Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 130

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 125 ← Archive 128 Archive 129 Archive 130 Archive 131 Archive 132 → Archive 135

The Admin Coach

I just wrote an essay on what I perceive to be the role of The Admin Coach. I'd like to get your input. This is a first draft. Feel free to edit it as necessary.Balloonman (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I comment, I should just make a couple of points to avoid shouts of WP:COI. Balloonman is my coach, but has not asked me to come on over. Please therefore apply as much or as little weight to my comments as you feel.
As a rough guide to what Admin coaches should be doing, it does seem to cover a lot of the basics. I think it might also be useful for admin coaches if there was a list of some of the exercises that have been created by yourself and other coaches. Those certainly helped me. Also, maybe a bit more emphasis on the importance on getting coachees taking part in deletion discussions and the like. I must admit I was a bit sceptical at the start of our training session as to why I should be doing those XFDs, as vandal fighting was really why I wanted the mop in the first place - having done a fair few now, I can really see the benefit.
An aside comment I must admit that I haven't spent a huge amount of time watching the RFAs, and so your opening comment of "Recently there has been a proliferation of !votes against candidates who have undergone admin coaching" is kinda worrying as my own RFA approaches. Eep! StephenBuxton (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Stephen, I think your coaching page will assuage any concerns people may have. You, IMHO, are a perfect example of how/why coaching can/should work! The valid criticism some people have of coaching is that it is a quick process where in the coach asks a few questions and then gives a gold seal of approval. I've been working with you for over 3 months now and your attitude/contributions to the project have changed significantly during that time period! The Stephen from 3 months ago, despite having thousands of edits, would have failed an RfA... now I fully expect you to pass.Balloonman (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the main criticism is that it's gaming the system, in that it's not actually making coachees better potential admins. Balloonman has addressed this too, rightfully pointing out that while that has sometimes happened, overall the coaching program has actually made for better admins, not merely better candidates. Enigma message 08:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I tend to be lackadaisical in watching RfAs until more recently, but I found the statement that there have been "a proliferation of !votes against candidates who have undergone admin coaching" intriguing. Are people really voting against candidates for that reason alone? I know I said oppose to one candidate, but it was in part because he hadn't completed his coaching and jumped the gun on self-nominating. I hadn't heard about the admin coaching process myself until then, and I thought it seemed like a great processed that would be very useful to those wanting to be an admin. What reasons are people giving for voting against a coached candidate (in the EC, Enigma seems to have partly answered this, though it seems the problem is more making sure the coaching is really of a mentorship/teaching variety and not of the test prep sort)? AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Being that I personally experienced it recently, and have participated in various discussions regarding the issue, I'll just say that some editors feel that WP:ADMINCOACH operates to teach candidates how to pass an RfA instead of inculcating good administrators. Now, I don't particularly agree with that stance (having gone through the coaching process myself with Pedro), but the major response seems to have been this User:Pedro/Mentoring. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

New Question.

I think we should add the Question

How can we trust you as a Admin in wikipedia?
To the optional questions for a Rfa. Trees Rock Plant A Tree! 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You're allowed to ask any question you want at any RfA you want. Changing the "standard three" questions isn't necessary. Feel free to ask your question in any particular candidate's Rfa that you want though. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the addition of such a question. Whether by intent or not any answer to the question would invariably be a very sugarcoated version of the user's most prized contributions, leaving all the bad parts out. It's the RFA contributor that needs to decide if they trust the candidate, and the decision is based upon the contributor's feelings towards the candidate's contributions. Having the candidate make the decision for you certainly makes things easier on the both of you, but then the bad eggs will slip through the cracks. —  scetoaux (T|C) 00:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree too. Nobody's going to say "I'm untrustworthy", and trustworthyness is impossible to prove. The "what are your most valued contributions" bit serves to point readers towards particularly good article work that users might not have noticed, but how can you give an example of trustworthyness? I certainly couldn't think of a valid example to use for myself. — iridescent 03:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, it is a silly question.Balloonman (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Questions two and three already carry the same intent. Contributions and conduct determine whether we can trust a candidate, and this question is just a rehash of both. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't see an answer to this question that would cause me to support, or an answer I can imagine a person giving that would be honest enough to make me oppose. MBisanz talk 05:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that Q2 and Q3 allow the candidate to give examples of their contribs or experiences, that, in essence, answer this question indirectly. Useight (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely the purpose of an RfA is for the contributors to come to their own conclusions as to that question. I don't see the benefit of putting it so directly. I worry that quiet, modest and trustworthy candidates will find it difficult to answer, whereas power-hungry careerists will probably have something glib lined up and ready to trot out. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've seen the question asked on a couple RfAs, wouldn't mind seeing it go away to be honest, no offense Trees Rock. However, I did see one fantastic response already, FWIW. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Judging by Trees Rock's oppose here to what I view to be a near-perfect answering of the question, I don't think this user realizes just what he is asking (or that the "proof" he demands is found via contribs). --SharkfaceT/C 18:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This is just another one of those things. TreeRock has every right to ask whatever question he/she feels inclined. I don't particularly agree with what appears to be opposing based on the specific wording of an "optional" question, but, what are you gonna do? Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Should I put Mandatory? Trees RockMyGoal 20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not. People question its validity as an optional question. There's no chance at all that this will ever be thought of as a mandatory question. Metros (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I know I just made a point of what else would I put. Trees RockMyGoal 20:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh? A point of what? Metros (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not enough bureaucrats

I tried to find a bureaucrat in IRC last night, at about 1:00 UTC. I couldn't find anyone, at all. That's not a very healthy sign; I think you should be able to have at least one clearly available 'crat. We need more bureaucrats to work with renames and bots. Sadly, no admin seems to be able to pass RfB for countless reasons (referring to Riana and Avi), and if a candidate said that, if promoted bureaucrat, they will not work at RfA, that immediately gives them no chance to pass. However, if you have been an admin for about 12 months, have been active at RfA (and hopefully around BRfA and CHU), have not been in any recent and/or major incidents, please nominate yourself for bureaucrat. We need more. Maxim(talk) 12:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we discuss this a while back? As I said to Majorly then - WP:SOFIXIT .... :) Pedro :  Chat  12:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel the problem's crept up back again. Pedro, you're a great candidate, and I think you meet my "criteria" - this is a wiki, so nominate yourself. :-p On the other hand, I don't meet my last criterion, so I don't have much of a chance... Maxim(talk) 12:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Go for it Pedro! You have my support! --Chris 12:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Very kind my friends, but I have less than one year tenure as an admin and very little proof of contributions to CHU / CHU/U so I feel and RFB would be a bad thing. I totally agree that we need more crats, particularly to provide "cover" at certain times of the Wikipedia day. Whilst generally there is not much that can't wait, expectations have risen on Wikipedia and editors now expect swift closures of RFA's, timely renames and action on bot approval. So yes, more crats will not hurt and will help. Pedro :  Chat  12:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you post to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard (or AN/I or AN)? There's more people (Bureaucrats or otherwise) active on Wikipedia than IRC, and if it involves Bureaucrat's tools it should be talked about here anyway. RxS (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Because in IRC, you know very easily if the person is around, and secondly, it's just a quicker way of communicating. . It's a matter of convenience and frankly, having a healthy base of 'crats around. I'm afraid I would have very hard-pressed to find a 'crat via WP:BN quickly. Maxim(talk) 12:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Was it an emergency? In any case, if it was important enough that it shows a need for more bureaucrats, then it needs to be on Wiki anyway. RxS (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
We have about 3-4 bureaucrat "regulars" - others are just not around much. Maxim(talk) 12:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we really need more? RfAs get closed on time and changing usernames isn't an important enough process that it needs a vast amount of efficiency. naerii - talk 12:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, why do we need a bureaucrat available at any time in the first place? Sure, it'd be a nice-to-have, but I can't come up with any bureaucrat action that might need to be done very, very quickly. RFA promotions, adding Bot-flags and renaming users are all things that can wait a little bit without causing any problems whatsoever. --Conti|✉ 12:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Bureaucrat tasks aren't usually too urgent; however, I think that it's an unhealthy sign if it's impossible to find a 'crat in IRC at 1:00 UTC. Maxim(talk) 12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That depends on how many bureaucrats actually use IRC, right? One might've been around on-wiki at that time, after all. --Conti|✉ 12:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm really not seeing how its a bad thing there is no bureaucrat available on IRC. Are bureaucrats required to be on IRC anytime they are online? I'd certainly hope not. IRC is somewhat niche thing and not everyone even uses it.AnmaFinotera (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(multi ec)As I noted above, I agree that no 'crat action tends to be as urgent as (for example) the requirement to speedy delete a G10 BLP. However I do believe the communities expectations of swifter action has risen (there was an RFA recently where editors started mentioning it at WP:BN that an RfA was a few hours past closure - it's not an issue but it does show people care). In addition there are certainly cases where renaming may be more urgent than at first it appears. On balance I just don't see that more 'crats (provided they are performing crat actions) would be a bad thing and a few more at CHU certainly wouldn't go amiss.Pedro :  Chat  13:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Nope. But many users have it, and it's a form of very quick communication. Out of 60 admins in the channel, there wasn't a single 'crat... Maxim(talk) 12:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)0fa;"> Chat ]] 12:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as averages go (~1500 admins, ~5 crats), that sounds about right... oh no wait, we did the math thing already –Alex.Muller 15:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, bureaucrat jobs aren't really all that urgent, but it is important and I think having a few more active ones would be a good thing. When my RFA passed, hours went by before I was granted the sysop tools. Useight (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
While there may be a need for more bureaucrats I don't think IRC should be the litmus test. Bureaucrat actions should be completely on-wiki and transparent. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 16:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just go for it Pedro, you have my support (and a lot of other people's). If it doesn't pass, so what? At least you tried. Al Tally (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

IRC isn't the litmus test, but it's a damn good indicator when you can't even find a single one. Maxim(talk) 16:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I missed it above, but what exactly did you need the crat for - or was this just a passing observation? I honestly feel that Wikipedia can only benefit from having more administrators and crats acting in great faith and accordance with policy, but still, why is there not enough. Not enough for what? Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Might it be worthwhile pulling up a "shortlist" of potential new bureaucrats, and seeing if any are interested? It would help as some sort of recruitment drive (for want of a better phrase), and could also provide potential rfb candidates that are considering running, a guidance as to the community's opinion. Thoughts? Anthøny 16:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not that we don't have enough bureaucrats, it's that the ones we do have are often not active in bureaucratic areas. For example, I don't know when the last time User:TUF-KAT did a bcrat action was, yet he's clearly a regular editor. If those bcrats are willing to crat more, any problems would generally be relieved. Plus, it's not all that bad right now, I've seen it worse. Wizardman 17:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Spreading the workload/ redundancy a good thing

I'm not sure that 24/7 crat coverage on IRC is necessary, and indeed a minority of crats use IRC in any event. There are no guarantees the next crats appointed would make themselves available via that medium. At the moment crat coverage is quite good, with RfAs being closed promptly and 3 crats regularly working on renames this month. That said, it only takes a few of the most active crats to be unavailable for backlogs to develop - something we saw last summer. I haven't surveyed the other crats on their holiday plans but my activity is going to be significantly curtailed this summer, with at least a 1 month period when I shall be unable to perform any bureaucrat actions. I don't think it a bad idea to plan for possible future shortages. It also doesn't hurt to spread the work - having done over 1200 renames since becoming a crat, I am always grateful when others are active in that area. So if anyone does want to step forwards, I hope the community will be supportive. We're certainly not in danger of drowning in bureaucrats yet.... WjBscribe 16:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I vote Pedro. Vote for Pedro. Cannot think of a more viable candidate. Vote for Pedro. this isn't canvassing, he isn't running. But it is definitely strong advocacy. Call it campaign managing even... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, every time this pops up, I'm going to concur and second the..errr..urged nomination. : ) Seriously though, as I mentioned above, it will never be a detriment to have too many eligible crats performing their duties. RFB is rarely a dry spell crisis like RfA sometimes experiences, but, hey if you feel you're eligible, responsible, valued and an asset, just go for it. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Keeper? : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia... skip the admin phase!Balloonman (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I would vote yes for Sandy. Wikipedia needs a bureaucrat that skips over adminship. And Sandy's a great candidate to do exactly that. As far as your question though, Wisdom, freakin hell no. I've only been an admin for a couple of months. I've only been a Wikipedian less than a year. I can see the tally now: (0/147,000/1). (the neutral being my own...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
147,000 opposes, wow. That would be a nightmare with edit conflicts. If it ran for a whole week it would be 21,000 opposes per day, which equates to one oppose every 4.1 seconds. Useight (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
...which is an accurate count. 21000 opposes per day. Heck, I would probably oppose myself, because I've never been to WP:CHU. Anywho, we're talking 'bout Pedro here...Pedro - are you thinking about it at least????Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If we keep pushing him, he might get opposes as not wanting it enough. (kidding of course) Wizardman 18:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean Pedro, right? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Wizardman 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank heavens. I mean Pedro too. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Maybe I'll run if Pedro doesn't. Wizardman 18:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I supported you last time. I'll support you again! Another excellent candidate! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Granted, I should probably wait a couple months first to continue honing my skills. Wizardman 18:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Other than misspelling "Skillz", you've got it. But I can understand why you'd wait. The community is rather fickle. Let me know when RFB#2 is up and running. I'll support. Use this particular diff as absolution of canvassing. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Vote for Pedro. Say it with me guys. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone nominate him then? I mean, I know it is frowned upon, but it worked for User:The Rambling Man. I would nominate him, but being that I have only nominated one person for adminship before (and that person decided to decline) I feel that a more experianced editor (or, better yet, Pedro himself) should do it instead. I can hear it now... first crat in over 2 months... I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
{{RfB-nom}} has been waiting for a test run since I created it during TRM's RfB...as has {{Rfb-notice}}, which is waiting for someone to be bold and run. MBisanz talk 00:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you nominate him then? Your an admin, so it seems that your more "credentialed" than I am in nominating someone for Bcrat.I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I have no more credentials or authority than any other user. You do it! :) Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not#Adminship_is_not_a_trophy. MBisanz talk 00:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
See the relevant discussion at User talk:Pedro for his input. He would most likely decline the nomination if it were extended to him. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, he can attempt to refuse, but we can still forcibly nominate him and list it and by the time anyone noticed his objections, he'd be a crat. MBisanz talk 04:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, no one going to go? Damn I though we were going to have another mass rfb rush --Chris 12:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't pass below arbitrary support level of 85%?

I thought we didn't count votes. Guess I was wrong. Can we not trust our bureaucrats to apply the same level of judgement in closing RfBs as we expect them to apply in closing RfAs? If we have a solid level of 85% below which no bureaucrat candidate will ever be promoted, that definitely shows that we don't believe bureaucrats should be anything more than robots in appointing other bureaucrats. Something needs to be changed about this system. Either this arbitrary level needs to be completely removed, or somebody other than 'crats should appoint 'crats (stewards, maybe?). —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Asking for a user (group) of supposedly higher access to carry out a task for which local bureaucrats of every other major WMF wiki attend to will not solve this problem. Promoting enwiki bureaucrats does not even approach the vicinity of the function of the Steward. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

An idea that might make all sides happy - self noms

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

Ive spent a long time studying the issue of kurt and self noms. On one side people find Kurts actions annoying but on the other hand kurt gets a lot of hastle that im not sure he deserves. I have a suggestion that might make things easier for all. I suggest that all self nominees start of with a -1 figure in their oppose box. Thus other editers dont have to see that copy and paste vote that kurt makes and kurt himself doesnt have to put up with abuse every time he votes. He wouldnt have to vote, it would be counted automatically. Thoughts? --Realist2 ('Come Speak To M') 22:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My initial reaction (without meta debate on the "value" of Kurt's comment) is that this assumes that RFA is a vote. Pedro :  Chat  22:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't really see the logic of this. Besides RfA not being a vote: penalising potential admins just because they nominate themselves? Many self-noms have gone on to be some of the best admins on Wikipedia. Kurt is entitled to his opinion, as is everyone else, but making his opinion a de-facto standard is [in my opinion] quite a fallacious idea. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 22:35, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
I think oppositions base an the fact of self nomination should be banned. Trees Rock Plant A Tree 22:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
How do you propose to ban an opposition (an opinion in a discussion)? Besides, the crats likely dismiss it anyway, and it never would be a deal breaker with a candidate on the cusp of 75%..and if it was, it would be taken into account. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2) Why? Isn't the whole point of the while RfA process being open to the community is allowing the community to weigh in on whether they feel a person will make a good admin or not. If someone feels that a person self-nominating is not a good sign they will make a good admin, why shouldn't they be allowed to say so. Kurt isn't the only one who thinks that, he just seems to be the one most people aren't liking for saying it. Support/Oppose reasons are that particular person's reasons for saying support/oppose. No one is demanding other people agree with them, and you're always free to feel the opposite. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is how i see it, Kurt will oppose a self nom every time, with the same copy and past comment, regardless. It annoys other editers and he gets a lot of abuse along with wikidrama at the RfA. This would resolve all that, and Kurt wont get isolated, he can continue with other things. Hes made his view clear and no1 is going to sway him. Additionally the crats could be informed that the editer started off a -1 per kurts beliefs and they can decide for themselves whether that counts, just as they do now. Realist2 ('Come Speak To M') 22:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If this goes through, which I doubt because of the nature of WT:RFA, I would offer free nominations to anyone considering a self-nomination. Malinaccier (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Mmm saying that we are so sure Kurt will oppose that we should automatically discount it is a bad idea. I did see Kurt support a self-nom that failed last week. And well at the end of the day, the that all self-noms are power grabs, is a valid school of thought equal to the school of thought that all accounts should have rollback (insert other ALL statments). So discounting/institutionalizing that point of view just because a lot of us disagree with it, probably isn't a good idea. MBisanz talk 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Like i said, we can inform the crats of this, they might already discount his view, inwhich case they have the right to add the 1 back on when they are closing, ashuming they do oppose kurts view. It would be the same either way, only my suggestion might remove stress and wikidrama. Realist2 ('Come Speak To M') 22:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Notifying the crats of the change, altering the box for the proposed de facto -1 and taking the time to go back and forth at WT:RFA like this takes up vastly more time than just letting it be. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)The correct solution would probably be to respect Kurt's right to voice his opinion himself, and not to diminish all self-nom's of any positive morale with a pre-opening oppose.--Koji†Dude (C) 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
He Should just be reported to WP:AN Trees Rock Plant A Tree 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No, he shouldn't. It's been discussed countless times and the result of discussion is that Kurt expressing his opinion, is not disruptive. The 'crats give it the weight they give it, people should respect that Kurt can air his opinion just as the rest of us can oppose for our various reasons, and Kurt should definitely not get the kind of backlash he gets. Useight (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do not do the following: we require that all nominations be self nominations, then one or more users after the nom is posted co-nom. Without a co-nom no one can become an admin. Zginder 2008-05-17T23:34Z (UTC)

No offense, seriously, but how about this proposal? We archive this discussion because it's flogging a dead horse. Seriously, this has been addressed countless times and I can assure you that nothing will change. Respect fellow Wikipedians and their opinions. Nothing is invalid unless it is meant to be disruptive. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Zginder. Trees Rock Plant A Tree 23:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought about the math of this proposal and, well, the math doesn't actually work out to start the opposes at -1 so that Kurt's !vote would be automatically counted. That would actually result in one less oppose than there should have been. For example, User XYZ self-noms and starts out 0/-1/0. Then two guys come along and support and one (not Kurt) opposes. Now the tally is 2/0/0. He appears to have 100% support when, in actuality, he should have 50% (that one opposer and Kurt). This -1 doesn't auto-add for Kurt, it only prevents Kurt from !voting and gives the candidate a higher support percentage than he should have. If I'm just not thinking clearly (I just woke up), someone let me know. Useight (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd support an archiving. Where's Keeper when you need him?--Koji†Dude (C) 23:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow this IS a touchy subject, i wasnt expecting so much feedback, lol, yes clearly maths is NOT my speciality, it should have been a +1 not -1. Well spotted Useight. Well it would be nice to hear Kurts thoughts on it anyway. Realist2 ('Come Speak To M') 23:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving

What archive did the above conversation was sent to? Trees RockMyGoal 01:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The big box at the top of the page that says "Archives", maybe? — iridescent 01:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant which Archive. Trees RockMyGoal 02:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't "sent" anywhere. But it will be soon, sent to the archives that Iridescent pointed you to. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do discussions have to be archived anyway? The only times I find it acceptable is when it's something that has a set outcome with a defined time period (XfD, RFA, etc.) OR a discussion that clearly has no further input (as demonstrated by lack of activity for an arbitrary amount of time), OR a discussion in a high traffic area that would significantly add to page size, making it completely uneditable (AN, ANI, AN3). I don't think administrators should close an ongoing discussion, regardless of the content (unless it contains any of several policy violations) or the nature of the discussion itself. By archiving discussions (such as the one above), you essentially tell people "oh, you came too late, guess your voice won't be heard." If someone wants to add to a discussion, they should be allowed to, without this big box that says "The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it." —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussions like the above are archived because there has been enough discussing of the situation, we do not need to start new threads about the same subject every week. This topic has been beaten to death, and rarely every leads to anything positive. The archive template helps to stop what will probably lead to negative discussions. I can't answer your question in regard to other discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It is considerably easier to find something in the archives than it is to sort through the thousands upon thousands of edits that are in this page's history. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

12 months

So can someone point me towards the policy at which this arbitrary line is drawn? Seems to me this whole, purely chronological restriction might be proving an unnecessary obstacle to what could be a goldmine of potentially suitable bureaucrats who just haven't held the mop for a year. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement for 12 months... there are many admins who have recently passed with just 4-6 months of experience. I will personally will almost always oppose somebody with less than 6 months of experience, but there are some who have passed with as few as 2 months... but those are older admins whose RfA's were 2 years ago or more.Balloonman (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The much-cited "at least" time is 12 months. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
12 months is idea. But I think the reality is more along the lines of 6-8 months. The people who fly through RfA's have generally been around for at least 12 months, at 6 months or less people still have a fair amount of concern.Balloonman (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You do realise I'm talking about RfB not RfA. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "D0h!" Disregard EVERYTHING I just said.Balloonman (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I thought we already disregarded everything you say, Balloonman. ;) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere, Its just one of those requirements that people have made up --Chris 08:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, perhaps I am too rhetorical for my own good when using plain text. The first question was making the point that there is nothing in policy that states that 12 months need be waited. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(<--) There isn't an adminship requirement policy full stop (same for RfB) and expecting one is a bad idea. 12 months is just a level at which some (not me, I think) people feel they can start to trust a 'crat. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh, forget I said anything >_< - I never asked for a policy, I was just questioning why this arbitrary line was being taken as askin to policy, and why it is so important to people. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding obvious, and in reverse order:
Knockout criteria allow us to make faster choices (whether it's number of edits, time passed since first edit, number of FA's, self-nomination-yes-or-no, or any other objectively measurable criterion, I can first (prima facie) count the numbers or check the box, and if the candidate fails the hard requirement, I needn't look any further. Makes choices consistent and more manageable (not necessarily more competent though).
Why 12 months? Every line is arbitrary, but we usually draw them at a memorable mark. 12 months = 1 year = a round sum of time. I'm sure if someone persistently added his "Oppose Candidate doesn't fulfil my 317 day requirement", there would be more questions raised. Required periods of experience are often set at x years. (Or are you asking why it is 12 months, not 24 months?) ---Sluzzelin talk 13:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Its because of stupid requirements like that, good users like Cobi aren't admins --Chris 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, I've never seen someone oppose because the candidate didn't have exactly 365 days of experience. A year is a nice round number, and I can understand why; I know I'd experienced a lot more now than I had when I submitted my first RfB, which was about six or seven months into my adminship.
If I were to run a third RfB now, I'd definitely be a different candidate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Now you have my curiosity up... who would you be?Balloonman (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking an SSP report could be in order if some n00b shows up at RfB, sayUser:ALuve.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As it should be, the only requirement for becoming a bureaucrat is a "consensus" of the peers (of ~80-something%). No other requirements are set in stone, and the informal standards set by the peer group changes through time. Kingturtle (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that the last 2 successful bureaucrat candidates were editors who had been admins for less than 12 months at the time - the The Rambling Man and I had been admins for about 10 months and 8 months respectively. WjBscribe 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you reading any of this Pedro? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes... ! Pedro :  Chat  19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, look, would you two (etc) please either get a room, or get a nomination. It's getting rather sickly. Splash - tk 14:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll go for the get a room option. Don't tell User:WifeOfPedro ... :) Pedro :  Chat  14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I just made 12 months as a rough guideline in a section above... they're just arbitrary criteria to be on the safe side if someone wanted to become an admin... Maxim(talk) 20:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really grok this section's raison d'etre. Is there a goldmine of good RfB candidates less than 12 months 'old'? Prove it. Nominate them. If they all fail, there was no goldmine. If they all succeed, then bingo, you were right. Splash - tk 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Prove it? Nominate them? At the expense of the editors? RfBs have to be some of the more ridiculous, contentious, stressful pages. I can't imagine being the subject of one, RfA was bad enough. If they all fail, there was no goldmine, true. There may also not be many admins left when its finished. Oh, and Pedro, the key is under the doormat. Room 407. Bring wine. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Just checking some of the bureaucrats listed as "active" on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats, and only those where I found the RFA and RFB page (I understand they didn't exist in the early early days): I found examples of 8, 10.5, and 11 months between successful RFA and successful RFB. I don't think the 12 month rule is very meaningful. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked 8 of the bureaucrats listed as active and 4 of them had been admins for less than a year. Useight (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

question

I just opened an account this morning. You do not have to be autoconfirmed to vote, do you? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, auto-confirmed is irrelevant to enfranchisement at RfX . Any user with an account may comment in the support, oppose or neutral sections. Any user at all may comment in the discussion section. Hope that helps. Pedro :  Chat  11:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh... your IP is showing. You might want to log in before making future contributions :-) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why I don't !vote early on my own noms

I suspect that some of you are wondering why I don't !vote on my noms until the end. It comes down to the practice of "Beat the Nom Support." I think beat the nom support's are one of the dumbest objectives people have in !voting. While I know that a person can be familiar with a candidate alreay, I find it disrespectful to the candidate. I mean, if a nom is transcluded on the hour, you really have to wonder how much research a person put into a candidate before supporting if they support at one minute after the nom is transcluded. I think some people TRY to "beat the nom" simply so that they can make that claim. Thus, I've decided to wait as a passive aggressive means of making a point. Even candidates that I am familiar with, I do some due dilligence in investigating. The only way I'll beat a nom is if the nom doesn't support early on.Balloonman (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well said. I've also had that concern. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've always interpretted "beat the nom" support to mean "beat the nom" support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If I've seen on a talkpage that someone I know is setting up an RFA, I'll quite often do the contrib-reviewing and write the support/oppose etc before it goes live, and then paste it in once I see that the RFA's been transcluded, and I imagine a lot of others do the same. (I can assure you, it took longer than three minutes to write this, for example.) — iridescent 17:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Note re above - I haven't chosen the above as an example to pick on E., it's just that she raised an identical "how did you write that so quickly" concern at the time so it's the first example to come to mind. — iridescent 17:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that the Beat the Nom tag on a support is a little snarky - and I'm guilty of it as well - I usually review and evaluate candidate as soon as possible, either before the nom as Iridescent does, or right after transclusion. I do this because, if I let it go a few days, the chances of me remembering to come back and !vote are slim to none; doing it right then means that I know it'll get done. I always looked at the "Beat the Nom" bit as a dig on the nominator for not being on the ball as to when the candidate planned to transclude the nom, sort of a "pay attention" sort of thing. It's obvious that the nom supports. I don't think this practice is "First Post"-ish enough to end altogether, though I agree with you on a lot of what you say. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone actually supports just because they want to beat the nominator to it. naerii - talk 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And there are plenty of RfA's that I've supported seconds after transclusion, usually because I've seen them around a lot and have already formed an opinion or because I've had their talk page/their RfA page watchlisted. naerii - talk 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, there are sometimes where additional review and further consideration are not needed; there are a handful of people that I'd knee-jerk support the second I saw their RfA. I'll still watch the RfA to see if any surprises pop up, but if I'm already familiar with them, why use a fine-tooth comb? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
EVula makes a good point here: if one has heavy experience with the community, a substantial proportion of RfA candidates will not require candidate evaluation, in that the reviewing editor is already fully acquainted with the candidate. This factor manifests itself in the trends of "beat the nom" supporting: by and large, it is mostly only visible in especially-strong candidates (i.e., WP:100 material), where the name itself is evaluation enough.
I don't hold beat the nom voting as a significant problem, so long as it does not become a flag for mindless, "knee jerk" commenting–or, in other words, a highlight of editors blind voting without duly considering the candidate's merits. Anthøny 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-- outdent) My personal take is that "beat the nom" used to imply that a given editor was so aware of the candidate and their abilities that they were giving the upmost support i.e. "my supports even stronger than the nominators, that's how good this editor is". It has recently become less than that. As many are aware, I have a personal bug-bear with pre-transclusion comments in support (and oppose but they are unlikely! except those by the nominators which are given). If editors want to add "beat the nom" that's up to them. Just do it after the RfX goes "live". In general this seems to happen and I believe RfX's neither suffer nor benefit from these "beat the nom" comments - so in essence they do no harm. I do agree with Anthony above that "knee-jerk" commenting is a bad thing, self-evidently, but I personally find it fairly rare, certainly not to the point of skewing any individual request. Pedro :  Chat  19:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Used to imply that a given editor was so aware of the candidate and their abilities that they were giving the upmost support, isn't that the truth. I don't mind beat the nom support on super strong candidates, it's the ones where the candidate has 3000 edits and has been around for four months that it bothers me. Now "beat the nom support" almost carries the implication of "I didn't do my homework." I know that there have been a few candidates that I've supported based solely on their "name recognition" that I've later had to withdraw the support because I hadn't done my homework.Balloonman (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Might I ask, what is wrong with a candidate who has 3000 edits but is otherwise trustworthy? bibliomaniac15 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack of all trades vs. Focused?

Lately, I've been seeing some opposition on RFAs based on the fact that the user does not have a "varied" experience on Wikipedia, i.e. focuses too much on a given subject. What I would like to know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Is it a negative thing that a user focus on something they have experience in, or that they are very interested in? If a user mainly contributes to articles of a single topic, is that a pro or a con? Formerly, I was a big supporter of those who were varied in their interests, but now, I feel that it doesn't have much to do with how good of an admin they would be. I think that it would be good for every Wikiproject to have a very experienced user or admin who actively participates in it, especially with some recent, disturbing trends that I've seen of Wikiproject-article ownership. Not only would such an admin be experienced with the topic at hand, they would be better equipped to deal with users and disputes occurring within the bounds of the topic/Wikiproject. Any thoughts? bibliomaniac15 19:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I realise that I am still relatively new here and may be talking out of turn, but in my humble opinion there are a handful of key skills that any potential admin should have. The ability to collaborate effectively with others, either through the creation and maintenance of articles or through creating meaningful feedback, encouragement and direction through article reviews is one. A solid understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and how they apply in both letter and spirit is another. Finally, a knowledge of the community and how editors interact in varying ways is crucial, as this supports not just article management but project development, an awareness of the evolution of concensus and so on. How these skills are gained is not important, as long as they can be demonstrated by the work the candidate has carried out. Hope this helps, Gazimoff WriteRead 20:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue is that even if 100% of one's work has been in WP:RFPP and {{editprotected}}, giving them the tools, means they can still block and delete. And since we can't follow them around to prove their only using the tools in a limited manner, we need to make sure they can use all of the tools properly before Supporting. In the same manner, if I only edit Fiction, the community has no way of knowing how I'd judge notability of living people or what is POV-pushing in a science article. And if we had project-focused admins, the issue would be that the way they go to be admin was editing a great deal in that area, so it would be inappropriate for them to intervene in pages and disputes they had already edited in as an involved editor. MBisanz talk 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the area... I have no problems with specialist admins and actually encourage them, but I do want to see evidence of communication beyond templates. I also have some problem with people whose sole purpose is to tag deletion labels on articles without spending time writing them.---man 03:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
To save retyping, I'll cut & paste my comments from a few days ago here; while I don't expect admins, let alone admin candidates, to get involved in every area (I've never nominated a category for deletion, and I wouldn't know where to start at UFAA), I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected. It's not an opposition to automated tools per se (I once racked up 13,000 edits in a month changing a category name), but opposition to users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. — iridescent 03:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've always been a fan of the more focused users. I mean, if someone knows what tools they will use regularly and have shown themselves to be competent there, then that's plenty good for me. They can learn blocking policies and the like on the job. I knew nothing about the image policy pre-adminship, now I think i know copyright pretty darn well, though i dunno if there's consensus on that (; Wizardman 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll also paste what I posted earlier: I think a real issue is that sometimes people will say they'll stick to certain areas, but we have no way of ensuring that. I know of at least one case of someone who said at their RfA that they wouldn't be dealing with a certain area (to allay concerns brought up by the opposition), and then lo and behold, after they were promoted they went to that area. So what on earth can we do? It'd be great to divide up the admin tools, but that's not the way we're doing it. Enigma message 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I just looked over my own RfA, and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that I have mostly ignored the areas I said I'd be active in, and instead found other places to make my admin presence felt. Changes happen, though I realize that the two situations aren't completely comparable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ditto...Balloonman (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to chime my 2 cents in here also. My RFA recently got denied and one of the primary arguments was that I did not have enough varied experience and my editing was too narrow. Inline with this conversation I personnaly am more focused on military history and biogrphies and even if elected I would have continued as such. I personnally think that this is not a good reason to deny an RFA. You should have users who are more focused on certain areas. If I had a brain tumor I would want a brain Dr to look at it, not a general practice doc. Same logic applies here.--Kumioko (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Malleus' RFA

Resolved
 – Closed and added to lists - by several editors at once!

Malleus has withdrawn his RFA; I have untranscluded (is that a word??) it but could someone top and tail it with the necessary templates & do what ever else necesary to close it properly - I don't want to cock it up!. Cheers, nancy (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh - a shame. Okay, I'll do the paperwork. Thanks Nancy. Pedro :  Chat  14:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And, because I was already doing it anyway and got an EC with you Pedro, I tweaked it just a wee bit farther. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Check the history EVula. Four of us were trying to close and tweak, hence the general disaster. Added to the releveant lists BTW. Pedro :  Chat  14:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I got antsy in fixing the final tally... should've just waited a few minutes for the admin to finish up. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know whether I should be flattered or upset that so many were rushing to close my RfA. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh! It's 'cause we love you and wanted to make the closing as classy as possible, with as many editors as we could muster.....like a 21 Gun Salute.... I think... :) Pedro :  Chat  15:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to close it as well, but I was way too slow. by the time I got it all proper-like, it was already done, and thoroughly discussed as to the finer points of how it was done ^  ;> xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Err, thanks? :lol: :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin closing an RFA

Can a regular Joe like me close a snowball RFA like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeeJay2K3 (2)? And by that I mean a really obvious, no chance, feeling sorry for the editor it had been out this long, kind of snowball. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who hasn't participated can SNOW an RfA. Of course, one should always be cautious about doing so, as discussed a few threads up on this page. Enigma message 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I actually made SNOW-instructions. Enigma message 18:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Since he specifically says on there he doesn't want it snow-closed as he wants more oppose comments to see what he's doing wrong, don't expect any thanks if you do. — iridescent 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
He's gotten about 10 more opposes since he requested it remain open, maybe someone ping him again to prevent further piling? (unless people can really come up with more unique reasons to oppose). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 18:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to be mean, but since when does a candidate's request over ride snow. Many of us would love to get feedback through an RfA, but that is not the primary reason. SNOW does have a purpose. This particular RfA would need over 80+ more supports with NO opposes to even meet the bare min threshold. Sorry to PeeJay, but I can't see how this isn't fine to close. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If the user actually wants it to remain open (for which there may be many good reasons), I don't see the urgency for other users to intervene and close it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite right, no urgency. I guess I'm just pointing out that SNOW doesn't usually require permission (which kind of defeats the purpose of SNOW). Also, I guess some think RfAs stay open for feedback, regardless of inevitability, which I also respect. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Agree with Deacon; WP:SNOW is to prevent Myspace bands from insisting on the full 5 day AFD to keep their band's page up for longer, and to stop well-intentioned nwebies from running at RFA and getting flamed off the project with 100 opposes. I don't think either applies here; it's not disrupting anything leaving it live until he withdraws. — iridescent 19:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[ec] Indeed, that's the other purpose for RfAs; even a failed one can be beneficial. No need to snow-close.
Generally speaking, however, I think a non-crat should only snow-close when the editor is obviously a newbie. In any other case, it's probably best left to those whose job it is to maintain the RfA "system" (for lack of a better phrase). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Don't get me wrong but I thought WP:ER was the place to go for feedback? If an RfA has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, maybe it should be closed? Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Numerous things can come up in an RfA that give a candidate an opportunity to grow. To think that we have to pigeon-hole learning experiences into just one section of the site is ludicrous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but from what I can tell, all just concerns have already been raised by the opposing community. I think this user would benefit more from WP:ER than they would from keeping the RfA open for simply more "Per 3RR" opposes. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 19:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The candidate has already requested that it be allowed to run its course, and generally speaking, we honor such requests (though any bureaucrat is within their right to close it anyway). As far as I can tell, the only reason to close the RfA is that it is unlikely to succeed, which isn't particularly compelling, and is more akin to "because" as a reason than anything else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I'm somewhat in agreement with Cyclonenim here, we certainly don't want to give the impression that RFAs can be used as a more robust or active ER (editor review is often quite backlogged). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 19:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The only reason we close them early is (as far as I know) to avoid hurt feelings. If the candidate does not want it closed early, I see no reason to close it early. Leaving it alone doesn't hurt anything. Friday (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, in either case, it is the users decision (or the 'crat if they so choose) and i've just confirmed with PeeJay that he'd like to keep it open. So I guess little harm can come from it, but I stand by my opinion. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 19:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I do agree with you that there's a moderately slim chance that anything new may come up. However, it's still good for a candidate to know what exactly people think (most people are opposing over a select few items, but who knows? in a couple of days, there may be a new reason to oppose, and so the candidate has all the more to work on), and I consider it more important to be respectful of the candidate by leaving it open than to follow specific protocols and closing it early. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent #2> Thanks Enigmaman for the info. After reading your page and seeing the responses here I will add that although it is OK for a non-admin to jump in and do it, I think it is best left to the 'regulars'. I am in here once or twice a day to chime in and to learn the process. I feel there are those much more suited for the maintenance procedures. Thanks everyone GtstrickyTalk or C 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I look at snowing an RfA the same way many look at snowing an AfD. There has been significant discussion in the past about non-admins snowing AfD's if there is even one "Keep" or one "Delete" in the minority opinion. I feel the same way about RfA's, if there are legitimate editors who are giving honest supports, then I say it is up to the candidate to keep or close. Do we close the other RfA's of better known/respected editors? Such as Malleus? His RfA would need a 100 more supports to pass with no opposes. Where do we draw the line? Don't close RfA's unless the person is an obvious newbie, near unanimous oppose, and/or the candidate requests it. If a candidate wants to keep it open, and it isn't a newb, keep it open.Balloonman (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
100 MORE SUPPORTS!!!1!1?!!??. Damn, I need to get my sockfarm up and running. Now where did I put my password list...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Since SNOW is an extension of WP:IAR, there is no line to be drawn, that's the mentality behind such guidelines. However, i am not endorsing a snow close in any of the above RfAs, just pointing out that I don't quite think it's up to the candidate to leave an RfA up and running. If it was, then WP:BOLD and WP:SNOW would be undermined. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
When I first saw this topic, I assumed that this was about my own RfA, which is clearly a hopeless case, as probably also is PeeJay's. But I think out of respect for a candidate who has entered into the process in the full knowledge of what it entails, who has expressed no desire to withdraw, and who has the support of at least a few respected users, it's an insult to snow close. As I think Friday said, my understanding of snow closes is that their primary purpose at RfA is to minimise hurt feelings. If there are no hurt feelings, then where's the harm in letting an RfA trundle on to its conclusion, even though some may believe that they have a crystal ball? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(EC)I understand where you're coming from Wisdom, but disagree. WP:SNOW is quite clear - if a desired outcome of a process has no chance of succeding, then don't run the process. At RfA most would expect that the desired outcome of an RfA is for a +sysop flag. However, where a candidate has explicitly stated they wish to continue to run the process when clearly the desired outcome will not happen, then I take it that they wish to alter the aim of the process e.g. (in RfA context) to learn more and have a full analysis of the issues stopping their request. Now, at RfA one might suggest it is better to go to editor review than flog a dead RfA. But no-one is forcing editors to continue to comment, and no harm is done. To me WP:SNOW (again wihtin RFA context) is used to stop a train crash putting of a newbie. If an editor wants to use it as an extended editor review good luck to them. It's the wrong place, but I think it's better to advise them it's the wrong place than simply shut down the request. Just my rambling 2p. Pedro :  Chat  20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with keeping it open. As I've said elsewhere, uphill battles are occasionally won; would anyone looking at this have thought it would end at 128-10? — iridescent 20:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a better place to see how the RfA started6/5/0Balloonman (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Terminology of "SNOW" somewhat bitey?

I've been rolling this over in my head for a week or two, and this is probably as good a place to bring it up as any, but isn't the terminology SNOW and it's meaning ("your RFA has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding") kindof bitey, especially because it's admittedly primary function is to close well-intentioned newbies RFAs? xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 20:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I have a boxing analogy in my head, a second throwing the towel into the ring to prevent the candidate taking any more punishment. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I agree - I do agree that it's best to close them, as it's far bitier to leave a good faith user like this out on a limb to rack up 100+ opposes, but the phrasing's a bit abrupt (presumably because WP:SNOW comes from the context of AFD, where the users are likely to be more experienced). How about WP:VLCS (Very Little Chance of Success)? — iridescent 21:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
However, SNOW is far easier to remember than four seemingly random set of letters, like VLCS.--Bedford Pray 21:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Use a euphemism for the newbies. Or just cite WP:IAR. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with this train of thought. Often closing editors leave a note on the talk page of the candidate with a cheery "Hi, I'm really sorry but I've closed your RfA per WP:SNOW. Please take a look at ......". On balance, the candidate will click on the blue link and, yep, I think discouragement would be a moderate way of describing it! It's not a tricky problem to fix, but I think Xenocidic has made an important point here. Pedro :  Chat  21:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ehh.. I hate to see us doing anything that encourages dishonesty. If you have no chance of making a certain thing happen, we do you no favors by pretending otherwise. We should do whatever we can to not encourage this notion that opposing an RFA equals being mean. RFA isn't supposed to be about anyone being nice or being mean- it's about evaluating candidates. Worrying about emotions distracts from this purpose. Friday (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
But retention of an editor is vital to the health of Wikipedia....This isn't about opposing an RFA - it's about not being WP:BITEy in closing them early. Pedro :  Chat  21:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually.. retention of the right editors is good for Wikipedia. Retention of any editor just for the sake of another warm body is actively harmful. If someone is the type of high-drama editor who will get upset at a failed RFA, we don't want them around and should not encourage them. It pains me greatly whenever I see otherwise-sensible editors spending their time to encourage bad editors. We should spend not a moment on the bad ones, and instead focus on those who seem like they'll end up being useful. Friday (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hence my lack of welcoming templates, except for in some rare circumstances. I feel that the most productive editors were motivated to contribute through themselves, not by a template with a picture of cookies and a few bluelinks (referring to Template:Welcome-personal). —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)From WP:BITE:

  1. Avoiding intensifiers in commentary (such words as terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, good, and so forth, and exclamation marks).
  2. Modulating one's approach and wording.
  3. Avoiding sarcasm in edit summaries and on talk pages, especially when reverting.
  4. Striving to respond in a measured manner.
  5. Accepting graciously another person's actions or inactions in a given situation or context.
  6. Acknowledging differing principles and a willingness to reach consensus.
  7. Opening oneself towards taking responsibility for resolution of conflicts.
  8. Reciprocating where necessary.
  9. Listening actively.
  10. Avoid Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand.
  11. Avoid using bans as a first resort. Consider talking to a user before you ban him or her.

Suggesting to the community that an RfA should be closed because of SNOW doesn't necessarily qualify as biteing, depending on how it's done. If you say something to the effect of "The tally is already 3/14/2. Recomend WP:SNOW close", that's fine. If you say "You sir, and your contributions, are utter tosh. I suggest a WP:SNOW close for this hopeless sack of doggie-do-do.", that'd be bitey. As long as it's done correctly, suggesting SNOW just helps the process, and saves the candidate some grief.--Koji†Dude (C) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Avoid using bans as a first resort. Consider talking to a user before you ban him or her." There's a rather curious misunderating of the diference between a ban and a block in that part of the guidelines, a question that seems to come up with monotonous regularity at RfAs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[ec] I agree with Friday + KojiDude. Closing an RfA per SNOW isn't bitey: if the nomination has a ~0% chance of success, there is no point in it going on and the user getting SNOWed under [sorry for the pun] with opposes that may discourage them from contributing productively. Opposition at RfA means 'I don't think that you are experienced enough to be an admin' or 'there are things that concern me', not 'you are no good and never will be'. Euphemisms simply muddy the water and confuse things. I'm all for calling it a spade in these kinds of situations. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:21, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
Or, bite the bullet and introduce minimum-service requirements. A 500 edits and one month requirement wouldn't be unreasonable (AWB gets on fine with it) and would mean people coming here would hopefully know what they were getting into. — iridescent 21:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that's exactly what's required. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[deindent, ec] I agree. It is extremely improbable that an RfA would succeed with <500 edits/<1 month of editing [in fact, the threshold could realistically be raised to <1000/<3 months with little change in chances], and a minimum requirement would stop well-meaning newbies getting bashed, and allow RfAs that have no chance of success to be closed relatively uncontroversially. If hard-and-fast rules are unpopular, a recommendation at the top of the RfA page could be added, along the lines of: Editors that have fewer than 500 edits and less than 1 month's service are unlikely to succeed at RfA. Please consider gaining more experience before applying. Or words to that effect. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:29, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with KojiDude's assessment; it's all in the phrasing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
With respect EVula if you're blue linking SNOW then the phrasing is academic. Have you looked at WP:SNOW recently? - bearing in mind this is the blue link a candidate is likely to click on (and not WP:BITE). Noting the lead and satire in the picture captions at SNOW I'm even more convinced that it may not be an appropriate essay to blue link to when you're telling someone "why no, thanks, we've closed your bid to help out early". If I phrase a sentence about how great you are and blue link it to WP:AGF, WP:DGAF or the horrid WP:DICK you're not going to be very interested in my words, but more what I'm pointing you towards.Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The pictures are just supposed to be funny. The text is pretty straight forward.--Koji†Dude (C) 21:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
My point exactly. They're supposed to be funny. Example: You've done 1,000 edits in two months, have a vague notion about admins and decide to be one. And your request is opposed extensively, then closed early with a link to an essay with "funny" pictures and captions. Hysterical. Another good editor gone. I'm sorry, I'm in total agreeance with this thread. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So 2 funny pictures aside otherwise serious text drives away newbies? Oh dear god, someone go to ArbCom and ban lolcats! Alert Jimbo!--Koji†Dude (C) 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not just the pictures, it's the sentiment. While I concede to Friday that we don't need to have a love-fest with potential editors, there's still no need to beat them down with terminology like WP:SNOW. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The point, Koji, is we're having a serious debate about a problem that I don't beleive is "perceived" - it's real. We get a lot of editors who take failed RFA's badly. Why should we hammer home this by linking to that essay when we can fix it simply, per the discussion below? You seem, judging by your comments and edit summary, to have not understood my thrust, so I apologise for my lack of clarity. I'm not offended by SNOW - I find the image captions funny. I'm playing the newbie advocate card, and saying many of them wouldn't - that's all. Pedro :  Chat  21:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok. My mistake.--Koji†Dude (C) 22:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Pedro, I think this is just another one of those times where we'll have to agree to disagree; I see nothing wrong with the imagery, and I think it goes a long way to diffuse something that, otherwise, could possibly be offensive. Keep in mind that I generally find all forms of "that might be offensive" to be out-of-sync with my own opinions, though. I also don't put much stock in the "we might lose an editor" concern; it's akin to paranoia, and truth of the matter is, we shouldn't be coddling editors who have no business being here. Wikipedia is great and all, and I wouldn't dream of restricting who can edit, but let's face facts: it's a (somewhat) singular type of person that devotes all their energies here. If someone submits an RfA after 300 edits, it gets closed, and then they get pissy about the whole thing, well... they weren't likely to be around for very long anyway. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I know, we've discussed this before (a lot!!). We will have to agree to disagree. However, this is off track from the main thrust, which is the linking of the SNOW essay to early RFA closures - something we can simply fix I believe - per below. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Heck, I'm leery of anyone with <3000 edits and <6 months.--Bedford Pray 21:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You're not the only one.--Koji†Dude (C) 21:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should reserve WP:SNOW for things like AfD where we're not judging a person so directly. It might be better for a candidate to see I'm sorry, but on the balance of probabilities your application is unlikely to succeed, so it has been withdrawn. It's a free TLA, and a short essay explaining consensus on withdrawing RfAs shouldn't take too long to put together. It sounds more cheerful too (do you want to BOP this one, or shall I?) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Pedro explained my reasoning and Sheffield provides a great alternative here. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 21:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Replacement for SNOW in closing RfAs

I really like the visual appeal of "throwing in the towel" from Malleus. What about "Close per WP:TOWEL. (WE ALREADY HAVE THIS ESSAY, just would need tweaking) Make it stand for This Otherwise Wonderful Editor is Lacking. Serves the same purpose, can link to an essay that I'm sure someone could whip up (Pedro? DHMO? Anyone?), that is non bitey, explains politely and directly why the RfA is closed before the end date. It also avoids the whole Frozen Hell problem, which is frankly offensive to attritbute to an editor instead of to encylopedic content. Any takers? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If no one beats me to it I'd love to rise to that challenge Keeps. Good thinking. Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Much better than snow. I particularly like the image & caption, would give them a little chuckle, rather than a discouraging comment about them melting in hell. Make it so! xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a start on such a thing. It's not particularly good, I don't do sugar-coating very well. However, it is a starting point. Rip it apart, modify it, etc. If you feel that it is complete tripe, please say so. I have no emotional attachment to this, and I'd much rather that we work on something that has more than a snowball's chance in a certain fiery place of becoming useful. Note better use of SNOW than in RfAs! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:56, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a great start, and I'm sure that between us we can come up with something that would be encouraging to those foolish enough to have innocently dipped their toes in the piranha-infested RFA bear pit ... I see that I've started to mix my metaphors here, but I'm sure you get my drift. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[too many commas!] Thanks! Oh, and for the record, I left out the 'This Otherwise Wonderful Editor Is Lacking' part as I thought that this was taking the friendliness too far, and may be percieved as patronising. If others disagree, add it back in. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 22:19, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I liked that part. Because I came up with it mostly. And because I find it apt. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I was going to suggest replacing 'wonderful' with 'worthy' (of course they might not actually be either...). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 22:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful? Worthy? Wily? Wise? Wet? Wildebeast? Wisconsin? WHmmm...I'll keep thinking...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I take it my idea of closing RfA's early due to WP:USUCK wouldn't be appropriate?Balloonman (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And no, balloonman. Maybe WUSUCK. Less bitey. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Funniest thing I've read all week. That's going to my quotes list.--Koji†Dude (C) 22:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If that's the funniest thing you've read all week, you need to read more. Or get out more. But other than that, thanks...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh... a little awkard but, that was actually directed at Balloonman. Sorry Keeper :-/ --Koji†Dude (C) 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Tis okay. You should format better though. And that said, I'm not too worried, I'm already on your list.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Twas an un-timely edit conflict that I didn't feel like fixing. But, yeah, you're on the list anyway (probably won't be the only quote from you, either). --Koji†Dude (C) 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the essay works well even without the acronym. It still tells candidates that they are valued and are able to reapply later. It also keeps things simple, stupid and limits complexity and possible confusion. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 22:32, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
...except we're taking the choice of throwing in the towel out of their hands; WP:TOWEL is for the candidate, while WP:SNOW is for the closer. I don't really see it as a viable replacement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The towel is never thrown in by the boxer, it's thrown in by an observer (usually coach) of the boxer. Perfectly acceptable analogy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think, in boxing, the trainer throws in the towel. But in the figurative meaning of the term, the unsuccessful candidate throws in his/her own towel. Darkspots (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We should include some notable instances of towels being thrown in. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 22:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Are there notable instances of towels being thrown? Outside of Rocky movies? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You want towels? Try this NYT story: [1]. Darkspots (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's HOT!. Mrs. Reagan in a towel....(oh crap, is this a BLP violation? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ronnie was pretty hot himself back in the day. (no BLP) Darkspots (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean like this? I certainly agree. Grrrrrr.. (that's the sound of me rolling my tongue like a good Spaniard...)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So who throws the towel in for the chicken?--Koji†Dude (C) 22:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The short answer: chickens don't fight. The slightly longer answer is anyone who sees that a well-meaning but inexperienced editor is taking a mauling in RfA. Not likely to take a mauling, but is taking a mauling. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about who the essays were addressing, though the resultant discussion was plenty interesting. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a brief note to congratulate Balloonman, Pedro, Keeper, Richard and everyone else who contributed here. A RFA Talk thread that achieved something! :-) A small thing but a good thing. Dean B (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh -- yeah a WT:RFA thread actually coming out with a positive move to do something is a bit like hen's teeth! Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  07:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL... my total contribution to this tread was to ask about WP:USUCK ;=)Balloonman (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to your comments above on WP:SNOW which seemed useful. :) Dean B (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I shall, of course, take that important consideration on board when working with User:Richard0612 and others! I was kind of veering to WP:NOTYET as slightly less bighty and more in keeping with what we are aiming for, but I hadn't considered ratcheting it up a gear instead - WP:BUGGEROFF as a compromise?? :) Pedro :  Chat  07:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As an alternative to Richard's suggestion I've nicked liberated some of his text and combined it with my own at User:Pedro/Not Yet. Thoughts appreciated. Pedro :  Chat  08:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment, as I have to head out the door, but "Not Yet" would seem to indicate that there's also a "One Day" sometime in the future, whereas the candidate might just not be admin material at all. I think this is why 'towel' was a better analogy =). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 11:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that the implication is just that. But there's no point kicking people while there down - WP:NONEVER would be for that :) ! If I've interpreted the sense of this thread, it's an essay to refer to when closing RFA's that we would normally call out under SNOW. This is just an essay specific to RfA that hopefuly provides some pointers to a candidate as well as "letting them down gently". My aim here is this;
  • Scenario: I have a 1,000 edits and run for RFA, which is greeted with 10 opposes (all civil and helpful, but opposes none the less). Someone closes my RfA after three hours. Would a reference to an essay called NOTYET that says, hey, don't worry, no-ones having a go at you be better than one toWP:SNOW whose opening line is in effect "you haven't a snowballs chance in hell"? I think so.
I don't think I'm offering a solution to a non-existent problem, I think we do have issues of newbies packing up in disgust (or at least going on wiki-breaks, becoming disenchanted etc etc) after a failed premature RfA. If a link to an essay that is more gentle and more relevant (note the link to deletion discussions at the bottom of SNOW) I think this can only help not hinder. Only my opinion though. Pedro :  Chat  12:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just really liked that towel caption =). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 12:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
So did I, in fairness! Pedro :  Chat  12:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately, the name can be changed (WP:IMPROBABLE?) while retaining the original meaning. I think that Pedro's essay is more comprehensive, and would be much more useful to newbies. I won't U1 my version until something has been agreed on, however I will start working on Pedro's version instead of mine. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:39, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
Looks as though we could possibly have a test-case for this sort of thing, here. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 20:09, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
Dealt with by User:Enigmaman who ec'd me through the entire thing! Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I even looked here first to see if anyone else was doing it! I figured it was a classic case of close per Pedro. Should've just cited WP:PEDRO Enigma message 20:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've boldly slugged my essay into project sapce, with a shortcut of WP:NOTNOW (per discussion above on possible issues with Not Yet. The benefit of a wiki is that everyone else can now feel free to undo my egocentric actions! Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not SNOW but issues with current wording at WP:RFA

Can someone point out where the usage of the SNOW term has actually been a problem, as opposed to just a perceived/theoretical problem? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be tough to quantify if/how many users stopped contributing because of following a link to SNOW. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 12:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be near impossible to count. Indeed maybe none at all would be the answer. But there is no question editors do take failed RFA's hard. And no question we've lost or disenfranchised some. This isn't some big process change here. I'm just thinking (like a number of others above) that referencing an essay that's "nicer" and more importantly actually relevant to RFA rathern than AFD (which SNOW was/is), can do no harm, and is no big shift. I'm not saying everyone stops mentioning snow closures. I'm saying lets think about an alternative to complement that essay we can point people towards. Pedro :  Chat  13:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say I doubt the essay has as much to with it as just the natural dissapointment in a failure/embarassment. I like the premise of TOWEL, but honestly, this is what I want: A very clear explanation on the actual WP:RFA page that explains the reasons an RfA can be pulled before the alloted time. We are talking about adding new essays (or revamping old ones), but people have to realize that this is just more stuff a newbie candidate will have never seen before entering their candidacy. Right now, it just explains that a 'crat can early close at their discretion. No mention of snow. WP:RFA should be amended to explain the other reasons an RfA can be early closed, and in the future when we close them, we say something like WP:RFA#EARLY_CLOSE. I just don't see how a new essay, even with a friendlier acronym, will help the problem... if their is one. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
To amend, I notice it actualy does mention a non-crat closure, but it is tucked away a bit and also doesn't explain the premise of "no chance of passing". I think the instruction CREEP of adding a 2 or 3 additonal sentences to WP:RFA would be worth it, considering the volume of RfAs that are getting closed early. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you Gwynand, although generally proposed changes to the RFA header template end up being discussed time and time again with no action taken. This seems the same as suggesting nicely in the header to not even think about transcluding with <500 edits or some other arbitary criteria. Good idea, just gets reverted and we resolve back to the status quo. Pedro :  Chat  13:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, my comment probably ignored the immense difficulty to get such a thing changed, vs. the RfA regulars modding their own essay to help with the process. Something like TOWEL just comes off as a $200 scholarship to Harvard... it's nice, but not sure if it's gonna help much. I don't think we need to do the min requirements thing in the RFA header, but rather just at least one more sentence explaining why someone might not get the entire seven days. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Be Bold ? Pedro :  Chat  14:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I still like TOWEL (with or without acronym). Doesn't pinch as hard as SNOW, but NOTYET has an implication in it that "all you have to do is wait longer", which isn't true, per Gwynand's reasoning. And for the acronym, This Otherwise Welcomed Editor is Lacking? I don't know why I'm so bent on having it be a clever acronym, I'll get over it I suppose...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
OH, and GW, if you're handin' out $200 scholarships to anywhere, I'll take one. Paypal accepted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Haha, well, if you get accepted to Harvard, I will. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on my sexy video application right now...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If you look like Ms. Witherspoon, I'd like a copy. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_130"