideally should be some level of interaction with the person before you vote. Sue Anne 21:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Given the situation being fairly unique, it probably would have been advisable for User:Linuxbeak to seek advice from other bureaucrats on how to handle HRE's RfA. It does not appear this happened, at least not on Wikipedia (perhaps off Wikipedia). In hindsight, the action to re-start the RfA does not appear to have made things any better, and in fact HRE's support is less in this second nomination than in the first. In my opinion, adding in the additional suffrage requirements lacks community support (based on a number of different discussions over time) and may be an unprecedented move for an RfA. Those opposing HRE's RfA may have seen the restart as a control attempt to get HRE to pass. Right or wrong, this may have motivated them to strive harder to garner oppose votes. Had the original RfA been allowed to continue, and had the bureaucrats been allowed to do their usual job of discounting sockpuppet votes, the outcome of this may have produced less bad blood and clearer consensus. That said, I think Linuxbeak was attempting to handle a difficult situation in the best manner he knew possible. --Durin 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'm thankful to Linuxbeak for his desire to ensure a fair RFA process for HolyRomanEmperor. But I, like many of the above posters, am concerned with the way of doing it. I believe bureaucrats are not expected to conduct the discussion/voting process, but to determine whether there's a consensus to promote. Demanding diffs from voters doesn't feel right, this isn't an arbitration case and bureaucrats are not arbitrators to decide who's right and who's wrong. That said, I'll have no problem with Linuxbeak closing the nomination. Conscious 05:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarify rules for HRE RfA please

Linuxbeak,

I suggest rephrasing your rules for clarity:

2. In order to vote:

a) If you have never edited any articles relating to Serbia, Croatia, etc: You must have 50 edits.

b) If you have: You must have 100 edits and you must have edited more than one article.

Feel free to delete my inserted comment for the sake of clarity - Richardcavell 04:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Will do now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 04:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of special rules for HRE adminship

Since the discussion above does not support keeping these rules, and since Linuxbeak appears to have decided not to remain involved in this RFA, I have removed the special rules from the RFA. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

semi-protecting RfAs

In light of the difficulties over the HRE nomination, and the extraordinary lengths that Linuxbeak has been forced to take to make sure that only real wikipedians actually vote (which has certain unsatisfactory side-effects imo), I wonder whether a similar result might not be more simply achieved by using semi-protection on RfAs. This would prevent IPs and accounts younger than five days from voting, which would prevent the worst sock-puppetry. And b-crats are supposed to discount their vote anyways. Yes, it would prevent legitimate IPs and new accounts from participating in the discussion, which the present policy allows, but I can't honestly remember an occasion when one wanted to. (Perhaps they could be encouraged to post to the b-crat's talk page and have him/her repost comments when necessary.) Bucketsofg 12:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

• I'd support this. The rules already do this on a defacto basis by giving bureaucratships discression to ignore new users who are likely sock puppets. But doing this formally wouldn't hurt things. The only thing I wonder about is if there is a real need to do this? Is HRE the only instance of this happening?--Alabamaboy 13:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah sounds like a good plan. And I dont think many new users will be offended. However, I do see a problem with some longstanding legitimate anon IP contributors (i'd point to a specific vandal whacker, but I keep forgetting his IP! ;-) ). The Minister of War ^(Peace) 13:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  I think you mean User:68.39.174.238? Also, he (and any other experienced anon) will realize that if they have something useful to say they can say it on the talk page of the RfA. As long as that's not at all protected we might be fine. However, I'd still have reservations since it is possible (althouhg unlikely) that a fairly new anon or user has something useful to say about a canidate but won't realize that they can still use the RfA talk page. JoshuaZ 13:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  That's the one! The Minister of War ^(Peace) 14:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If anons are creating a nuisance by repeatedly ballot stuffing and trolling, semi-protection I would support a semi-protection policy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A technical glitch on the plan (for RfA semi-protection): semi-protection prevents accounts that are newer than five days from editing. RfAs run for seven days. 2-day window there (if one sets up the account on the day the RfA opens). Therefore, only 100% effective concerning IPs. Don't know if that even matters, but I thought it was worth pointing out. Redux 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

True, it's hard to weed out dedicated nusiance makers. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- This proposal is overdue. Users who have any intention of contributing in general to our policy making and community building are free at any time to register an account; it's not even required to submit a bogus email address. We do not, as a matter of current policy, give weight to comments from users who are unwilling to make this effort. It might be more polite not to permit them to make edits in false hope. Meanwhile, semi-protection will eliminate the risk that a busy b-crat may be misled by invalid comments. John Reid 22:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. Commenting in RfA's requires a level of commitment to the community that a user who would be blocked by Semi-Protection will almost never have. The rare instance of a productive and trusted stable IP (identified above) can be handled with a talk page post. The two-day window at the end does not bother me - it will be blaringly obvious if a bunch of unusual votes materialize after the fifth day, when most RfA's are already winding down, and trolls will be deprived of the opportunity to ruin the tone of the RfA before legit voters can express their opinions. bd2412 T 22:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support sounds like a good idea, as long as the talk page were left open for our super anons. Prodego ^talk 22:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Meaning we have to maintain a whitelist as well? The Minister of War ^(Peace) 09:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  The talk page would not be protected, ergo would be open for everyone. No "whitelist" needed, but it's easy to see whether an anon has a positive contribution record. bd2412 T 14:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Talk page has far less visibility when compared to the comments section. Tintin (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Technically, this shouldn't be a problem, they could be transcluded into the nominations just like the nominations are transcluded into the RfA main page now. Femto 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's a good idea as well. Martin 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not really sure semi-protection should be added by default to RfAs, for the reasons Flcelloguy stated above. However, that said, there are always cases in which a disruptive anonymous editor hides behind an AOL proxy (Quadell's RFB comes to mind), in which semi-protection should not be ruled out as an viable option. After all, AFDs are not semi-protected by default, but are semi-ed if there is disruptive sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, a step in the right direction towards clear and meaningful suffrage rules. Kusma (討論) 14:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good idea. Helps saving wikipedian time. --Ligulem 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. An elegantly simple measure that would go a long way towards solving a problem. It would ensure only users vote, thus making it easier for whomever closes the RfA to tally it. It might also be one more incentive for people to create user accounts. Sunray 20:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support this would NOT prevent non-registered users from participating in the discussion - that is what this page is for, and this page would not be semiprotected (only the 'vote' page) Cynical 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Cynical, and also to prevent users from creating sock puppets just to vote Mets501^talk 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 08:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Sunray. RFA's will be a good incentive for users to sign up. The stoppage of trolling & sockpuppeteering would'nt hurt either. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 03:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• This is such an occasional occurence, that there's no need imo. Most RfAs, even close-run ones come nowhere near the debacle that is HRE's. I'd oppose the use of protection as a tool for restricting participation, unless that participation was actually, currently, vandalous. Otherwise, it'd be protection where it isn't actually needed. It's enough to judge it on a case-by-case basis. -Splash^talk 13:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm also against the semi-protection of RfA, as I've stated in the past before. Bureaucrats should not - and do not - simply ignore comments by IP addresses or relatively new users; such users could provide good faith views and opinions to the RfA. Bureaucrats are trusted to determine community consensus, and simply because a user has not created an account should not prohibit them from giving their opinions. Of course, if there is suspicion of bad faith and/or sock puppets, the appropriate measures (like tagging such votes) should be taken, but automatically excluding all IP addresses and new users should not be done. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Semi-protection is only a tool we use against vandalism, and any other use is a violation of the policy. Even though anonymous users don't have suffrage at RFAs, and new users may see their votes discounted, they must be allowed to comment on an RFA. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  SJakkalle. I appreciate that this is what the policy is now; I suppose what I'm suggesting is that we revisit the policy. Bucketsofg 14:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, but the restriction on semi-protection to vandalism only is for some very good reasons. First, protection is itself "unwiki", we only do it when the alternative (letting the vandals roam or edit wars continue) is worse. Second, we don't want to create "caste" systems where contributors must be of a certain "level" in order to edit something. As a rule, protection is not meant as a banishment of a certain class of editor from editing a page ever, indeed it is a very real downside to protection that innocent editors don't get a chance to edit, and should only mean that the contribution from the anon/new user is delayed, not prevented. As a rule, the discussions we have on Wikipedia are open and free for anyone to contribute to, and employing a semi-protection here runs counter to the spirit of a Wiki. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Those are all important points. We want to make all articles as open as possible. And we want to avoid creating a caste-system. But we've done it anyway here at RFA, no? B-crats are supposed to ignore votes from IPs and new users, which merely means that we do manually what could be done in software. That being said, I doubt whether such a policy could make it through the process. I'm enjoying the discussion, however, since it's sometimes easier to forget the bigger principles while working away in the trenches. Bucketsofg 14:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm against this idea too. Things like HRE's RfA do not happen all the time. What happened/is happening with HRE is such an occasional occurance that it's an anomoly... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Well, since its you thats doing all the hard work, if you dont mind I guess its okay then. Onsidering it again, perhaps a systematic protection isnt necessary, but in this particular case there may be some merit to do so... The Minister of War ^(Peace) 14:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  I agree, Linuxbeak, that this does not happen often (thank goodness). Socks are not completely unheard of, though. Originally, I had thought that a standing semi-protect would be useful for AfDs, where IPs and socks seem to be a frequent (though not regular) occurence. Anyway, it's not something I'm wedded to, I just wonder whether there's a way to use an already-existing mechanism in a way that makes such processes work better. Bucketsofg 14:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protecting AfD's would stop new users from being able to defend their articles, and the authors of articles that are up for deletion are very frequently new. --Tango 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Our AfD process already has a major biting-the-newbies issues. It would be even worse if they weren't even allowed to comment. Admins who close AfDs are on the lookout for sockpuppets and meatpuppets and the vast majority of them are obvious. JoshuaZ 14:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes, I see that. Newby-biting is a big problem there, which a standing semi-protect might make worse. Oh well, it was just an idea. Bucketsofg 14:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose the continuing instruction creep and wiki-lockups of the alarmists. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose not needed in the vast majority of cases. Cases like this one can be handled on an individual basis. --Tango 10:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• oppose Problem not serious enough to justify such an extreme solution. Borisblue 13:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose if it comes to voting. I am for suffrage rules, but there is no need to restrict anyone from making comments in RfAs. Tintin (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose most RfAs don't need to be protected. The other cases should be treated individually.  Grue  14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The fundamental principle on Wikipedia is that anything is editable by anybody at any time. Of course, there are restrictions in places, but only where it has been shown that protection is an absolute must, like the main page, the welcome template. There is no compelling reason to enforce semiprotection on RfA's. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per tintin, although useful comments from very new users in RfAs seem rare. Semi-protecting these pages is just asking for a WP:BITE issue. JoshuaZ 16:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, instruction creep and alarmism. IPs have provided bona fide comments in some recent RfAs. Kimchi.sg | talk 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the potential costs outweigh the potential benefits. If people are serious about changing this policy shouldn't a discussion be started at the Semi protection page. RicDod 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Well, since this seems to have turned into a poll, oppose per my reasoning above and per Oleg Alexandrov. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose (even though I was the one who originally suggested it). I'm persuaded by the points raised by many of you that this would not be the way to go. I wonder, however, if sound practice might not be to slap a semi on them at the first sign of sock-puppetry. At least in the current mess with the HRE-nomination, one sock from one side was met quite quickly with a couple for the other, etc. Had this been contained earlier, the current voting rules (which many have raised concerns about) may not have been necessary. Bucketsofg 15:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There isn't enough reason here to justify a policy degrading one of the most basic policies of Wikipedia: that anyone can edit any page. Sometimes particular pages need to be protected as a matter of practical consideration, but protecting an entire class of pages as a matter of policy is a step we don't need to, and shouldn't take. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Doug Bell FloNight ^talk 12:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• neutral, As per Sjakkalle and Cynical. Not the "only for vandalism" part; but rather, we don't vote here, hence shouldn't be setting suffrage requirements. even those whose "votes" are discounted should, theoretically, have the right to make comments. On the other hand, we could easily semi-protect the page itself, and leave the talk open for such comments, which would leave the rfa itself clear of sock-and/or-meatpuppets and etc . . . which isn't quite ideal either way. so i have no strong feelings in either direction. --heah 22:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not needed in the majority of RfAs. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. RfAs can be sprotected in rare cases of unusual activities. But after all, it's the Bureaucrats' job to close a debate and these are trusted and thorough people, aren't they? Misza13 ^{T C} 09:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Grue. Everybody should be able to comment on RfA. abakharev 07:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Easier to support than oppose

There is some arguement over whether it should be easier to support than it is to oppose. I think it should, since RfA is there to decide if there is a reason not to make someone an admin, it's not there to decide if there is a reason to. Being an admin in "no big deal" or whatever the quote is. I would prefer to do away with support votes completely and just have people give reasons for opposing and people "vote" (for want of a better word) on whether the reasons are valid. If any reason is decided to be valid (I'm not sure what the required %age should be for that), the RfA fails, otherwise it suceeds. That would also make it possible to gather statistics on why RfAs fail, which would help the various discussions I've seen about whether standards are dropping or requirements are increasing or whatever. Does anyone think it's worth changing the format of RfA? --Tango 14:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't agree with the claim that "since RfA is there to decide if there is a reason not to make someone an admin, it's not there to decide if there is a reason to." This is only the case if we have a strong reason to believe that the person will at least occasionally use their admin capabilities in a way that benefits Wikipedia. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with your proposed format. Sometimes reasons need to be weighed as more or less valid. For example, one might oppose for two reasons, neither of which is fatal to support alone. If we are going to switch formats, the discussion formats that have been already proposed are much more reasonable. JoshuaZ 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" is all the reason you need to support someone. You need a reason to go against that assumption. By all means suggest improvements to the system - prehaps 2 reasons with a % in a particular range would be enough, or give people an option to vote "valid but insufficent" and work out some way of resolving the RfA using them. Do you have a link to the proposals you mention? --Tango 14:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A few comments: First, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. We should assume good faith, we don't need to assume sainthood without evidence, nor do we need to assume that the user will act in good faith under extreme stress without evidence. Nor does it force us to make any assumptions about a users competency. There are many users who go through RfAs where the issue is not lack of good faith but lack of competency and/or lack of experience. (which is why for example, some people vote oppose based on malformed RfAs, or lack of policy knowledge.) JoshuaZ 14:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tango, you should try to support somebody by simply saying "I assume he acts in good faith", and I'll bet you that most people (who havent read this talk page) will be critical about that vote! Certainly, its easier to support than to oppose. That's even codified. But to my mind, that inherent to the matter at hand. When you support, you support because the candidate portrays a good overall character and seems suitable. When you oppose, you usually do so for very specific reasons. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 14:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think I can agree with you here, Tango. The burden of proof lies on the nominator and candidate to prove they are worthy. But let's agree to disagree. The more important point, it seems to me is that there are two things that go on in our 'votes'. First, we express our opinion about the appropriateness of the candidate ('support/'oppose'); second, we try to convince others about our interpretation of the candidate's merits (or lack of them). If people decide to make a simple 'support' or 'oppose', I think that is their business: we should assume they are acting in good faith, according to their own rational reasons, even if they do not share them. If they provide a strong argument they may attract others to their view; if they provide a bad argument, they may repel others. But I think it should be up to each wikipedian to decide how much of their reasoning to share. To go to the next stage and demand detailed argument from the opposition implicitly assumes bad faith. You are requiring people to demonstrate good faith instead of assuming it. Bucketsofg 14:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You're still thinking of RfA as a vote (maybe only subconciously, but you are). A statement of opinion without a reason doesn't help consensus, it just helps reach a certain %age, which isn't what RfA is about. --Tango 14:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? An opinion without support of argument does help determine consensus, though it carries less weight. Someone who "votes" support is saying, "Yep, I like these arguments: As a WPian, I throw my lot in with these guys." It would be nicer if he gave a long reason, but his opinion matters nevertheless. Plus, in certain contexts, like BD2412's unanimous record, or even Sam Spade's 2nd with 50 voices on each side, all reasons might be exhausted, and less talking by later participants is understandable. Xoloz 14:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"You're still thinking of RfA as a vote (maybe only subconciously, but you are)". With respect, I don't think I am, though I'll admit that my unconscious processes are not fully understood by me (or you, when it comes down to it). What I'm doing is being willing to assume that someone has given full and appropriate consideration to a nomination even when they say simply "support" (or merely adds some very general praise); you seem unwilling to allow the same assumption of good faith for someone to say "oppose". Bucketsofg 16:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't count any vote that didn't have a reason ("per nom" is a perfectly good reason - no point repeating the same reasons that have already been given), support or oppose. A consensus ought to be about pursuading others to your view, or reaching a compromise - that's what separates it from a vote. If you don't give a reason, you're not helping reach consensus. The current RfA system is not a consensus - it's a qualified majority. They are not synomynous. We should at least try and work towards a consensus even if we can't reach one and have to fall back on a majority decision. --Tango 16:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In a way, I like that suggestion, BUT... here is the problem I see. Basically, "per somebody" becomes pro forma. At least with supports, I've always assumed that any "vote" without elaboration had an implied "per nom." at the end. Making folks type those six letters in order to have their opinion "count" seems like empty formalism to me. What we would all like is for every participant to think hard about every nomination they "vote" in -- and written words don't always correlate with that, for many different reasons. Xoloz 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA should be about determining whether or not the community has come to a consensus to promote the candidate; while in a utopian world we could require everyone to give reasons, the fact is that the current system works fine. If people support the candidate, they can do so, and optionally provide reasons why; if they don't, they can do so as well, and optionally provide reasons against the nomination. We trust our bureaucrats to make the right call. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but supplying reasons is much more valuable towards reaching the valued consensus than not supplying them, particularly for oppose votes, since supports can simply be taken as agreeing with what has already been said in the nomination. Polite requests for expanded reasoning on a vote should be filled, but that's just common courtesy. Refusing to expand on reasons could be indication the vote doesn't have reasonable backing, and is up to the bureaucrat to interpret based on the limited information given. Only with reasoning supplied can you expect a bureaucrat to fully fully apply the "vote" towards determining what the consensus is. While I agree we shouldn't require explanation, again, it is certainly more helpful to give it. - Taxman ^Talk 22:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that fact fully and completely: reasons are much more preferred and optimal than simple "votes" without explanation or comment, especially for opposition. However, eliminating support votes makes the RfA job hard and burdensome; it's difficult to judge community support when... well, no support is expressed. (Does that make sense?) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm with you there, I thought that was implied :). And I was mostly agreeing with what you were saying anyway, just expanding. - Taxman ^Talk 00:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate "too controversial"

Going over the RFA for HolyRomanEmperor, I was so incredibly surprised to see so many people voting oppose because he is "too controversial". Not because he has done controversial edits, not because he is heavily slanted in his own work, but because others deem him slanted. Frankly, in the minefield of Balkan-topics, there's always somebody who thinks your opinionated. If you dont mention Kosovo as the heartland of Serbia, you're anti-Serb. If you do, you anti-Albanian. You can never win.

Now I know people are allowed to vote on whatever reasons they see fit, but still. I'm sure that a good vandalwacker will be derided by the vandals. In this case, the arguments are being put forth by rather strong POV-pushers (though I'm not denying some of them have a point), and then echoed by normal users saying "apparently he is too controversial". Should we really judge somebody on that basis? Shouldnt RFA be about judging a candidate on his own merits?

Curious to hear what everybody thinks about this. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 22:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

People can vote "T.C" if they want...but I don't understand that unless the canditate is criticised, with diffs, by serious editors, many of them, and if he was otherwise not that strong a canditate anyway. If someone is trusteworthy, and has done a lot of hard work, like, oh...say Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, I would not even think of voting oppose per "T.C". That kind of voting just amplifies current opposition, not with new opinions or agreement, but just pure, blind, amplification. Trolls can utitlize this as a tool if there numbers are not large enough on there own, they can count on nervious users to vote "T.C" and they get more oppose votes.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 22:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that "too controversial" is shorthand for a longer argument that has merit. Let's be frank about what is going on here. There was a nasty civil war, ethnically based, in the Balkans not very long ago. It is not surprising, then, that some of this spills into wikipedia, not least because the ethnic strife is historical, both in the passive sense that it is a product of the historical experience of several peoples and (more importantly for wikipedia) in the active sense that history is one of the fields of conflict. Was that village historically of ethnicity-x? It's an important question--people were being killed over it a decade ago!--and one in which nationalist historians of both sides create arguments, some sound, some less sound. Now, we have an editor who is seen by one side as a champion of truth and common sense and by the other as a POV-warrior. In another RfA we might have someone from the other side who is (naturally enough) seen as a POV-warrior by those who are now the strongest supporters. When someone says "too controversial", all they're doing is saying that in their judgement (which they have both the right and obligation to exercise), the candidate seems too locked into one side of a partisan polarity to be trusted with tools that can be used (or threatened) in the struggle that he seems a part of. Bucketsofg 15:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I felt he had contributed to the position of his being "controversial". I would not vote oppose, simply because there was a controversy because other people disagreed with him. Tyrenius 06:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Even sillier question

In Lord Voldemort's last RfA, references were made to various spoilers in the Harry Potter books. This prompted me to put a spoiler warning at the top of his support votes. LV then inquired if this was the first RfA to have a spoiler warning placed in it. Is anyone aware of any other examples? JoshuaZ 23:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not... Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No but I recall an argument over whether they should appear on userpages.Geni 00:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not aware of any. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Kimchi.sg | talk 12:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall any either -- but the way to verify this would be to scroll through the last list of RfA's for character names that might merit the disclaimer. Xoloz 15:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been following RfA for quite some time, and I don't recall ever seen it too. That was a first, as far as I can remember. Redux 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing one, but I appreciate you adding the spoiler warning. I'm a little behind on reading the books to my kids and avoided reading all the comment least they spoil something for me. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Google doesn't think so, sadly. Flowerparty☀ 02:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

But a spoiler warning on a RfA is very funny. How about some on AfD? Tyrenius 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA-induced stress?

I was just adding figures into Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies and thought of this... What's the % of editors who leave Wikipedia after a failed RfA? It might be interesting as a rough measure of the level of stress that RfA generates on the candidate. Maybe we can even add a warning to discourage frivoulous RfA (self-)noms: "Warning! A failed RfA can be dangerous to your health." :-) Kimchi.sg | talk 12:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that will measure RfA induced stress at all. It may measure strong dissappointment and/or other things. For example, many of the rejected RfA candidates seem to have the adminship-is-something-I-deserve problem, which would make them more likely to leave. JoshuaZ 12:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's totally the wrong approach. Like I said in my RfA opening statement, being made Admin is not a big deal, and neither is not being made admin. More people need to start thinking like that, IMO. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Curious this thread should have been started now, because it just happened: Emt147 withdrew his RfA, which was nowhere near consensus, and announced that he was leaving the project. I believe that, mostly, he was...hurt, or offended, by the opposion he got criticizing his handling of vandals (or anons, in general). Redux 16:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think he left more over the disagreement over policy rather than his RfA - it just happened to be his RfA that brought the disagreement to light. He'd have probably left had the discussion taken place elsewhere, as well. --Tango 18:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, oh-one-that-should-not-be-named. Unfortunately, the second part of that is forgotten by many, including not just the candidates, but their supporters, and the community functionaries too. If not being an admin is not a big deal, opposing someone's candidacy shouldn't be either. Bucketsofg 16:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As per my example above, sometimes it isn't exactly not getting Adminship in itself, but rather people get hurt, or offended by the negative review that they get. It shouldn't happen, but it does. Good users have been lost to this. Redux 16:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have to disagree with Bucketsofg on this one, opposing a candidacy is a big deal since adminship is no big deal and thus you should have a fairly good reason to oppose. Take CSCWEM's nom for example, people opposed due to the fact that his name was a quote from the simpsons and that was their sole oppose reason, or Lord Voldemort's RFA since his name comes from the Harry Potter books... those are absolutely ridiculous reasons to oppose yet since people are getting away with opposing for the silliest reasons nowadays instead of real reasons like for example some very good and real criticisms on both my previous RFA attempts due to my lack of time here and my editing history which along with suggestions are extremely helpful for a candidate. I know that policy cruft should at all possible be avoided but seriously, if adminship is no big deal why do we put up with adminship becoming a big deal because someone is afraid of being eaten by clowns or is a dark wizard. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair point, my winged friend. Of course, one should no more oppose an admin candidate over issues like that than (say) revert an edit because the letter 'p' was not used in it. And, sadly, the more trivial the reason, the more stress for candidates, their supporters, and (indeed) the rest of us. (Both the cases you mention got my dander up a little.) That being said, we are in the position that we should oppose candidates that we have concerns about; that opposition should be stated as politely as possible, but the opposition in itself should not have any stigma associated with it. Bucketsofg 19:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree someone shouldn't be scared to oppose based on how the candidate might react, but obviously staying as polite as possible and giving good reasons is vital. A way that I try and help not to add unnecessary stress is by not voting at all (or occasionally neutral) if there is a candidate I oppose, but it is clear that the RfA won't succeed. For example I don't think I've ever voted on one of those '200 edit' pile-on RfA's (I'm not saying no-one should, just not very many people- 0/5/x is still a clear fail, no need to make it 0/15/x). Even in cases when the RfA is much less clear cut, I am unlikely to oppose 'per someone'- even if I agree with that someone there is little point saying so if the RfA is heading towards no consensus as it adds little to the discussion. PS. forgive my use of the word 'vote'- I understand the debate about it, it's just a convinient 'handle' word. Petros471 20:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This entire discussion is off-topic of what Kimchi.sg is considering doing. Don't confuse proscription and description. Kimchi isn't asseting anything about what should be but rather discussing how to determine what is. We should discuss that. JoshuaZ 20:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would applaud anyone who would be willing to write a script to get a list of unsuccessful RFA's (of people who haven't since had a successful one) and cross reference that with the list of missing wikipians page and possibly the wikibreak template as well as any other relevant tags and then check for accuracy and post it, that way we could get a real figure on the stats, if someone is willing to write the script and get the data let me know on my talk page and I'll be more than wiloling to do the accuracy and cross checking on a list of people who appear in both non successful RFA's (who haven't since had a successful one) and one or more of the relevant missing persons categories. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I just took a quick look at the unpromoted candidates since New Years in A-J, and out of 62 there were only eight who appeared to have stopped editing since their RfA (and one of those cited an ArbCom case rather than RfA). So I'd put the dropout rate at 11%, but with that sample size it could actually be as high as twice that. Conclusion: Further study required. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That rate's gonna get higher though while at the same time I predict that the successful admin rate will get lower due to the fact that it's impossible nowadays to spend five minutes on Wikipedia without getting embroiled in one big heated dispute or another and if you don't then you get opposed and if you do you get opposed, it's a loose loose situation. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In order for the drop-out rate to be at all useful we need to have some idea what the average drop out rate of Wikipedians is in general. For all we know, 11% could be lower than what we would get from the RfA candidates (not likely, but we really have no data suggesting otherwise). JoshuaZ 00:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't trying to draw any conclusions from that quick survey, just presenting it for speculation. Aside from the lack of control group problems, the errors bars, like I said, would be really large on that figure. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Any idea how we can calculate the average drop out rate for all users(of course, we would probably want to only look at drop out rate of users who did at least K edits each week for M months for some reasonable K and M, say M=2 and k=100)? JoshuaZ 00:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a paradox: anyone who would leave the project over a failed RfA lacks the qualities necessary to be an admin. Some of our best admins, on the other hand, failed an RfA or two along the way and made important adjustments to their contributions based on the comments made in their failed efforts. bd2412 T 00:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should nominate all the dicks so that they'll be turned down. 11% will quit. Repeat enough times and wikipedia could be dickless! :-D --Bucketsofg 00:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

But the non-dicks get rejected too. The criteria for promotion that voters apply are getting more stringent, to the point where some of the guidelines should really be updated. I don't want to see great editors rejected, and then become dejected, and that's what's happening. - Richardcavell 00:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I was trying (not too successfully) to be funny. I hope someday to be an admin myself, but I have to tell you, some of the reasons given for opposition are pretty daunting! Bucketsofg 01:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the claim that "anyone who would leave the project over a failed RfA lacks the qualities necessary to be an admin." Saying "I'm really upset over this, moreso than is useful. I'll leave for an indefinite period of time and come back if I feel I can reasonably contribute" is a mature, albeit imperfect response. Furthermore, note that there are many editors who might not meet criteria for adminship who will still make good editors. Thus, the loss of some of these editors is unfortunate. JoshuaZ 03:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I was considering those who leave permanently (or claim they are going to do so) based on such a turn of events. I don't begrudge a week or two of Wikibreaking following an RfA loss (particularly one involving heavy criticism), but admins must have a particularly thick skin and both a high tolerance for unfounded criticism and an ability to recognize and adjust based on well-founded criticism. bd2412 T 06:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that a lot of the stress and resulting disappointment that comes from a failed RFA comes from treating administrator status as a goal rather than something that happens along the way. If becoming an admin is a substantial reason why an editor is here then a failed RFA can cause stress, disappointment and possibly motivate them to leave. That admin status is a goal onto itself for some folks is clear from things like admin coaching and the editor review page. I think that's the wrong way around.

In a perfect wiki-world, editors are here because they want to help write a free encyclopedia. So they spend time here doing that and the admin thing happens naturally and unforced, as a side product from spending time here contributing to Wikipedia. The problem comes when it's a goal and editors are in a hurry to gain admin status. This doesn't apply to all nominees by any means but I thinks it's becoming more common. I do think that some RFA's that draw a lot of criticism and negative commentary are the result of an editor in a hurry. It can avoided by just working on the encyclopedia, getting satisfaction from that and one day being pleasantly surprised when someone nominates you. Rx StrangeLove 06:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Lord Voldemort; failing an RFA doesn't mean everyone hates you; it just means there is room for improvement. Leaving the project temporarily should be O.K., but abandoning it because of hurt feelings is just a tad too over the top. _-M ^o P-_ 06:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MOP, with the caveat that some people make very hostile opposes in a failed RFA, some of which may not even be considered "good" grounds for opposing. If being an admin is supposed to be no big deal, then the RFA process needs to start acting like it. I'm amazed that with HRE's first admin request, with the sheer hostility and spurious opposes, that he didn't see "F this" and leave. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a few subpages in part because of the stress surrounding doing an RfA. (Leaving and Your RfA) NoSeptember ^talk 12:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, editors who are involed in a failed RfA should be encouraged to do more quality edits. Users who leave Wikipedia on a permanent basis after a failed RfA are just not fit to be an admin in the first place. One must use failure as a motivation tool to improve his/her edits on Wikipedia. I feel that users who had failed one or two RfAs and are successful in future attempts are people who are able to motivate themselves in providing more quality contributions to Wikipedia. If I am not wrong, past failures of RfAs who eventually succeed make better admins. Does anyone have official statistics for this? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying that someone who leaves after a failed RFA is not fit to be an admin is rather tautological, since in order to be an admin they would have had to stick around long enough to pass an RFA. However, the fact that they leave doesn't prove that they never could have been an admin. For all I know, some of the people who quit could have made good admins in the future, but after gaining a better understanding of what adminship entails decided it wasn't worth investing the time and effort to do so. Even some valued admins ultimately quit the project (e.g. Radiant!, Lucky 6.9, RickK), and I wouldn't want to claim that this indicated they were bad admins while they were here. As to your speculation that multiple RFA failures makes one a better admin, one could just as easily speculate that multiple failures tends to indicate a very marginal candidate and that such people tend to make for worse admins. However, without some agreed upon metric for measuring whether an admin is good or bad, it would appear to be an impossible question to answer. Dragons flight 18:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You would also need to cheack the number who left after being sucessful. Applying for adminship appears to be one of the symptoms of certian types of burnout.Geni 15:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Gator1 RfA stats

Can anyone tell me what the vote figures for both of Gator1's RfAs? No need to undelete the pages. I would've put this on Wikipedia talk:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies, but seems like no one reads that page. Thanks! Kimchi.sg | talk 01:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gator1: Final (33/18/2) ended 14:34 December 20, 2005 (UTC) I did not see a second RfA. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gator1 (2nd): March 17, 2006 (108/0/1) NoSeptember ^talk 01:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! Kimchi.sg | talk 02:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, why were these RfAs deleted? JoshuaZ 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Gator1 was being harrassed by an anonymous POV-warrior 3RR violator whom he had banned. The vandal somehow figured out where he lived and worked, and mailed some vaguely threatening letter to his boss at his place of work, and Gator1 left wikipedia, and got his user and talk pages deleted, as well as other pages which contained information about him. This happened earlier this month, I guess. Long discussion at AN/I about it and on the mailing list. -lethe ^{talk +} 04:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. That's unfortunate. Thanks for the info. JoshuaZ 04:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's shitty. Make sure you're careful about what kind of personal information you let slip on wikipedia (or elsewhere on the internet) if you're going to take on the whackos. -lethe ^{talk +} 04:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well its a bit late for that for me. I've already gotten at least one death threat on Wikipedia from a neo-nazi, and at least one vandal stumbled upon a set of links which if they had followed up on would have given personal information in great detail. And I'm not even an admin yet. Ah well...JoshuaZ 04:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Recieving a death threat? Oh my! You have my full sympathies. This should NOT be happening! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I already gotten death threats also, and I was forced to delete like 400 edits from my user page which had personal info. Hint never place personal info in this site. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

An excellent hint. Does anyone feel energetic enough to go and edit Wikipedia:User_name#Choosing_a_username now? I think new users are given the Wikipedia:User name link to click on when they are in the middle of registering, and before they have actually commeitted themselves to any particular name. It should contain some kind of caution. AnnH ♫ 20:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Opposes by User:Profundity06

Hello. What do people think of the conduct of Profundity on some of the RfAs? He has opposed candidates on the basis that they are "vandal-bashers" and also on one RfA to "rub salt into the wound". He also appears to have created a dubious page Timothean religion. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say crat's call, but personally I would ignore the user as just any other troll. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:38 UTC (2006-04-27)

He's just a troll which can be harmlessly ignored. Probably he's just angry that his "religion" got less-than-decent treatment. Kimchi.sg | talk 06:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Watch him. If he becomes an annoyance, report to an administrator. michael ^talk 07:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not my religion. I'm glad that I'm being watched. Makes me feel right at home. RegardsProfundity06 09:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming Committee for Newbs

This is my first time editing wikipedia. I've enjoyed the creation of this community as a user but I really am turned off by the welcoming committee we have around here.

I'm apparently labelled a troll, etc by the welcoming committee. When I vote against a candidate, some random person who supports that person invariably comes along and tags my vote with a comment about how I am new or created some article that was deleted.

When I make a joke about this on a vote page, saying you can go right ahead and tag this with a comment, I'm edited out as a "troll vote". I suspect this will go forward as reason enough to edit out my future votes since, afterall, I'm a troll. Once labelled a troll, always a troll-- that's what I'm thinking.

Perhaps, encylopedias like law and sausage are something you should enjoy without getting your hands dirty by creating.Profundity06 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the general idea is that someone as new as you doesn't really know what qualities and characteristics an administrator of Wikipedia should have. If you seem abusive in your opposes then you will be deemed a troll since it seems like you're just going around opposing to cause arguments. I would suggest that you steer clear of voting on RfA for a while and observe the process, to see what is appropriate. Nobody should blame you for acting a little inappropriately when you are new, since you're still adjusting to what is expected of users in terms of conduct on Wikipedia. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 10:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Profundity06--you are wrong about the "Once labelled a troll, always a troll" thing. There are several well-thought-of users here who started out as vandals (well, ok, not several. But some. Well, maybe I can think of one.) Likewise, some of our most prolific and respected editors (respected by some subsets of editors, anyway) are called trolls quite frequently. Anyway, the point is that even straight-out vandals can reform, so certainly people calling you a troll won't cause problems for you after you have a few solid edits under your belt. If you want people to stop disregarding your votes, for instance, all you have to do is spend a while building up a few decent edits in the encyclopedia itself. If you're serious about arguing against overaggressive vandal-fighter admins, I would also suggest you make your argument by linking to specific edits by the candidate in question that you think show them going over the line; no matter how new you are, I believe people will take your comments seriously if you back them up well enough and detail your concerns. --Aquillion 10:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if marked as such it's our ('crats) responsibility to judge whether the user is too new to wikipedia. In such a case we may or may not fully consider his vote or not if the nom falls between 75-80%. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Low-edit-count welcoming template

I had considered creating a template message to send to all candidates with under 1500 edits to pleasantly tell them that we never see someone with such limited involvement in Wikipedia succeed in RfA, and then give some suggestions for trying again in the future, and encouraging some other areas of the community they can become involved in in the meantime. I never put this together, but I think it would be a good idea if someone wants to do it. NoSeptember ^talk 12:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

1500 might be a little low for that - If there's a good reason for having such a low count many people will support at 1000, or at least change their usual oppose to a neutral. Discouraging people with low edit counts from trying would mean the editcountitis has won. --Tango 12:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean a little high, surely? --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, high. Thanks. --Tango 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The assumption is that once you reach 1500, you should be familiar enough with Wikipedia to know whether your RfA has any serious potential of success. This is about one user informing another user about the realities of life, not setting any sort of formal standard, so nothing needs to be agreed upon as to what the cut-off should be. Someone who decides to do this could pick another level, but it should not be too low to miss some of the uninformed candidates. NoSeptember ^talk 13:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but maybe it should be used for editors who obviously do not understand the Requests for adminship process (if they think it's required to edit articles, for example). As Tango says, it would be tragic for editcountitis to win, even if it can be used (in some/many cases) as a rule of thumb to determine the capability of a user. -- Tangotango 14:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For the reason that editcount isn't the end all that people think it is and for the fact that it isn't and shouldn't be absolute and we shouldn't be encourging editcountitis (which is what this would do) I think this is a bad idea. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 15:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Since June 23, 2005 23 RfAs for users with less than 1500 edits have been successful. I have to agree with Tango. --Durin 14:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  How many in 2006? I don't seem to remember any recent ones. NoSeptember ^talk 14:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  Two. User:Wgfinley nominated on January 4, and User:Joke137 nominated on January 31. Wgfinley had 1414 edits with 47 support and 3 oppose, Joke137 1438 with 34 support and 5 oppose. --Durin 15:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. So if I said the cut-off should be 1400, I would have been spot on to say: RfAs of users with so few edits never succeed these days ;-). And both were nominated in January, so it is now almost 3 months since a sub-1500 RfA has passed. NoSeptember ^talk 15:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How many with between 1000 and 1500 edit failed then in 2006? --Celestianpower ^háblame 15:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Does it matter how many failed or passed? ANY bar you choose to establish as a metric by which users should be encouraged not to apply sets an arbitrary standard. I could wrack up 2000 edits in a couple of hours if I really set out to do so. EDIT COUNTS DO NOT MATTER. You want to narrow it down to 1400? Fine. No, nobody since January 1, 2006 has passed with less than 1400 edits. So, I guess that schmuck who wants to apply who has 1390 edits is just totally unqualified and therefore we should stomp upon him for even thinking of applying for adminship. But, get 10 more edits and he's suddenly magically blessed enough to not get a warning template? Boy it sure is a good thing that User:Wgfinley applied when he had 1414 edits and not 20 less! He'd be a serious cretin if he'd done that! I say enough of this. No warning templates. Period. --Durin 16:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  All this discussion about edit counts misses the whole point, which is to politely inform uninformed candidates that their nominations are not realistic because they are well short of general standards of the community. It has nothing to do with edit counts, that is just an arbitrary number anyway. Plus it is not a warning template, it is a welcoming template intended to not bite the newbies who apply for adminship. Do we want to scare people away because they stumble into making a poor decision to submit an RfA? <Rhetorical question ;).> A timely message to an uninformed newbie could bring them to a quick understanding of the situation. NoSeptember ^talk 16:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• True, the template is a good idea but we should bear in mind that edit counts are NOT an absolute critirea. What matters is the quality of the edits. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I put together a Sample newbie template for everyone's review. Please feel free to edit and improve it. NoSeptember ^talk 16:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I understand the intent, but do not approve of the template. --Durin 17:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• I also do not approve of the template. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this information should just be incorporated into Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, though that page could probably do with a trim. After all candidates are supposed to read it before placing their request, which is better for all concerned than template-talking at them afterwards. the wub "?!" 17:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the information is useful for editors considering throwing their hat in the ring. I don't think pasting a template on their talk page is the right way to go about it. I agree with the wub that the proper place for this information is in the guide. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with using that template. This is yet another attempt at imposing more rules, either on candiates or on voters. It is not helpful, I think. Besides, edit count is a poor metric. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This stuff can't be a rule, nor can if be added to WP:GRFA because it is not generally agreed to (and honestly, the newbies we are talking about are not reading that anyway). The idea is that since any of us as individuals can leave a message on someone's talk page, it may be a nice thing to do, and it does not require community support to do so. The template is just a way of saving the effort of typing each time. Anyone who is looking at this as a policy proposal is not looking at it correctly. A few people who want to help inform the newbie candidates can do so without the need of a policy to do so, indeed there should be no policy to do so. The bottom line is that we should be seeking out and contacting those who apply for RfA without understanding the process. NoSeptember ^talk 17:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I for one will make sure if I see a template like this on a person's talk page notify them that the template is blatantly incorrect and that they can run for any time and still have a chance to succeed (even if it's a lesser one) as well as admonish whoever put it there for "biting the newbies" as they are unduly discourging them for no credible or substantial reason and from this discussion I assume there are plenty of other people here who will do the same. There is a good reason why this hasn't been officially codified anywhere and that is because doing so and doing something like this not only discourges people but also encourges editcountitis and the feeling that you have to have a certain amount of edits to be an admin which is a blatant lie even though people with editcountitis will strongly disagree with me. It's also idiotic that we instill this sense of unworthiness "oh your not good enough to be an admin" "oh just wait until you magically have 1500 edits, 1499 isn't enough" on people just because they don't have a huge number of edits. Whatever happened to adminship being "no big deal"? Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Repeating the facts about past results that Durin has helpfully provided is not the same as telling someone that they are not permitted to have an RfA. Your suggesting that telling someone this is a blatant lie is over the top. You can wish that Jimbo's statement about adminship not being a big deal were true, but what actually is true can be determined from the actual RfA results. I agree that we are too strict on such standards, but I am not going to pretend that these de facto standards do not exist. Also, suggesting that there is a big contingent of strict editcounters here isn't true as far as I can see. Finally, communicating with other users without your text being officially codified is not inappropriate, and you will run into problems if you try to censor what communications others are allowed to make. You should think hard before you try to do that. People are permitted to communicate with newbie RfA candidates without Pegasus1138's explicit permission. NoSeptember ^talk 19:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, per my previous statement, if people are going to do it anyway (which I'm sure some people will) I'd prefer an official template since that at least gives a centralized list of people to warn about the nature of the message. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So if I put together some sort of template I can subst in, and keep it in my userspace, so as not to forget important points, you want to track me down and give me a hard time about it? I hear you about impersonalness but a good template that includes good information may be better than hastily scrawling down some, but not all, of whatever it is you wanted to convey. ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you a hard time about it if your doing it in a way that's discourging the person to even try to become an admin just because they don't have the "right" amount of edits but otherwise no. What people are proposing above would pretty much set an unwritten ceiling (or floor if you'd rather) wherein anyone who goes up for adminship with less than say 1500 edits or whatever would get this notice and would feel pressured to withdraw. We shouldn't be pressuring RFA candidates to withdraw, I've seen nice and friendly ways to recommend that they might want to withdraw but nowadays there seems to be an attitude that you should withdraw if you don't have this many edits and you get called on it anything like that which puts undue pressure on the editor in question and makes them feel quite frankly small and isolated. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please point to the comments in this discussion where the suggested communication with the newbie has been anything but friendly. You seem to be putting a negative spin on what has been a discussion about friendly communication with people who are unfamiliar with RfA. NoSeptember ^talk 19:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the point? You probably won't know they intend to nominate themselves until they do it, and by then a) it's too late and b) you can tell them on their RfA. If you know someone intends to nominate themselves then chances are it's because they've asked about it - in which case, by all means advise them against it. --Tango 17:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Such a template is a bad idea because it is implying, albeit in a weiled manner, that there are or should be some minimum standards for people candidating for admin, and that is something I would disagree with.

Any member of the community who has been here for a while can attempt to be nominated or nominate self for adminship. The community will decide in a case-by case basis if the given person can be trusted with the tools. That's how things are now, and I see no reason to add more to this. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

NoSeptember, I think it's a good idea. Perhaps an alternative is to alter the text at the top of the RfA page to more forcefully make the point? A safer 'cutoff' would be 1000 edits. The two editors who succeeded with 1400+ votes are exceptions, that prove the rule. - Richardcavell 07:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Last I heard there wasn't any sort of policy dictating when you could and could not leave helpful messages on someone's talk page; not everything needs an official procedure behind it. If someone wants to watch RfA and send a little "hey, looks like you're new here" messages to inexperienced candidate—with no arbitrary cutoff for edit count, just looking for the combination of factors that suggest someone is too new to be an admin—then great, why not? 1500 edits is far too high as an arbitrary absolute cutoff (I nominated Wgfinley when he had only 1400 edits, yes), but some with more than that are not ready and some with fewer are. So long as it's not being done in a botlike fashion based on edit count, I like the general idea of a gentle message to newbies who stumble in. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

CSD T1.Geni 03:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Joan53's RfA for evidence as to the fact that this template is needed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardcavell (talk • contribs) 02:08, 1 May 2006.

Well, it's evidence that someone would help a lot if they were able to take a little time and talk to the user, soften the blow and so forth, but it's not necessarily evidence that a template is the only way to do it. Oh, and Mindspillage, I perked my ears up when you said "policy"! Surely you're not saying one is needed! (grin) ++Lar: t/c 12:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The area of policy she was mentioning (whether you are allowed to communicate with other users on their talk pages) is not really an RfA related topic, nor was she proposing a new policy. NoSeptember ^talk 12:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Man, nobody gets my jokes these days. I think I'm keeping my day job, life as a comedian is not for me apparently. ++Lar: t/c 12:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I felt it was necessary to be explicit in this section, since a lot of people have already demonstrated a confusion over the simple idea that we can use templates to save us from typing the same message over and over, without that action moving from the area of personal communication with a user to being some sort of formalized policy on notification :P. NoSeptember ^talk 12:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Interiot's Tool

As Interiot's Tool no longer updates en.wikipedia.org user edits, should it still be linked to in all the RFAs? The only reliable tool I currently know of is Interiot's Second Tool (I think) here. drumguy8800 - speak 04:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I removed the link to Interiot's tool from my bot's message for now. By the way, anybody knows when the toolserver will come back into shape? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC

I would just have the bot's message point to the edit count using Interiot's second tool. It works perfectly after waiting for only about 3 seconds. --Mets501^talk 03:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking through the toolserver mailing list, and it is replicating, but the database for enwiki is corrupt beginning with records April 12. Therefore, it is usable for data before then, but it is worthless for data after the db server split. If editcounters are absolutely required, I recommend Interiot's javascript, or downloading Flcelloguy's Tool on your local machine. Remember: Editcountitis can be fatal. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want edit summary usage, just click here [4]. I hope interiot's tool get fixed though.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 07:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And what about Kate's tool? Maybe it's working again? I'm not certain, there seems to be a lag in the edit count there. Any confirmation? Redux 12:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Both tools need to contact the server to work, and they can't, so probably not. _-M _o P-_ 12:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kate's tool and Interiot's tool both run on the tool server, so the database corruption issue extends to both (as well as any other report from there). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Where will I get my fix for editcountitis now?? I hear the symptoms for withdrawal include short-term memory loss and repetitiveness. Have I asked about Kate's tool already ;)??? Redux 00:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope that this is just a temporary problem. For the record, has this happened before or is this the first time that the editcountitis are not updated? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Interiot's tool, but I do know that Kate's tool had had problems before. I don't know what was the nature of those problems, but they did get resolved eventually. Then everything was just fine, until this time around. Redux 03:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we sure the data after April 12 is totally worthless? For me, it's counted about 150 of 350 since then but there seems to be nothing particularly wrong with the data that has "leaked" through to it. Marskell 13:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you click on the diffs for the data? For example, the tool says that you have 80 contributions to Extraterrestrial life. If you click on contributions for that, you'll see the top one, dated 24 April, has an edit summary of "rv". We'll assume you did revert on 24 April, so the edits that have "leaked through" can be assumed to be correct. However, if you click on the diff for that, you'll find that it takes you, not to an edit Marskell made to Extraterrestrial life, but to an edit that Unyoyega made to Alfonsina Storni, Extraterrestrial life. Interestingly, there seems to be no such article; the link is red. But if you go to that diff, and then click on article link at the top left, you'll be taken to Extraterrestrial life. I found the same thing for my own contributions, which is why I checked yours. For example, I looked at my contributions for Christianity from Interiot's tool, and saw that the last one it gave was one on 21 April where I said in the edit summary "Reverting Kecik's twenty-sixth revert out of twenty-eight article edits" Okay, I really did make that edit. (There's a problem of sock-and-meat-puppetry at that article.) But if I click on the diff, although it says "Christianity" at the top, I get taken to a message that Katefan0 sent to User_talk:144.26.146.133. It's the same with lots of other recent diffs from my contributions on Interiot's tool. AnnH ♫ 13:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You do your homework better. I just looked at summaries which seemed fine. So I guess worthless it is then. Maybe I'll get around to making Alfonsina Storni, Extraterrestrial life... Marskell 13:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what happens is that you were comparing a diff from the Alfonsina Storni page with an edit from Extraterrestrial life. The comma at the top indicates that you were using the diff feature with two different articles. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 17:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a vote tally in the RfA template?

Is there a reason why there is a vote tally in the rfa template? I mean, I doubt it helps the closing bereaucrats much, and it just emphasizes that the RfA is an evil poll. Borisblue 03:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the 'crats can tell us how much they make use of the count (if at all)? If they don't find it useful, there shouldn't be problems abolishing it. Kimchi.sg 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. I use it to see if I should invest time in researching a candidate (which I usually only do if it might be close and my vote might affect the result) (see more). It has its uses. Just because vote tallies and edit counts are reported doesn't mean that we have to consider them, if we choose not to. NoSeptember ^talk 03:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"I use it to see if I should invest time in researching a candidate ... " And this is troubling. Comments are buried at the end of the RfA, so if a particular RfA gets enough votes in any one direction early on, comments may never be read by others, buried at the end as they are. Tallying the votes up front may influence the overall vote tally, and not encourage others to read comments. Or, perhaps the comments should be added to the top of the request, rather than bottom ? I find it very troubling that someone nominates an admin based on a series of very POV articles, and that the comments to that effect are at the end of the RfA and may never be seen by those who merely scan vote tallies, to decide how or whether to vote. Sandy 15:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The comments get seen, I have seen plenty of nominations that were looking very solid take a nose dive once a serious issue with the candidate is revealed. Also, most people do not wait for days before wading into an RfA as I do (most vote early - half of the votes seem to come on day 1). After a few days, I go to the Oppose votes first to see what dirt has been dug up on the candidate, and whether it is legitimate dirt or sour grapes. By the time I get around to an RfA, however, most are either (50/2/1) or (23/22/4) and it is obvious how they will end up (and it is obvious whether there is any serious dirt there before I even look). I read the comments before I vote, and I believe most others do that too. NoSeptember ^talk 15:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Then my summaries must be even more evil, but as NoSemptember says, having a tally draws attention to close candidates so they can get greater scrutiny. Dragons flight 03:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The structure of RfA already emphasizes the fact that it is a poll in much more serious ways (for instance dividing up supporters and opposers into separate numbered lists). That being true the tally does not seem like a big deal. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I use it extensively when deciding to close early; I can quickly scan the tallies and see if any need a closer look. Obviously, I confirm the tally before closing, but it's a quick signal of whether I need to look or not; if the tally says 100-1-0, it doesn't need me to consider closing early as unlikley to succeed.

One thing I wish is that someone would come up with an auto-updating tally; we have so many other things that automatically update, why can't we have that? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dragons flight has a process for creating summaries, which already generates tallies, but I'd not be too keen on autoupdating tallies, as it's a bit prone to slight errors (for example my tally is off by one at the moment, there's a placeholder support in there that hasn't been properly timestamped after the start, and thus should not be counted). It's usually close enough to right for those that use the tally as a filter to decide whether to dig further, as NoSeptember does, to make a call that's good enough. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The tallies were originally called TOCtallies and were added as part of the section heading so that they would show up in the TOC, allowing voters to focus on those RFAs that are of interest to them either because they are close or because they are leading toward an outcome undesired by the reader. There have always been people who don't like them. I have never found them helpful enough to be worth the effort involved in updating them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Joan53's RfA

This RfA demonstrates that we need to have a speedier way of dealing with hopeless nominations. Whereas Joan53 might otherwise end up engaged in a tame edit war (she makes about one edit a week on average), now she's going to get a massive pileon and criticism. If Request for Rollback can't get up, then I'm not going to bother creating a policy proposal, but we need something - Richardcavell 12:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only do we pile on oppose votes upon a newbie, but there appears to be a contingent of RfA regulars that are strongly opposed to anyone having a friendly chat with these users about their RfA. That situation is just bizarre to me. On the other hand, people are resiliant, most will get over the deluge of opposition, once they realize it was nothing personal. NoSeptember ^talk 12:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you refering to the low-edit template discussion? People aren't against friendly chats, they are against the emphasis on edit counts. --Tango 12:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think people are opposed to the idea of talking to a user about it? Gosh I hope not, because when I went to user talk:Joan53 to leave a message of support and advice, I was happy to see that I wasn't the first person to turn up and do that. I didn't use a template but I don't think a template is a bad way to go, as I said above, if used correctly. ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am against editcountitis too, but if someone wants to mention edit counts in the course of discussing something with a newbie, so be it. There were suggestions above that such a discussion would be "biting the newbies" and "blatant lying". We can be against overreliance on edit counts without attacking the mere mention of edit counts in conversation. NoSeptember ^talk 13:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning edit counts is ok, the suggested template I saw was almost all about edit counts though. --Tango 13:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} then? Take all the editcountitis stuff out and see if you can make it better? I think most of us actually do agree here on most of the key points, we're just not sure about all the details, right? ++Lar: t/c 13:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why these things can't ever become policy, because people will disagree on everything, even what to talk about. Please realize that when you mention edit counts to a newbie it is just a shorthand way to say, "you are too new". By the time they actually have over 1000 edits, we can expect that they will realize there is more to this whole RfA thing than just edit counts. There is nothing really wrong with using shorthand with a complete newbie, they will grow out of a edit focus soon enough. NoSeptember ^talk 13:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

How about restricting who can nominate. Not a high level, maybe "50 edits in the last month" would be enough, but slightly more would probably be ok. If you have less than that any nomination by you (of yourself or someone else) is void. That means brand new users can still go through RfA if they get someone else to nominate them (that's only a good thing on principle, I doubt it will ever actually be useful, but it's good to keep RfA as open as possible), but nominations that will always fail aren't so likely to be made. --Tango 12:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The more rules and regulations we add to voting, nominations and so on, the more unneccesarily complicated the process becomes... --Darth Deskana (talk page) 13:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's unneccesary, then great. Richardcavell seems to think nominations like this are a problem, so I suggested a solution. If concensus is that it isn't a problem, then we certainly don't need a solution. --Tango 13:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really for a template, because that makes the process overly impersonal, and every newcomer has their own strengths and weakenesses that can't be generalized in a template. As has been shown with Lcarsdata and Joan53's RfAs, people are still willing to talk to the users concerned giving friendly advice, and I think that's an attitude that should be preserved on Wikipedia. -- Tangotango 13:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree very much with Tangotango here. You can't just slap a template, however well-intended, on a naive contributor's talk page. One size does not fit all. If you run into an RfA which is unlikely to pass, take five minutes of your life and write a short message to that user saying why, given this contributor's number of months, inexperience, etc., this RfA is unlikely to pass. The message will not be the same in all circumstances. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But people did that, and she persisted. I think it was motivated by a desire to shut WillC out of the Maryland page (describing Maryland as a Southern state). That didn't have to be brought up and discussed here, but if she's going to push the point, then it does need to be. - Richardcavell 01:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad example, really. The template idea is meant for good faith noms by people that just don't understand what it requires. This wasn't really made in good faith, since there was an alterior motive. --Tango 10:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)