Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 128

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125 Archive 126 Archive 127 Archive 128 Archive 129 Archive 130 → Archive 135

Proposal to eliminate the 20 Question status-quo

Perhaps this might fall somewhat along the lines of an RfA committee, but perhaps it could be possible to implement some sort of process into RfA that limits the number of questions, possibly some sort of approvals process that requires a question to be approved by somebody before it can be added to somebody's RfA. Approval would be required per question per RfA. Alternately, one could limit the amount of questions that somebody is allowed to ask to a maximum of one question per RfA. Just a few ideas. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the questions are as big an issue as they are made out to be. Either way, a process that requires approval of question sounds like unneeded bureaucracy to me. -- Naerii 22:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been proposed many times in the past. The questions aren't that bad unless you get the AGF questions. Malinaccier (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the only thing we can hope to accomplish is simply to gently persuade user's not to pile on drab questions. Procedurally limiting doesn't seem feasible, and an approval committee would be way too much more bureaucracy. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You just need someone who's prepared to not answer some of the questions, and a closer who's prepared to ignore a few of the subsequent !votes. "just"? Dan Beale-Cocks 00:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The only solution is vigilance. RfA additional questions are not for fishing. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No point in making a limit since the user doesn't have to answer any questions anyways. Monobi (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, they essentially do, lest they want to receive pile on opposes. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I dislike 95% of the questions... the only questions that I truly like are the one's that are specific to the individual being questioned. Eg, I looked at your history and I have a concern because of ... Balloonman (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • maybe parody is the solution. How about we ask every candidate whether they spit or swallow??? Spartaz Humbug! 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Parody has been tried. You just finish up looking a bit of a fool. Splash - tk 12:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, for my part, I'm going to continue to remove (a) stupid questions, as previously announced; and (b) questions that are performance art on the part of the asker. People are all a bit precious about this, so they're going to have get less precious. To escape the "performance art" test, you will need to ask questions which are of direct relevant to this candidates RfA in particular and which teach you something you cannot determine from the standard 3 questions, any thus-far surviving additional questions and the candidate's contributions list as well as have them be a question that is essential to appear on the RfA and not merely a by-query that belongs on the user's talk page. RfA is not a place to prove how clever you are by thinking up look-smart questions. Go to university for that, or take an IQ test and post your result on your userpage or something. Splash - tk 12:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I remember one user who had their IQ posted on their userpage. In their RFA they got a pile-on from people who that it signified he was egotistical. Malinaccier (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Those absurd exam-like optional questions make a lot of damages: people base their vote on those instead of looking for the candidate's contributions, and it's not with some answers to a couple of ad hoc questions that we can evaluate the user's capacity to make a good admin. And now, we're a step further in absurdity, they become so specialized that a candidate will probably never encounter such a situation. Of course, in those cases, the best thing to do is certainly to go to AN, which should be clear for a candidate for adminship. Cenarium (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a limit of one question per user would be beneficial. It should help to avoid the 20-questions problem and also go some way towards ensuring that the questions we do get are carefully though out. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
One seems a little extreme. Five would be better. Malinaccier (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Playing devil's advocate here, but if 20 editors decided to ask one question each, that's still twenty questions.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree. What happens if you need to add a follow up question to clarify a candidates response? And what happens if you have concerns about two independent areas of a candidates experience that cannot be covered by one question? I whole heartedly agree that this current vogue for asking questions for the sake of asking them is undesirable (at best); However I see no reason to add a throttle to legitimate queries. Pedro :  Chat  22:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
These are all good points. Except for one :P SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see the problem with the system as-is. Answer the questions that you find relevant. Leave some blank, or explain why you are declining to answer any question after #10, etc., if you don't want to answer every question thrown your way. Antelantalk 22:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I very strongly oppose the idea of vigilantes meddling in removing questions they feel are inadequate. You are entitled to do so on your own RFA, not on anyone else's, unless the question is obvious trolling. Personally, I don't really support question limitations either. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 22:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You can't not answer additional questions, at least not if you want your RfA to pass at all. I don't see it possible that anybody can decline to answer a rational question (and by rational I mean questions that aren't like "Do you like Rocky Road ice cream?") and expect their RfA to pass. Not nowadays. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You never know until you try. I think the bureaucrats are inclined to discount opposes based solely on not answering questions, if a candidate is otherwise solid.--ragesoss (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that some people are giving the 'crats a little too much credit here about applying weight to individual RfA !votes. Unless the percentage is in that very narrow "could go either way" window, there's not a whole lot they can do based on the current expectations, RfA climate and tradition. Tan | 39 00:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Good to see you around here, Sage. Tan, you're probably right...which is a shame - in an ideal world, a 'crat would ignore the "didn't answer question" opposition completely. But this isn't one. :( dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anybody (besides Ragesoss) is going to be bold enough these days to ignore a question. If they do, they'll get the "didn't answer question" oppose, then people will detest the opposes, then discussions will be moved to he talk page, then Kurt will oppose the self-nom then once it's 39% or so on the last day a 'crat'll close it as no consenseus. Ragesoss only got away with it because he has powers.--KojiDude (Contributions) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If you had been anything but a perfect candidate for adminship it wouldn't have worked, and that's sad. The absurd proliferation of questions making RfA into a gauntlet is a big problem. People then don't want to look into a candidate's contributions to decide if they are trustworthy, they simply vote based on an answer, and that is too little information to go on or the wrong information. Worse is people add their question and think, well mine is just too important and it's just one, so I'll add it. The result is 20 plus questions. All that said I don't agree with a limit to a number of questions (who's question should get asked and what's to say the best question would make it) but I can't say I disagree with removing unhelpful questions. Obviously people are not stopping to think of the negative impact of their questions or even worse, perhaps some are and they are adding them anyway, and we're just AGF too far. - Taxman Talk 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent> I don't think you can just make a rule to deal with this problem. Plus I'm not a fan of introducing more bureaucracy, especially when the root of it is more of an "RfA culture" thing. Rather, I think we should be discussing it with folks we think are asking excessive or inappropriate questions. I feel like people aren't trying to create problems by asking the questions and probably genuinely don't want others to be annoyed with them for it, so it seems like it'd be effective to point them to discussion showing that a lot of people are against frivolous questions. delldot on a public computer talk 06:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by this proposal. Imposing blanket restrictions on the number of possible questions has a number of downsides: it stifles the ability of those who are not yet convinced by a candidate's competence to have their curiosity put to rest; it imposes a lot of bureaucracy on a process that does not need it; and it does not take into account unusual circumstances (perhaps a piece of information on a candidate comes to light, and suddenly, more questions are necessary).
My preferred approach would be to one of handling occurrences of above-average volumes of rfa questions on a case-by-case (i.e., an rfa-by-rfa) basis. Whether such handling would be undertaken by the rfa community, the bureaucrats, or the "SNOW admin" community (that is, that group of admins that generally help out around rfa, close SNOW requests, engage in bureaucrat discussion, etc.) is another question; personally, I think having all three keep an eye on excessive questions is the best way to go. What I do not think is beneficial, however, is announcing "max., 11 questions per rfa", and I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way. Anthøny 09:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

BAG heads-up

Please note that MZMcBride has nominated for the BAG, and is being !voted on at the BAG talk page. AKAF (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad form?

Hi there, i'm interested in trying to understand why it is often considered 'bad form' to reply to all voters in an RfA? Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 06:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a fallacious problem that was invented by those in the opposition camp. The more you attempt to defend yourself, the more guilty you look, and the more it appears like you do not understand WP:NBD. The tools are too important to you. Personally, I think it's silly to condemn a candidate for responding. After all, it's a discussion. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is more to replying to all the opposes, as people don't often do that with supports. I think some people want to be able to oppose without being hassled for their !vote. It can get a little out of hand on some RfAs, where every oppose is met with challenges. Also see Sallicio's take. Enigma message 06:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll also quote Balloonman from a previous discussion on this page: "Personally I think it is a mistake to get into a debate with a person who opposes. If you think the complaint is unfounded, you should make a short comment to that effect, but don't debate the opposers. When you debate the opposers you add fuel to their position. You give them a pulpit to preach from and allow them to dig into the candidate more. Generally, and oppose will be a paragraph in length, but when you debate the oppose, you give them the freedom to elaborate and provide more evidence that they are right. You give them the permission they need to convince others. So instead of having one oppose, you end up with many opposes" Enigma message 06:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The above is very true. I feel that there is nothing immediately wrong with contending an opposing position, with restraint, tact and brevity. However, usually candidates feel compelled to defend themselves. I mean, afterall, they are being placed under a very high resolution microscope for all their hard work. It's when the comments turn to badgering that it becomes tasteless. There is a thin line, though, between discussion and entreating and the candidate usually doesn't discriminate between the two. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Enigma, I couldn't have said it any better ;-) But I do think it is a mistake for nominators/candidates to respond. They are biased. I generally think if the oppose is bad, that it is better to let an outsider point it out. They have more credibility than the nom/candidates.Balloonman (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
That sounds totally misguided. If you "think a complaint is unfounded", discussing it can either make the opposer change their mind, or make you see that the complaing actually isn't unfounded. If someone else looks at that part of the discussion, they're not going to be convinced by a poor argument, and no amount of discussion from the opposer is going to change that. And drawing more attention to a certain part of the discussion shouldn't make any difference, since everyone should read the whole discussion and look at the candidate's contributions themselves. I know it doesn't happen that way in reality, but you still shouldn't think that the point in any rfa is to cater to all the mindless drive-by voters who'll just hop onto the first bullet point they notice—that'll just go further into removing any reason from the process. - Bobet 10:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It may sound misguided, but I've seen it repeatedly. It does go to the core of the issue. If the purpose of RfA is passing, then you don't want to get into the debate. Convincing one oppose to change their !vote isn't worth the price of loosing several supports. If the purpose of the RfA is to get to the truth, feel free to get into the debate, but realize that you might kill any chances of passing!Balloonman (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If someone feels they have a good reason to oppose, but the candidate disagrees with it, more discussion on that could lead to identifying an actual problem in the candidate's editing and giving him a chance to notice and fix it. If the reason given isn't actually a problem, anyone opposing based on the candidate presenting an argument to that effect would be stupid. I'm not saying that someone should harass every oppose voter, in case there's obviously just general disagreement (eg. two people whose criteria for adminship don't match), but if, like was stated in the previous post, a "complaint is unfounded", it should be addressed. - Bobet 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Two points. First, this is an underlying problem with the RfA process. If your goal is to pass the RfA, then you probably don't want to be involved. Second, if the reasoning isn't just/fair or is questionable, others will generally come to the aid of the candidate and the same information can be gleened by the supporters. By letting others get involved, the candidate gets to keep their hands clean. And "independent" editors are seen as more objective than the nominator or candidate themselves. So their perspective is better accepted. Is it fair? No. Is it reality? I'd say yes.Balloonman (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It can come of as patronizing and a little insulting. Sometimes it seems the candidate is saying "I understand your reasoning, but here is why it is wrong". I agree that if there are bad faith opposes adnd opposes citing falsehoods then in many cases the candidate or someone should respond, but in cases where I made a good faith oppose based on the facts of the case, I don't need the candidate to further interpret things for me. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like we're in agreement here. I'm only disagreeing with the previous statement that unfounded complaints shouldn't be refuted. If your complaint has merit and the candidate still refutes it, that just shows poor judgement in his part (which could lead to more opposes, but would still help the rfa in reaching the correct conclusion). On the other hand, if a candidate refutes a point and you can show him that there's merit to the complaint, everyone wins. If he can point that your facts of the case were wrong, you should be happy he did it. But to say one shouldn't ever refute a complaint for the reasons stated in Enigmaman's quotation above just sounds like gaming the system. - Bobet 17:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, many times the nom or nominator is attempting to refute things like the classic "prima facie" oppose. Since such a concept has no grounds to begin with, there really is no good way to argue against it... other than letting it simply speak for itself. In cases where someone says something about the nom that can be clearly debunked with a dif or two, I really see no reason not to call it out. If the evidence is contrary to your reasoning, then your position is wrong, and we have a responsibility to the nom to point it out as such lest lazy voters fall in line behind a falsehood (something which happens with great frequency). Hiberniantears (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand, that is interesting. I think faulty claims should be confronted. In my experience, the encyclopedia's work has gained when others pose their reasoning. Why? Because, try as I may, I am not always right. Not even close (unfortunately). This is the value of collaboration, where one person sees a brilliant argument, another may find a fault. And I always prefer the revised version to the faulty version. Therefore, when I edit an article, change a template, support a candidate at RfA, or whatever, I hope that others will continue to come along and evaluate my reasoning. That's what's great about FAC--you have the opportunity to have your work evaluated by a myriad of people whose goal is to make your work as good as can be. Where else can you get that? So, when you say that you "don't need the candidate to further interpret", I would ask, what if the candidate is correct? What if one's reasoning is in error? Wouldn't we want that to be corrected? I know that I would and that is why I continue to edit this encyclopedia. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BAG Candidacy

I have accepted a nomination to be considered for membership in the Bot Approvals Group. Please express comments and views here. MBisanz talk 08:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Frivilous nominations

What is the process for frivilous nominations such as this? Rossami (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It'll probably be csd'd as a test page, since it's malformed, and not even transcluded. xenocidic (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The user's edit history makes it clear that this was a deliberate act, not a test (see here). But a review of his/her other contributions suggest that it was not a good-faith request. So far, I have found only one edit to the article space not reverted as vandalism. Rossami (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I snowed that for now (better than allowing more biteing opposes). FunPika 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Joke oppose removed

Resolved

[1], [2]. Dorftrottel (complain) 04:10, May 7, 2008

Interesting. Don't know what to make of it thoug... What happened to Kurt anyway? RC-0722 247.5/1 04:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The user clearly stated that their !vote was a joke, and they were going to remove it in the future. It was in no way constructive and was disrespectful to the candidate. And as such I saw no harm in removing the !vote from the RfA. Tiptoety talk 04:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
So, uh, what does this have to do with Kurt? bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 04:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: The oppose/conversation has been moved to the RfA's talk page. Tiptoety talk 04:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Malformed RFAs

Someone wanna do the paperwork and close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everdon? MBisanz talk 15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bishopfries. MBisanz talk 15:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If they never had any participation or transclusion, they can just be deleted. They don't need to be filed as failed, etc. Avruch T 15:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Bishopfries was an experiment or vandalism (depending on your level of AGF), I deleted it. Everdon was never transluded, but two people opposed anyway. Everdon seems to be editing in good faith, so this wasn't vandalism, and it doesn't make sense to me to have this sitting in the "failed RfA" page, so I'm about to nuke this too (although someone with a different opinion can revert that). --barneca (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mr.Muffet.
O and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SUMBA
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sumba
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Theobresler MBisanz talk 15:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone objects, I'm going to delete any RfA's that were never transcluded and appear to have been experiments or vandalism. If they "withdrew" from one that was never transcluded, I also plan to delete, rather than consider it an RFA that "did not succeed". If it might be a work in progress, or it's status is unclear, I suggest contacting the creator. Anyone have a problem with my plan for deleting the others? --barneca (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Go for it, and do Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/danielaustinhall12 & Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/eatmyleavings & Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/samn122 as well MBisanz talk 15:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/aj00200 --Geniac (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have an old list from March last year. See User:Carcharoth/RfA data/Unsorted RfA pages: "Some are administrative RfA pages, some are redirects and some are unrecorded RfAs (some very malformed). Some may also be created-but-not-yet-opened, or created-and-never-opened RfAs. I'm not quite sure what to do with this, but if anyone wants to have a go at sorting them and adding them to the records at RfA, please do." Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone might also want to re-run the process I did at User:Carcharoth/RfA data, but as the numbers never quite matched there, maybe a better method can be found? Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there some way to check if a page has ever been transcluded to another page? A lot of the entries on Carcharoth's list look like newbie attempts at RFAs that never made it to opening and can probably be closed or deleted. MBisanz talk 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, as in this case the page in question is RfA, you just want to look through all the versions of RfA, from the very first one here (14 June 2003) to the latest one just now (30 April 2008). Over 10,000 revisions, but all the data is in there somewhere... Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Surely some of the horribly malformed ones [some simply consist of a sig!] can be deleted as they are not useful. If a discussion would be useful I could MfD them. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 17:09, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

How does one add the edit cout to the respective Rfa pages?

Resolved

Well I think the subheading pretty much covers what I wanted to ask!Thanks for any help! --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A bot does it, but you can copy and paste it if you really wanted to, from kates tool. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Also a recent edit seen here might help. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What SM said. I'll also add that the bot has been a bit slow in adding the count recently, but does eventually get to it within the first day of the RfA. And, in the meantime, a link to the live editcount is included in the userlinks anyway. Hope this helps, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I was just going to volunteer to help out as I have noticed it taking rather longer than usual. Thanks for the swift reply = ).--Cameron (t|p|c) 12:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem - thanks for keeping an eye on it. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to sort out....

Resolved

This untranscluded RFA? It's not on the main RFA page, but already has 5 opposes. I actually find the first oppose quite insulting. D.M.N. (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All !votes removed, about to contact the candidate now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I actually contacted the user yesterday... it was vandalism as far as I am concerned. It is the sole edit of the user. I'm of the opinion that it should be deleted rather than perserved. But was hoping to get feedback from the user. IF the user doesn't respond today, I was just going to delete it.Balloonman (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I just noticed the history of it all as soon as I struck everything... I don't think much of anything needs to happen, but I wouldn't shed a tear if it was deleted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted it as a test page/joke. I don't expect to ever see that account edit again.Balloonman (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RFB problem

There is a problem at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report, Avraham for RfB isn't appearing, so results are likely being skewed, as only RfA regulars are weighing in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2, and someone fixed it. Went almost 24 hours without being listed: not good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I restored this post which was stangely deleted; can someone involved with these processes and bots/scripts please inform the rest of us "unitiated" which page we should be using? Currently, neither User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report nor Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report are correct, and the issue of editors not knowing about RfBs (when they think they have a link that does keep them informed) is a problem. Which are the outdated pages, and which are the pages that work (if any)? If these are outdated pages, why isn't there some sort of warning placed on them so other editors will realize they aren't getting correct info? (How many RfBs did I miss in the past, because of possibly linking to a bad summary page?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

None of any length since the February deluge, as the only one since then was Rudget's which was withdrawn very quickly. -- Avi (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Avi. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • See the thread on this subject at WP:BN: here.
  • Also the thread located here.
  • The reason I deleted the thread here is because you'd had significant responses from both the report creator and a bureaucrat on the other two threads, why start and maintain a third on a different page? The most salient point may be the extremely small number of people who transclude that page as you do. Avruch T 15:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Because like me, I presume many people aren't aware of this problem. (And, unless it occurred in the last few minutes on a thread I haven't yet read elsewhere, no, I don't have responses.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Take a look at the threads I linked above. Folks have responded to you in both. WJB's comments today are the most comprehensive, and explain why this isn't a significant problem. Avruch T 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA Related message on various user's talk pages

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

I thought I would give this diff here, as it is being posted to various members of the community, particularly RfA regulars, also see here, here, and here, among many others (they are all the same post). I'm not sure if it is blatant canvassing, but either way, I figured it would be proper to let everyone know it was being done. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. That does not look good. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's very close to canvassing, I think. Not that anything should really be done about it, it's just... tacky, I guess. Tan | 39 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify something important: it is NOT to just her prior supporters, but also some opposers. Regardless, the message has a strongly positive tone, indicating other editors are behind her. I find it far from neutral. I also don't think anything should be done about it, other than let people know that it was done, and discuss if neccesary. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I predict a significant number of opposes based on this... xenocidic (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with it. To me, it's no different than the widely accepted, post-RfA talk spam messages. Lady Aleena had an RFA that didn't pass, she has received encouragement to "run again". Maybe a bit spammy, but seeing as it's a redlink, hardly canvassing. Has anyone told LA that she's being discussed here? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I didn't mean that I would oppose based on these messages, or that I was opposed to the messages in question per se, just that there will likely be opposes based on this (and thus is probably an unwise course of action). xenocidic (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Just saw your note on LA's page, Gwynand. Thanks for notifying her of this discussion:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Gwynand did. I guess it just doesn't look good, Keep. Cmon, two weeks after the first RfA? Geez. I'm a foe of "power hunger" opposers, but this sort of crosses the line of... well, something. If anything, yer right, it's just spammy and, like I said, tacky. Tan | 39 14:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(e/c2x)Keeper, I posted on her talk page as soon as I posted it here. We might have to agree to disagree here, but I think this is an entirely different animal than the after-RfA thank yous. She is specifically talking about her next RfA, and while it might attempt to be neutrally worded, it isn't. I'm quite surprised she did this, to tell you the truth. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

<too many colons>It is a bit unorthodoxed, to say the least. I would hope it doesn't garner opposes, but heck, people oppose for anything they can get there hands on in the gladiator arena that is RFA. LA may be having a dose of 20/20 hindsight ATM. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it convassing if it was sent to (a) a limited number of people who had expressed interest in the next adminship or (b) if it was sent to a representative (of the previous RfA) mix of supports and opposes. Otherwise, it does look like she's trying to line up the "votes" to win. Not saying that that's what's happening, but appearances... --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It was sent to 22 different editors, seemingly mostly to editors that did not !vote in her RFA. It appears she sent them to editors who, indeed, had commented on her talk page regarding the RFA. I wouldn't call that canvassing. Useight (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Call it canvassing/spamming, whatever. It really makes no difference at this point. Now there are many who are aware of it, many who will probably oppose based on it, and many who find it tasteless. It simply shouldn't have been done if her endorsers wanted to see a successful/smooth RfA in the future. Foolish if you ask me. Sigh. I think it's going to hurt more than help. I mean, I would never fault the candidate for it, but others will. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a disagreement over whether or not it is canvassing, regardless of the intent? 22 identical messages regarding a future RfA sent in the course of a few minutes? I do not believe it was LA's intent to purposely skew her next RfA, but Useight pointed out that she was infact sending the message to the many editors who were giving her words of encouragement for the next RfA and this only reinforces my worry that it could affect the next RfA. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, good point. I had noticed that the editor's she had sent the messages to had made previous comments on her talk page, but after reading the above, I checked more closely the contents of those messages. And, yes, they were things like, "Sorry you didn't pass", "Run again soon", etc. Whether its canvassing or not, this will affect the next RFA. Either in a positive skew (in that those she commented too lead the charge in !voting support), or a negative skew (editor's opposing soley because of the "canvassing" issue). Or perhaps those two factors will cancel each other out and the two skews will balance. However, that's doubtful. Useight (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I would note that while initially I didn't receive the "thank you spam" (the only one apparently, including opposers), she's resolved that, and in addition, I did receive one of the above. That said, while these do look slightly against the spirit of the guidelines (as noted above), I probably wouldn't oppose due to these "notes", at least. - jc37 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena comments

It was not my intention to cause any trouble when sending those messages. I had thought that a friendly message pointing out a way to keep tabs on a future RfA would make life easier for those who showed a continuing interest, not only for my future but other's as well. It was hoped that some who had an interest in other users' future RfAs would see this as an example of how to keep track of them and all other red linked topics for which they have an interest.

The positive attitude I presented was not meant to sway anyone to support me in a future RfA, since I may make even more faux pas in the future. Since I made this error, it would not be surprising if this causes opposes to a future RfA of mine or for any plans to renominate me to be put on hold or scrapped. (I don't believe in self-nomination.)

I had kept the recipients to those who had sent me encouragement and condolences on my talk page. They have all been extremely nice to me, even my opposition. I was just hoping to keep a friendly line of communication open with them.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You can consider me properly chastised for this slip in judgment. Please take a flower with you before you go. - LA @ 21:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure you posted those messages with good intentions however, its better form not to do so. The message wasn't exactly your typical rfa thank you spam but borderline canvassing. I'd recommend leaving such a notice on your own user talk page, similar to {{Rfa-notice}}.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The response you just made is exactly what I'd be looking for in an admin candidate who made a mistake. I doubt this will negatively affect your future RfA, considering your response. It might even help. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ditto from me (and well said Gwynand). Thanks for the flower :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It was a very, very bad idea, but I think you handled the resultant drama fairly well. It also helped that you included some of the opposers, which takes the edge off of canvassing concerns. Worse things have been done, don't sweat it. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
She did include opposers, just to clarify (I stated this up top as well). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Just make sure you or your nominator brings this up... don't hide from it... explain what you were doing, why, and what you learned.Balloonman (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, you handled the situation very well. Useight (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Here here. Nice restraint. No swagger. No hedging. Very humble. I think you've handled this minor backlash very maturely, and I hope this makes itself known in your future RfA. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's "Hear", btw. ;) Enigma message 14:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah c'mon E-man. Maybe he meant she's shown nice restraint here. Here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Pace my earlier remark, this does look good. We don't ask of admin candidates that they be perfect; on the other hand, being able to recognise and correct a mistake with minimal drama is exactly the sort of thing we need. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I will not stand for such insolence! Alright, I misspelled "hear" in this context. So sue me : ) Nice try for a defense though, Keeper. Either way, I commend her. 19:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdom89 (talk • contribs)

It is hoped that this issue has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction and that everyone took a flower with them. If there are no further concerns, would it be best to close this discussion? - LA @ 05:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly resolved. :) Enigma message 05:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dell970

Resolved
 – Sometimes I wonder why I bother --barneca (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This was closed per SNOW, which I have no real argument with I guess. But about half of the opposes were based on a pretty serious allegation that, upon investigation, doesn't appear to be valid. The SNOW close didn't provide Dell a chance to respond. The RFA is now essientially locked in this state, and I don't think that's fair. I've made an explanatory comment (after closing and archiving; sue me), but I don't think that's enough. Any better ideas? Re-open and let Dell respond, and give people a chance to retract their accusations? Delete the whole thing? Courtesy blank? Would a more obivous "this isn't what it seems" note at the very top of the page be OK? If I was Dell, I'd be extraodinarily pissed off when I wake up in the morning and see what I've been accused of, and what is now permanently enshrined in the archives. --barneca (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your description is too abstract for me to quite understand what you are talking about. What is the allegation that you contend is invalid, and why? Until we have some concrete thing to work on, we can't do anything. By the way, Dell970 can comment here if he/she so wishes. —Kurykh 03:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Meh. I'm trying to limit the amount of unfair accusations that bleed into different forums, but I guess it isn't working. It will be clear if you look at the actual RFA, though. In short, Dell was accused of making racist slurs. Per my comments under "Discussion", I don't think that was accurate (there is a very credible explanation of a public computer session that wasn't logged off), but the RFA was closed before Dell could respond/explain. --barneca (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm at a loss. On one hand, even despite the edit in question, the RfA was likely to fail, so WP:SNOW, was a fair enough outcome. On the other, I agree with Barneca.
I would support the RfA being reopened. More opposes won't make a difference, but an explanation by the candidate might. (And I'm thinking that do no harm may be worth considering as well...) - jc37 04:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This is sad if the user was not a the origin of this vandalism. We basically have to assume good faith there, and I do now. But it's still obscure and at the time, nobody emitted any doubt. Cenarium (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I see a few people are striking portions of their opposes, which probably makes the most sense (closed or not). Perhaps the best thing to do is notify the others who mentioned this in their comments, and allow them to strike portions of their comments too. That way, the other valid oppose reasons can remain. I'll notify those who raised this issue in their comments, and they can act as they see fit. If Dell also is allowed to make a statement in the RfA, I think my concerns are addressed. --barneca (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There's not much sense in reopening this, since it'd end at the same place. But we should definitely allow Dell to explain the contribution history in the RfA. --Bfigura (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just one question, mostly out of curiosity, but besides assuming good faith, what suggests that it was not Dell himself who made those slurs? We can surmise compromised account. But was this alluded to, am I missing something? Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the account definitely blanked pages, save for using the infamous n-word. If the account was compromised, I can forgive, but he should probably start a new account to get rid of that in the edit history.--Bedford 04:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Barneca is referring to this exchange [3] I think. --Bfigura (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, Bfigura, I forgot to add a link to that (though I allude to it in my comments inside the RFA). Really tired right now, not able to cross I's and dot T's... --barneca (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
And, I should also mention, the fact that there's nothing like this in their contribution history before, or since. --barneca (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, that's good enough for me. No other history, and he seemed extremely distraught..and there was much consternation there. Suggest allowing him to repudiate the claims. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to note here, I have altered my comment somewhat though I think the chances of that account ever getting adminship are close to zero due to us never knowing who actually added, or didn't add, the slur. George The Dragon (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I’m not please without being able to answer before somebody jumped to his own thoughts and SNOWED it. These Racist remarks were proven by SERVEAL admins that I was not the one to do it, as I had left myself logged in on a public computer while not realizing it. I am not a racsit nor have I ever been one, and I find you people are sterotyping. I also don’t agree about everyone opposing because I don’t have 16k edits. You can have 16k edits and still not be ready to become a admin and I also think this should not be allowed to be opposed by.

Regards Dell970 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no stereotyping of you, I'm not sure how that term applies. As stated above, your RfA would have been SNOWed for other reasons, edit count just being one. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dell970, Two issues:

  1. Racism: I believe you. I think the solution is to make some statement in the "Discussion" section of the RfA, so your comments can be seen too, and then it's done. If the RfA hadn't been closed, it would have been a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to bring up, a perfectly reasonable thing for you to explain, and I doubt many people would have ultimately opposed based on that. You'll notice that
  2. 16k edits: No one said you need 16k edits. Several people said you need more than 650. True, edit count isn't a perfect measure of admin-like knowledge, but in the absence of any other information (and you didn't provide much more) it's a pretty useful proxy for such a measure.

--barneca (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The user in question left several personal attacks on my page because I closed his RfA. Draw your own conclusions. Enigma message 15:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow...just wow. CEO? Dubious. xenocidic (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal Attack? Because your bias, and it’s the truth, makes it a personal attack? Is not calling me racist a personal attack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dell970 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere that Enigmaman called you a racist, or even referred to the racist remarks made under your user account for that matter. My suggestion to you sir, is to back away, quickly, from this whole situation, and continue editing Wikipedia constructively as you have been doing. Maybe come back to RFA in a year or so. xenocidic (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)By the way, I didn't call you racist or anything else. I just closed your RfA. I'm a little bit mystified as to why I'm being called names. Enigma message 16:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It appears to be an enigma. ;p SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Another issue

We have no way to confirm this user is the high-level person (CEO of a major company) he/she claims prominently in the RfA. Until we can, it is inappropriate to the leave the real life name there to be collected by search engines. This is especially so given, on the very same page, the person is being accused (with links) of racist remarks. My ABF meter says this may be a set up to harm the person whose name was used, and my AGF meter says we should avoid any chance my ABF instincts were correct just in case. I have redacted the name used in the introduction, just in case, to prevent it being indexed by search engines. Paul Yeratz (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See above for the racsit remarks, You sir, are incorrect, simplying doing a BBB search on the company name or on the FTC or via the trade mark would of sent you the information on the company,

Regards Dell970 (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little skeptical of the CEO claim due to your writing style, but it's really irrelevant. The RfA was SNOW material either way. Enigma message 15:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, My Company is even on Wikipedia MyGamingServersDell970 (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I see an AfD coming up soon... none of the "official sites" for the company go anywhere. To any admin: I think this thread can/should be marked "resolved". Barneca did the right thing in coming here to report a concern he had and now we know about it. There is no compelling reason to reopen an RfA that was rightfully SNOW closed. I AGF as much as anyone, and this may be a little dismissive, but let's stop going back-and-forth with a kid who is coming close to trolling this and other pages. After looking at comments on Enigma's talk page, I'm quite certain any RfA for Dell in the near future would be an automatic SNOW close. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Either way, whether the account was compromised when then vandalism edit was made or not, this user still has a long way to go before she is ready for adminship. I think snow closing the RfA was the right course of action. Tiptoety talk 18:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
For reasons that are no longer important, I still think it was compromised, but I agree (and, have always agreed) that adminship wasn't in the cards, and now wish I'd spent my time defending someone a little more deserving. marking this resolved. --barneca (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Even though it's resolved, I can't resist pointing this out. Wikipedia: full of friendly users. :) Enigma message 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Haha she removed my comment. I'd put it back, but it's more amusing like this. By the way, based by the "colorful" language in her unblock request, I'd say it was likely she did post those original racist edits, per WP:DUCK. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Possible, there are other marks of aggressiveness in her overall contributions, I don't assume good faith anymore. I debated last night whether I should apologize on her talk page for my comments, but I closed this with a no consensus, and now, I don't regret it. Cenarium (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Philipsutherland

I've blocked User:Philipsutherland for 24h as the repeated warnings about inappropriate postings on RFA didn't seem to be having any effect. If anyone thinks that's too harsh I give express consent to reverse me. — iridescent 00:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm... looking over their contribution history, that seems pretty kind of you. Is there a reason to beleive they're here to help, besides a handful of {{cleanup}} tags sprinkled in with a bunch of goofing around and outright vandalism? Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but my first inclination would be to unblock.... in order to reblock for much longer. --barneca (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You forgot writing Getting past school blocks... I wouldn't defend him if it were extended to indef. — iridescent 01:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have less than normal patience for this kind of crap tonight, and he's been doing this for a month and a half. I'm reblocking indef. --barneca (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear. I gave User:Philipsutherland his first block, and he came right back and carried right on with his disruptive editing. He has been nothing but trouble. A long block is absolutely in order. I have no objection to indef. Best, Gwernol 01:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New BAG candidacy

This is a note that I have nominated myself for BAG. You can find the nomination, and voice your opinion, at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#RFBAG: dihydrogen monoxide.

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Shuffling extended Support/Oppose/Neutral conversations to the RFA talk page

While I agree it's probably a good idea to shuffle extended conversations that may be peripheral to the particular candidate under discussion to the talk page, but in cases where this is necessary, the advisement to move these conversation should probably not come from the candidate themselves as it presents a COI issue. xenocidic (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, if the conversation is pertinent to the matter at hand (the RfA). However where a conversation has moved onto a subject other than the RfA it clearly needs to be moved to talk (or somewhere, depending on it's nature). Personally, I would find that a canadidate who is willing to "grab the horns", and polietly move an irrelevant conversation mid-RfA, would be exhibiting the firmness of purpose that we would want in an administrator. Just my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  15:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I can definitly see candidates who could do that gracefully... but at the same time, I could see it being take as attempting to move possibly negative comments about themselves off of their RfA page for their benefit (whether or not that was true). -- Natalya 18:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That was my train of thought. xenocidic (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree the candidates (or even the nominators) should generally refrain from moving "extended discussions". I'm all in favor of moving "extended discussions" when they are distractions, and regardless of the good intentions of a candidate to do so, it would likely garner further opposes, perhaps unfairly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
To me, it's simple. If a conversation has become no longer relevant to an RFA any editor can move it. If that editor happens to be the candidate all power to them. I agree, self evidently, that for the candidate to move a relevant conversation would be a very bad decision and one that would garner opposes. I also beleive that for a candidate to move an irrelevant conversation will probably garner opposes. However, in the second (hypothetical) case, the opposers would be wrong. WP:BOLD is one of the first things editors encounter. It's the spirit of this work. If a candidate sees an irrelevant conversation has developed on their RFA they are both entitled and should remove it. If that gains opposes then it's not the candidates fault, and I trust the bureuacrats to weight opposes based on such an event accordingly. (again - note this is hypothetical) Pedro :  Chat  19:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense Pedro (you usually do:-). However "relevant v. irrelevant is subjective. If someone is making what they feel to be relevant comments in the oppose section, and the candidate removes them, even with good intentions and good faith and peace love and happiness, it will garner more opposes, and more drama, and more meta talk about "what is relevant anyway" and its ilk. Better to leave it to involved parties. For example, I've seen Gwynand, after posting several times in the oppose section with another editor, very graciously approach the other editor on her talk, come to an agreement, and quietly remove the extended discussion. Highly commendable (I don't remember the RfA, sorry no diffs). If a candidate had "decided" that the extended discussion at that point was "irrelevant", I can imagine that both Gwynand (and the other editor) would rightfully object, and perhaps embolden their opposes, or switch to oppose. My general feel is that a candidate can say "please take this elsewhere", or "please don't fight", or "please go away" even, but removing it would too easily be seen as contentious. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Banned user

User:I'm On Base has been banned for socking.

His RfA and RfB pages could probably be speedily deleted, but I thought I'd note it here first. - jc37 05:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Where was the community consensus for a ban (link available?)? His talk says blocked for two weeks and the log says indef. He may come back and contribute positively, who knows. Wouldn't a past RfB serve like the rest of the failed? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to read Netsnipe's comments (and the block log) again. - jc37 06:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Yeah we should probably delete them. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The deed is done. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Supports-because-of the-Oppose votes

How does the community (you) feel about support votes which state little more than they are supporting because of opposes that they view as bad-faith. I'm mixed with these. If one is blatant in that it is the only reason they are supporting then I think it is clearly wrong, but what about the more ambiguous ones? Since it is acceptable for a support vote to not give any reasoning, can a support vote lose validity because of faulty/selective reasoning?

I thought of this after participating in and reading Philosopher's recent RfA, which passed. Among other things, there was some disagreement over the now infamous "Q4" and his answer. Without going into specifics, which I'm sure many of you are aware of anyways, there were opposes for this answer. Seemingly, there were also supports for either the answer, or the fact some editors disagreed with the concerns over the answer. I went neutral, then oppose early on, and also was involved in a discussion over the answer which I then removed due to undue early emphasis(with permission from the editor I was discussing with). However, the topic of the answer, among other different opposes, lasted during the entire RfA and it seemed many were drawn to the disagreements.

I feel this particular RfA is good to look at under the microscope for many reasons, one important one being the question -- Are more editor's drawn to to vote in a close RfA because of their increased "power" to affect the outcome, or because they dislike the tone of the opposition? All can be discusses, of course, but I want to know if it would be acceptable to further prod support votes that appear to be responding to oppose votes in some way. Since it seems we are not supposes to prod the regular "Support per nom" votes, I wonder how the community would feel about this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This has happened in many particular instances before: example, the Kurt Weber oppose on "suicide". Rudget (Help?) 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Valid points Gwynand, but it wouldn't be fair to put "Philosopher the editor" under the microscope because of "Philosopher the RFA candidate's" RFA. That was a brutal RFA. Besides your deleted discussion, there were three other extended, heated discussions that still have trails of destruction on several talkpages, including my own. "Support because you opposed" is weak, I agree, and can be addressed, but I would say let's let Philosopher get on with things and not use him or his RfA as an example of anything, ever. Or at the very least, without an "I don't mind" from Philosopher, to be fair. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, to clear things up: I don't mean this has anything to do with Philosopher himself or his +admin. My oppose vote was what it was, but Philosopher is in no way an editor who I am worried that just got the mop, even if I personally disagreed at this time. In order to discuss the topic I brought up, I could have provided diffs of specific editors who made such votes, which surely would have seemed accusatory. I thought the best way to do it would be to take a look at a recent RfA where I noticed it. It was in no way unique to Philosopher's, and I waited until his RfA was closed to bring this discussion here.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Certainly the "more editors are drawn to vote in a close RFA" is valid — if I see an RFA for someone I've never come across and they're ahead 40-1 or opposed 3-10, I'm not going to spend the time it takes to review their contribs since it won't make a difference. The turnout in real-world elections is always higher in marginal contests for exactly the same reason. — iridescent 16:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
On the one hand, it doesn't seem to make sense to support just because someone opposed for a "bad" reason. On the other hand, if you assume 75% needed for passage of the RfA (yes, I know that oversimplifies things), it would take three supports to counter the one oppose. On the other hand, you'd hope the bureaucrat would ignore any "bad" opposes - and the support-because-of-the-oppose supports as well. The end result would be the same in any case - whether the "bad" reason is neutralized because of support-because-of-the-oppose supports or because the bureaucrat agreed that it was a "bad" reason to oppose, it's still neutralized. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
<Off-topic comment: Thanks for the moral support guys. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


I brought up a similar topic about Supporters and Opposers responding indirectly to one another above. My take is fairly simple. Stop it. Supporters should not be supporting simply because a candidate is receiving flak. However, that being said, if the support indicates that they are noticing a calm demeanor and resolve despite the flak, that's a little more valid and should be considered. The two sides just need to stop the insidious and subtle warring. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree, it's probably hard to make people not support or oppose for any reason. The fact of the matter is, you can support for any reason you want... if it's some insane reason... then just don't type the reason. It's virtually the same for oppose... maybe you are opposing over not liking them because they are Canadian... just type in oppose and give some other reason. My concern is people blatantly admitting they are supporting just because they are against the opposition. There is little we can do to stop supporting for bad reasons, but I'd like to discourage the notion that it is acceptable to put a support in with this reasoning. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no "rule" that says a support !vote cannot be questioned/queried/challenged. Recently, I saw this (not to pick on any one editor, I very much respect this particular one), to which I responded with this. Quickly became a non issue (although that Rfa ultimately failed). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's particularly harmful to the RfA process for someone to give a "bad" reason for their opinion. It's just a waste of a !vote. (This is always assuming that the 'crats can and do decide which !votes to weight/scale/ignore based on rationale. If we don't trust the 'crats to do so, we have a different problem.) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that sometimes that the vote is guised because it is civil and well-written, but in reality the vote is only responding to the oppose vote and doesn't really deal with the candidate. Is the vote harmful to the process? Well, maybe no more than any other vote, but it leads me to question -- what exactly we are trying to find a consensus for? Sometimes it appears to be a consensus that people are fed-up of Kurt votes, etc, but not that user:x is qualified. Furthermore, with all this talk about 'crat weighing votes... when was the last time a candidate didn't pass who met the stated threshold from the pure vote?Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Supporters can definitely respond indirectly to opposers though. IMO Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus is a great example of that. (another highlight of a bad oppose reason) It just should not be the only reason to support. Garion96 (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite so. To paraphrase (awkwardly to the point of ridiculousness, but they you go) two knee-jerk reactions don't make a considered opinion. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right. Three lefts do. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more I think it's important that we do argue with the !votes we truly think are wrongheaded. If the 'crats don't have enough discretion to ignore them, and if we're to avoid that pile-on stampede of people who (even granting all the good faith in the world) will sometimes just go for the easy choice, then it's up to the people contributing to the discussion to try and set things right if it's in danger of going down the wrong track. Is there a better way? Maybe the numbered-list format is counterproductive here - perhaps an AfD-style chronological list would be more suited. It certainly could help to remove that oh-so-convenient tally at the top. Okay, done spouting random ideas. You can start reading again :-) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
A bit late to this, but I have recently supported a candidate partly on the basis that I concur with the examples given by some opposers - but drew a different conclusion regarding the candidates suitability from them. Where one person, for example, may consider a tendency to get overly involved in minutiae as a reason to oppose another may think this an admirable trait in a candidate. However, supporting simply because some persons are opposing or for the reasons they gave is as bad as opposing on a similar criteria. I like to the think that the 'crat disregards such "reflex" votes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

RBAGs

Could an uninvolved or less involved than myself party close the remaining RBAGS. The % required is 65%. The crats I've asked aren't really interested in doing it. MBisanz talk 01:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OverlordQ's was closed by an IP, so I've removed it from the page and noted his reconfirmation on WP:BAG but I can't close Ilmari Karonen's as I have commented in it. --Chris 05:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've thought and read over the other nomination (Ilmari Karonen's), and even with a 67% support (that's technically a success), it's really borderline. It was closed by me for a short time before I decided to reopen it. How should the nomination be closed? Singularity 06:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, one of the things desired, was for a crat to close those. I'd suggest we wait on that I guess. SQLQuery me! 07:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest Ilmari Karonen's be "restarted" at WT:BAG, which seems to have become the de facto location for these. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, although in the interests of avoiding double-jeopardy, the votes should transfer over at well. MBisanz talk 08:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer to just notify people who participated that it's back up, since some may wish to reconsider an early support made before the information leading to the oppose (for example) was brought up. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was more or less what I'd been thinking of doing myself. I'm not sure if I shouldn't delay the "restart" until the ongoing discussion at WT:BOTS is over, though. Particularly seeing as there are currently eight nominations ongoing at WT:BAG (although that could also be seen as a reason for not delaying). Anyway, I think I'll just go and withdraw my RfBAG for now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For those of you who are interested there is a proposal at WT:BOT for bots to be request flags on the rfa page --Chris 08:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
In before massive outcry. This is a horrible idea that will result in a lot of useful image-bots being shut down, and a lot of useless/damaging bots getting free reign. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This bot lacks Featured Article creation and has not clerked Renames :). MBisanz talk 08:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Support, weirder shit has happened. (About moving part of the bot approval process to this page, btw. I'm starting to sound a bit like Kim Bruning, and that's scary!) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Requirements

what are the requirements for a administrator? Save The HumansTalk :) 14:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors' opinions on this vary a lot, and there is no fixed set of standards. You can have a look at Wikipedia:Admin coaching, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#What RfA contributors look for. Hut 8.5 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for enquiring, Save the Humans. Hut 8.5 provides some very useful links, which I suggest you have a look at for further information. If you are interested in becoming an administrator, I would also suggest that it's much too soon: you may wish to try out admin. coaching (check out Hut's links), and having a browse through the currently active rfas, to get a feel for what's required. Regards, Anthøny 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to chime in with what I feel is some useful info. There is always editor review to receive feedback from your Wikipedian peers, and also the work-in-progress Admin Mentoring. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the requirements are constantly under flux. What is expected today may be different from what is expected 3 months from now or what was expected 3 months ago. It all depends on who is active in the discussions and what they are looking for. For example, right now the push to have 100 XfD's for a candidate are almost non-existent. Many of the candidates that I've nom'd recently do not participate in XfD's... but around Christmas time if you weren't active on XfD's you might not have bothered applying. There were also some other abstract notions that were pushed at various times---balance in edits, a certain number of mainspace edits, a certain number of talk page comments, etc. A few months ago demonstrated policy knowledge was key. Right now the buzz word is "trust." Are you trusted by the community (which IMHO is how it should be)? Are you trusted by the community not to mess up with the tools? To use them responsibly?Balloonman (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I disagree. That's always been part of everyone's requirements. I think that right now, people are putting too much weight on mainspace article building. I absolutely don't have anything wrong with that, but I feel that opposition based on mainspace editing has gone to the point where you cannot feel comfortable being in an RFA without having had a GA. People have different talents. We have had great vandal fighting and wikignome administrators, some who've never written at least a DYK. We also have people who write FAs but can't be civil. Now, we're pushing away those who make these cleanup edits under the pretense of "edit count inflation." Article writing is not the only place you can get experience, contrary to what many RFA voters I've seen think. bibliomaniac15 01:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Bibliomaniac here. Balloonman, you're absolutely correct about one thing - it should be about trust, almost invariably. However, sadly, that is not the case. Oppositions have such disparity it's tough to iterate the general requirements. Let's just say this. Don't apply if you have less than 4000 edits total, no participation in WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:AN etc..etc, go through admin coaching, have a block in the last 6 months, or find a user who will provide more than three diffs pointing out a few errors in judgment. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope you do realize that voicing your complaints about the RfA system and people's criteria for oppose will ultimately have a negative effect on your RfA should you decide to run again in the future. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Then there are many people who shouldn't run for RfA in the future. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you meant by that. I do not think that you shouldn't run for RfA again, and nor would I oppose you if you did (barring some unforeseen circumstance, you're pretty much guaranteed a support from me). I have simply observed that ever since your RfA failed you've been making a lot of comments around RfA related discussions that simply convey your idea of the system as broken. I merely believe that making these comments will cause certain people to oppose you. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I've made similar negative comments about RfA prior to my last application, so that isn't entirely true. Regardless, my point was not to complain about RfA really, but, to demonstrate to an editor unfamiliar with the process, that there are varied reasons for opposes, so it's nearly impossible to foresee an outcome and to really give a straight answer. All of the other places that detail the general criteria/guidelines have been outlined above (one or two by myself). That's all I was getting at. But duly noted about your recommendation/opinion : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Wisdom is only pointing out what everybody already knows... the RfA process is broken. Unfortunately, there isn't a better solution out there. The example I've given before. If a person runs for RfA, and a strong oppose shows up early in the !voting, that strong oppose can essentially kill the RfA. The same person runs for RfA, and the same strong oppose shows up, but there are already 20 !votes in support, then the same oppose that killed the first candidate might have little to no effect on the second---despite the candidate being the same hypothetical one, with the same issues, opposed by the same hypothetical person. The only difference being WHEN the oppose was cast. If timing can make that big of a difference, then something is wrong.Balloonman (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Rather than get mired deep in the philosophical discussion, I'll merely answer the editor's question by saying:
It varies for each individual, but essentially it concerns the trust of the community: That the candidate will use the tools and handle the associated responsibilities, both in a trustworthy and responsible manner.
And here's a link my own personal criteria:
User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria
I hope this helps answer your question : ) - jc37 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Jc is right. I can sum it up in one word. Disparity. There are no hard-line requirements per se, just general guidelines that most editors like to see. Everyone is different though. Hell, people support for odd/disparate reasons too. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
My (much more fun) criteria is at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/RfA criteria. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reopenings

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zginder was closed per SNOW, then more people commented as it was closed, then it was reopened 20 some hours later. How should such a thing be handled in counting comments and deciding when it should be finally close (ie. do we add back the time it wasn't transcluded). MBisanz talk 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

After thinking it over, I rescind my earlier opinion about reopening it. The issues or allegations could have been addressed on another forum, preferably the candidate's talk page. Anyway, it should probably be closed after it was initially opened though. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Definitely after, since it was possibly the reason or part of the reason for the request to reopen. Although this RfA does need to be closed again per snow. I don't feel comfortable doing it myself because it was retranscluded by an admin. Opposes are 3 to 1 last time I checked and in all probability will fail (given there isn't a mass pile on of 100 support votes right after my timestamp :). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As someone said a while back, SNOW's are best used as mercy techniques. If the candidate in question wants the process to run to the full end, I believe we should let it do so. -- Avi (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
True. :) Although, it's common practice to close RfA's highly likely to fail. They are usually closed out when advice, suggestions and discussion have become repetitive. Such as this one. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
True too :D. However, I think it is unfair to the candidate to snowball it over their protestations, especially with more than 1 support. (See point 3 in question 6, in Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2#Optional questions 5–7 which is closing in around an hour :) ). I think that for more people to attempt an RfA, and as often as not, be required to re-attempt an RfA, they need to feel as they have some control over the process. Not to mention that the SNOW clause is an essay, not a guideline, and even it says that a reasonably raised objection usually indicates that the SNOW was premature :) -- Avi (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I take the opinion that sometimes, people (editors, users, etc.) do not know the things that they do, when they do them. And often times this is the case. My suggestion was more to save face, rather than delimit a candidate (not that you implied). And your RfB statement reads like an actual legal document (see section 7, article 4 dash 10 and so on). ;p SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I believe I now hold the record for most "optional" questions asked to a non-bot candidate (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RedirectCleanupBot which had 34). And as for the legalese, well, you'll have to speak to my lawyer about that -- Avi (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom elections regularly have 30+ questions per candidate. bibliomaniac15 04:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Too true too. I was referring to an RfX, but you are absolutely correct. -- Avi (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
In reply to your edit summary, I think any process where 15 people can oppose NYB just for moral reasons is pretty much harder than RFA. bibliomaniac15 04:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup, which is why, as hard as RfAs and RfBs are, the ArbCom elections are tougher, in my opinion. Both tougher to pass as well as tougher on the candidate. -- Avi (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal opinions: regardless of the tally, unless they editor has a sub-1k edit count, a non-bureaucrat should not close an RfA prematurely without first consulting the candidate. While I have no doubt as to Andonic's good intentions, it was very premature. The whole point of snow-closing newbie RfAs is (in my opinion) to save them from a potentially disheartening blow (to the point of them not coming back), which is not something that is as likely to happen with someone that's been around for a while (having been around for two years, I'd consider Zgrinder seasoned enough not to worry about).
Long story short, let the 'crats handle it; there's no rush to close RfAs just because they're looking horrible, and the candidate should have at least been asked beforehand. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed.... non-crat closures should be rare unless the candidate has indicated a desire to have it closed or is COMPLETELY out of touch with expectations.Balloonman (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_128&oldid=1108123080"