Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 62

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

New admin nomination

Do I literaly put it just below the==Current nominations for administratorship== header separation or just above the {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna648 2}} ?--Jondel 03:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll just add just on top of the requests.(Horay forthe man who talks to himselfs!)--Jondel 04:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The nomination seems to be broken. Have you used the generator? -- ReyBrujo 04:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't but I 've already nominated him.--Jondel 00:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(Possibly just my own) problems with the way the RfA process is being carried out

Over the past six months or so, I've tried to keep an eye on the RfA process with the hopes of actually, y'know, contributing to it. I've only managed to do so a few times, because most of the time, it just sucks all the energy out of me. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that it's not so much about picking people who make good admins as it is about getting people to jump through hoops. I realize that this is not intentional, but in effect, that what it seems to boil down to. It was only very recently that I actually noticed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards, which I find absolutely ridiculous. We get, what, fifty sets of edit/time standards and various other standards that range from clear-cut "must not have been blocked for vandalism" to far more vague "any user that has contributed to the society so much that they are running out of things to do and are ready for some new privelages". Okaaaaay.

Guys. Seriously. We're talking about adminship, not conforming to some kind of a weird template that is composed of a kazillion little non-compatible pieces. It's supposed to be no big deal. Yes, I absolutely agree that there are standards that should be met. Someone who goes around adding the word "penis" to random articles or picking fights or constantly violating NPOV and whatnot is not good admin material, that much is dictated by common sense. Likewise, if it can be demonstrated that the user doesn't understand (or isn't willing to stick to) Wikipedia's policies, yes, by all means, oppose that nomination. That's only smart.

But all this "signature's too long/don't like his wording/don't support self-nominations/doesn't dedicate his life to fighting vandals/must have made a significant contribution to a featured article" crap -- I realize that most people don't think of it as elitism, but that's exactly what it is. The key question should be "is it likely that this user will abuse the admin tools?" If the answer is yes, by all means, oppose. If the answer is no, support. And, of course, if more information is needed to make a decision, asking is always good. But, for example, take this this weird unspoken requirement that anyone who becomes an admin must demonstrate a need for all of the admin tools all the time -- so closing AfDs isn't enough, you must also fight vandals, and vice versa. As if having an admin who just quietly takes care of the AfD backlog would do Wikipedia any harm.

And speaking of the questions that get asked from admin candidates, by the way... I'm sorry, but some of them are downright ridiculous. For example, "After you have blocked an inappropriate user name, will you check the Special:Ipblocklist to see if this block is creating massive collateral damage?" What, does anyone actually expect someone to answer "no, because I don't care about massive collateral damage" to this one? In fact, does it make any difference what someone answers to these questions, as long as he says something that pleases the person asking the question? Is anyone actually going to check and see if the new admin, once he's been approved, is going to keep his promises -- and more importantly, if the admin says, "well, I know I promised to be active in this area, but guess what, I changed my mind" or simply "I ain't doing anything admin related 'cause I don't wanna", so what? Is that going to get his adminship revoked? I find the question "In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?" particularly laughable, because it's blindingly obvious that in order to become an administrator, a certain amount of politicking is required. I realize that it's asked in good faith and it's not in any way a stupid question in itself, but in the context of the actual RfA process it's like asking a soldier driving a tank in a combat zone whether he considers a familiarity with his car or good knowledge of the rules of the road the most important quality of a good driver...

I'll probably piss people off with this one, and I apologize for that in advance. It's not my intention, and I may be overreacting. I just honestly find the actual process pretty far removed from "the community granting administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies". I don't know about you, but to me it feels demoralizing. -- Captain Disdain 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This fellow speaks the truth. A true and accurate summary. -Randall Brackett 16:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If the fellow could just condence his statement in 1/3 of the size above, would be much easier to read. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what the hell, here goes: "Currently, the RfA process sucks, because too many people insist on making a big deal about stupid shit completely unrelated to the actual issue of whether a prospective admin can be trusted to not abuse the admin tools. Also, some of the questions are kinda dumb. It makes me sad. YMMV."

Frankly, I kinda prefer my original version. -- Captain Disdain 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

These problems aren't just your own and I'm happy someone has been forthright about them. I'm also glad you haven't seen the glass half-full / half-empty question; you would have cried.

People have every right to add questions to RfAs, but they should really think twice and ask themselves "Self, do I know what this person is going to answer already?" and "Self, is this really relevant to this RfA?" and "Self, why am I asking this person a question if I already voted support for him/her? It's not like the answer really matters and I'm just giving the candidate more work." And about the half-full/half-empty question, I don't have a severe aversion to it, because it's quite light-hearted and doesn't require a long response that could use up a considerable amount of the candidate's time. But there are other questions that do. Remember, the candidates have jobs or schoolwork, family and friends; their time is precious too. Asking numerous, useless questions (and I'm not suggesting that everyone, or even the majority, of questioners do) just puts unnecessary stress on the candidate. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen the glass question, but at least that's an obvious joke. I don't have a problem with jokes. (And incidentally, the glass isn't half full or half empty -- it's too big.) -- Captain Disdain 17:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Spurious questions should be boldly removed. If more than one user wants to read the answer, they may not be so spurious. But trusting every editor to show good judgement about when to further questions shouldn't be valued over trusting other editors to show good judgement about what questions to edit out of an RfA. Jkelly 17:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Replying to the original poster (oh, we have an article about that!), I like to assume good faith. I have noticed that people sometimes put questions like "Do you like coffee?" (an example about the tone, not about the question), usually after a batch of questions. I see them as a way of getting the candidate relaxed. Nobody expects him to answer "Yes, I like the Colombian, as it is softer to my taste than the Brazilian one. However, I must admit Maragogype is fairly superior Bourbon, thus I like spending some more dollars getting it." but instead "Nah, I want to sleep from time to time. You know, that thing we used to do for 8 hours every day before joining Wikipedia. Or having a baby." Removing these kind of questions, which may be considered off-topic or ridiculous, would only enhance the "seriousness" of the RFA, which was one of the complains of the OP (It's supposed to be no big deal.).

As for the standard list, there is no policy about candidates in Wikipedia, thus each of us is allowed to set his own standards. Someone people vote oppose in some RFAs because they think there are "too many Administrators already" or because "there is no way to remove a bad admin" (which I have read before, and could source if you really want me to). Others support people who have written a Featured article, while others vote just because the user has never been blocked and has done some good contributions, even if they make only 50 or 60 edits per month. That Standard list is just a collection of thoughts by people. I wonder how many of them do really vote in every RFA, applying their written standards. -- ReyBrujo 21:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mm. In case it's not immediately obvious, my main point is not really the questions, and even when it comes to the questions, my concern is not the coffee/half-full/half-empty/what superpower do you want questions. As I said, I don't mind jokes. That's all kind of beside the point. -- Captain Disdain 23:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As a long-time editor who is currently being run through one of the more bizarre gauntlet experiences that the RfA has become, might I propose we do a rework of the rationale for who should and shouldn't be an administrator? I think there should be a single major consideration:

Is there evidence that the user would abuse administrator tools?

If the answer is yes, then the user shouldn't be given those tools so we can spare ourselves the wasted time of endless dispute resolutions.

Possible ways to show whether or not this has occurred would be: a) the user hasn't been around long enough to determine the answer to the question, b) the user doesn't know what the administartor tools are, c) the user has behaved in a way that may indicate she/he is likely to abuse administrator toos. In my RfA, there are a number of votes that seem to indicate an extreme laziness on the part of the users who are voting. A large number if not majority of those opposing my request are doing so because my responses to the questions were too short! This is not even a stated criteria for gaining the tools. I think that people who hang out here at RfA need to get a wake-up call. We need to make it clear that administrator tools are not given when users reach featured status. They are given to users who demonstrate a desire to use the tools, know what they are for, and show evidence they won't abuse them.

--ScienceApologist 21:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Some RfA voters seem to have created unnecessary criteria. Wikipedia would benefit if all sensible people were admins, sharing the workload. People who abuse their status will lose their extra privileges. Stephen B Streater 21:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, all I have to say is this:

In the last two weeks, I have noticed the following:

An average of two or three backlogs (50+ CSD) per day in CAT:CSD.

Orphaned fairuse deletions three-four days overdue

AfDs four-five days old still open

A significant drop in admin percentage from .1 to .05

A significant drop in RfA success rate and RfA NOMINATIONS in general, actually causing some users to lose interest in the site

Anyone noticing a pattern here? We need more people to help clear the backlogs, because it's timely and boring work for just one or two admins — heck, in that respect, perhaps it's best that we put people who like doing tedious things in the adminship group! And this "Wikipedia edit" nonsense — how does editing a policy prove that a person adheres to policy? Heck, if they're going off and modifying policies left and right, that means that they are liberal and don't want to follow the current policy ammendments. That could actually be a bad thing. RfA is not a 45-day workplace evaluation to determine a pay raise. Granted, admins should be part of the cream of the crop, and yes, I expect administrators to help people out and set the standard of behavior on the site, which is why I oppose based on past issues and lack of experience, not amount of edits (unless it's very low). — Deckill e r 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done a little digging up as of early July 10 to see which of the new admins (post May 29) have been doing the deleting (the overwhelming number of admin tools) in File:Admin.sxc (OpenOffice) . Interesting to see some of the stats.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in a fairly unique position to see both sides of the fence, having had my first (self-)nom turned down very soundly 3 months ago, and having been sysopped just this morning with only 1 oppose.[1] 3 months ago I would have agreed wholeheartedly with Captain Disdain's viewpoint (and wikilawyered like mad to advance it). I'm not condemning it now, but I do see things more fully than I used to. One thing that is very misleading is that the guidelines on requirements for adminship are completely out of step with the actual practice, and as that is a practice evolved through consensus, it is going to stay. Simply showing you won't abuse the tools isn't enough any more, even if it was once. To a certain extent it is about jumping through hoops, but not for the sake of it.

Editors looking at a RfA want to feel confident in a candidate, and that candidate has to positively demonstrate competence, commitment and starting to work on some of the things that s/he will do as an admin (e.g. AfD). It's not the case that a candidate has to pretend to be a potential super(wo)man. In fact some of the positive responses I received were because I was quite frank about where I saw my current limitations and how I addressed them. Candidates pretending to knowledge which is beyond them, undermine their position.

As far as the questions go, I think it is fair enough that if someone wants the powerful tools to block, protect and delete, they should be prepared for whatever is thrown at them during the RfA for the few days it is in progress. If you get a dumb question, then that is a test of how you cope with such things. I disagree that there are pat predictable answers to questions that will get the thumbs up. That can have a hollow ring to it. Far better is a genuine, thoughtful, resourceful and innovative answer to a question, that shows a candidate is aware of the implications and has thought it through properly.

Basically, the requirements for adminship are what the editors taking part in the process want to see, and a number have stated what that is. If you want their support, then you have to meet their requirements, or you have to demonstrate other strengths sufficient to cause them to bend their own rules, and this certainly does happen. Following my first RfA, I decided I would try out the requirements stated by different editors. It was a good training course. I went into areas I might not have done otherwise, and learnt a lot from it. If I'd been sysopped initially, I wouldn't have abused the tools, but the intervening experience has made me in a much stronger position to use them - and even so, I realise there's still a lot to learn.

A reasonably all-round experience of wiki is obviously now required. It doesn't mean every single area, but it does mean a balance between project space and main space, as well as talk and usually a good number of edits and certain length of time in wiki. It also means behaving to the right standard in these levels, with e.g. civility. These experiences give a sound basis for the step to adminship. Vandal-fighting can take different forms. I don't do RCP, but I have a considerable watch list I check each time I log on, and there are usually reverts necessary (with the attendant warnings left on user talk). If an editor doesn't fight vandals in some form, it calls into question their involvement with articles, which is, after all, the purpose of the exercise at the end of the day. If there isn't this involvement with articles, then participating in AfD becomes a questionable exercise. So the different areas link in with each other. As far as the FA requirement goes, this is only applied by one or two people (who sometimes give a neutral anyway), so it's not a decisive factor, but it is a good encouragement to take an interest in the FA process. This also applies to other more arcane requirements, so highlighting them is a red herring.

Tyrenius 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't have a problem in my RfA, so I can't really say I've been on both sides of the fence — however, I nominated my friend Mipadi, and most of the oppose votes come from the fact that he has only 96 Wikipedia space edits. Which is quite interesting, since last time I checked, one doesn't have to write to be able to read, but that's just me (and that's why I prefer questions over edit counts in close cases). I like to see evidence of tedious work, for example, since most admin incompetence involves lack of work, not abusing the tools. — Deckill e r 22:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that users want less administrators, but rather that promoting a "bad" administrator usually ends up in some variety of spectacular fireworks, which alienate other editors. As a result, the base of users has become significantly more conservative as a means of self-defense. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Very true. Which, naturally, backfires in terms of backlogs and other things. I think the key is finding a balance (which I tried to do with my somewhat loose RfA criteria) to keep up with things. After all, if a store had a crazy janitor and doesn't hire any more, the place will stink and turn off more customers than, say, a crazy janitor would. — Deckill e r 22:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  - But where do you find that balance? That's the reason behind the criteria. You want to promote someone who has proven competent for the job, yet not make it impossible for editors to pass in borderline cases. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    - I should perhaps also stress that I don't have a problem with picking people who are capable of handling the responsibility (and, conversely, turning away those who aren't). I'm all for it. Rather, my point is that very little of the posturing during the RfA process actually seems to be designed to ensure that the candidates have that capability. I realize that in theory, all is well. In practice, the process isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing, and I can't help thinking that a big reason for that is that a lot of editors love to set standards that they can -- often kind of smugly -- tout. I'm not saying that those standards are necessarily bad in themselves (hell, it's not like I don't have my own standards); I just think that the way they're paraded around is demoralizing and turns the entire process into a kind of a grotesque circus. I find the declarations about whether someone's 200 Wikipedia project space edits are good enough to qualify for adminship tedious and silly. We're not talking about rocket science here. We're not handing anyone the keys to the protective cover over the Big Red Button. On admin level, Wikipedia is not a terribly complicated structure, and the admin stuff is not particularly difficult (or, perhaps even more importantly, irreversible). Yes, it requires that the editor in question is a) careful when doing whatever he's doing, b) willing to take the time to read the policy and other relevant documentation on whatever he's doing before doing so and c) smart enough to not go and do random admin stuff without understanding the consequences of what he's doing. But honestly? Getting all that down is not complex stuff. And I'm not even saying that the standards should be lowered, I'm saying that the way the process is being conducted feels ugly. To me, at least. -- Captain Disdain 23:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Entirely reasonable. As RFA is a beauty contest rather than an assessment of ones capabilities then inevitably it's going to beocme a question of chasing a range of arbitrary objectives. And from the look of the link it ranges from marginal to unreasonable. Still, the real question is 'What are admins actually for' and tbh it looks like an internal backsslapping convention, there are few enough that actually get on with the legwork. There whould be plenty admins to actually crack on with admin work, but mos don't seem to. The question is not,, have we got enough admins, but have we got enough admins actually using the facilities which being an admin brings!ALR 23:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said, which is why the current dillema is so great — we aren't promoting enough admins who are actually doing the jobs, perhaps because in the process of spending so much time tailoring their edits to meet criteria that they get burned out? Maybe; it could also be a lack of a decent promotion percentage, or a lack of nominations because of the lack of a decent promotion percentage. Or perhaps the lack of incentive? It could be any number (or a combination of) reasons. That's exactly why showing examples of tedious work is being implemented into my criteria. — Deckill e r 23:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a real problem. Perhaps we should make Wikipedia:What adminship is not clearer and required reading for all voters. It's Wikipedia equivalent helps a lot when certain users try to impose external values in articles. A similar technique could be helpful in weeding out the "external values" that have begun to crop up in usual suspect votes on RfA. For example, in my RfA I was accused of both being too eager to get administrator tools and not eager enough. I understand that a user should accept nomination which makes the intention to use the tools clear (along with the nomination statement and the responses to questions), but "eagerness" is a quality that doesn't really get at the fundamental issue that should be associated with oppose votes: is this user likely to abuse the admin tools? I have added some prose to the RfA page and to the "Admin not" page to begin the ball rolling on this problem. --ScienceApologist 09:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To add one more thing, I was discussing these problems with one of the people who supported my RfA and suggested on this user's talkpage that we start an RfC regarding this issue. This caused another round of voting against my RfA on the grounds that I was being hostile (assuming, maybe, that I was going to start a User-RfC on each and every user who voted against me.... I mean, come on, where's the good faith?). It might be a good idea to push this issue elsewhere on Wikipedia since not every user (surprise, surprise) frequents the RfA pages. This area of Wikipedia is starting to feel more like an autonomous feifdom and less like a simple place where we, as a community, try to decide whether people should get a set of admin tools. --ScienceApologist 09:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If the community is being over cautious to stop bad admins getting in, we should desysop some bad admins. Stephen B Streater 09:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If the current crop of administrators had to go through RfA today, would the majority of them be made administrators? If the answer is "no" (and I believe it is) then there is something wrong with the system and we need to change it. --ScienceApologist 19:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I've just had a quick look through your RfA. I'm sure some of it was a bit of a shock, but I earnesty advise you to study it carefully and take on board the advice given. Tyrenius 01:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see what your summary of the RfA is. If you want to let me know what specific advice I should take away from it, please let me know on my talkpage. --ScienceApologist 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And that response encapsulates why I don't support you, ScienceApologist. Rather than saying "Yeah, I will look into it, maybe there is stuff for me learn from!" You are basically saying "This is all BS, and I want you to point out to me how it isn't BS." Simply not the right attitude for an admin. Your pestering me on my talk page has gotten tiresome, using terms like "are you seriously" and telling me that i'm not allowed to find your attitude off-putting has basically pushed me over the edge. Please, step back, take a breath; stop automatically blaming everything - and everyone - else for this hicup on your road to adminship. Themindset 17:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a taste of the medicine you are prescribing is in order? In the past I expressed a disagreement towards your opinions and a disapproval of some of your interpretations, but your strawman arguments regarding what I am "saying" seem really out-of-line. I really am not "blaming" anyone for anything. I am saying that I don't understand what you are trying to say and this last post in particular seems to lack a level of civility -- which is a bit ironic considering how our discussions began. While I do question your judgements, I'm not taking anything out on you or "everything -and everyone". --ScienceApologist 20:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should all check out Curps's RfA. I seriously doubt that the same result would occur today. Another thing that bugs me is people voting oppose because the editor has too few "substantial" edits <cough>1FA</cough>. An administrator does not receive a magic pen, so if they are mostly doing cleanup/maintenance to articles and fighting vandalism, does that not make them better prepared for adminship than an editor who only writes articles? ...Sorry, I just had to get that rant off my chest. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should carefully study all the criticism/advice, put it into practice for 3 months and then you will be successful. Tyrenius 20:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, regardless of Mr. Lefty's own RfA, I think he's entirely correct here. Curps would never pass that RfA today -- not with a self-nomination that says, in its entirety, "I have been on Wikipedia since February 2004 and have a few thousand edits, and have a good understanding of how Wikipedia works." You'd get fifteen people piling on him and instantly accusing him of lack of interest in adminship or lack of experience with Wikipedia's policies or something along those lines.

Is replacing a pretty straightforward and bullshit-free process like Curps had with what we have now really something worthwhile? Is the quality of new admins now somehow considerably better than it was before? (Or, conversely, were there more abusive admins in the past than there are now?) -- Captain Disdain 03:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is an impressive, thorough and responsible assessment of candidates, and, furthermore, a level of feedback which will enable any unsuccessful candidate to gain all the direction they need for a subsequent successful return, if they are prepared to listen and put into practice what is said to them. That, at least, has been my experience. However, it can be quite a shock to the system at first, as a few illusions and delusions get shattered. Doubtless that is also good preparation. Tyrenius 04:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well. Not that there isn't valuable feedback in there as well, but overall, it seems to get lost in the noise. Of course, if the idea is to prepare the candidates for accepting that, say, they can't work with the AfD backlog unless they spend time trying to make something into a featured article or that their signature has something to do with whether they can block vandals, yeah, I'd say it's pretty good preparation. Personally, I don't think of that as an ideal set of circumstances, but we've already estbalished that much. The horse is getting kinda dead here, so I should probably stop beating it. =) -- Captain Disdain 07:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jumping through hoops to get access to parts of the Wikicode

Following my first RfA, I decided I would try out the requirements stated by different editors. It was a good training course. I went into areas I might not have done otherwise, and learnt a lot from it. If I'd been sysopped initially, I wouldn't have abused the tools, but the intervening experience has made me in a much stronger position to use them - and even so, I realise there's still a lot to learn. quoth :Tyrenius

Interesting issue. There definitely are people who are not familiar with various aspects of Wikipedia and would benefit from a walkthrough tour, of sorts. I don't think that making this a requirement for administrator tools makes sense though. This just strikes me as making more hoops for people to jump through and encourages a gaming of the system while people try to style their accounts to look like something that a "good admin candidate" would look like. That's really bordering on viewing adminship as a trophy, which is something adminship decidedly is not.

--ScienceApologist 14:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Widthdraw or fail?

I know my RFA wont succeed (ok, I still have hope =D) but I think it is better to "go down with the ship" than withdraw. I believe extremely strongly that I am a great candidate for admin.

However, what is the feeling here? Is is a bad thing to let your RfA fail? --mboverload @ 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My quick comment: no, it's not a bad thing to let your RfA fail. If you're upright enough to let it go full time and fail, good for you. Perhaps an oppose or support at the last minute will give you something to think about. Marskell 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Tough to say. One the one hand, there's a sense among some users that withdrawl shows a lack of "commitment" on the part of the candidate; on the other hand, some users will wield a failed RfA like a sword of Damocles in later RfAs. But a tactical withdrawl can be useful if your RfA is being disrupted/trolled; otherwise I'd say let the process continue to completion, and take the lessons learned for a future attempt (I haven't read yours lately, so I don't know what's going on there or what your current % is). -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. There are a few more oppose votes than support, however I think in a few months should a user nominate me again it will pass soundly.

I am utterly committed to this RfA and any future ones, but I don't want my steadfastness to be used against me even if it is a gross misrepresentation ex: "Doesn't know when to quit and back down" --mboverload @ 23:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at it now, I don't think 40% passing is something to be ashamed of. The ones I usually see get accused of obstinate tenacity are the 10% and less success stories... -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am proud of my RfA and the support votes I have gotten =D --mboverload @ 23:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

(many edit conflicts later) If not due a "technicisms" (where your nomination somehow messed up during generation), "real life" situations (where you will be unable to be around to answer questions, or must leave the project for some time) or "seconds thoughts" just after being nominated (in example, reminding your last RFA failed a month ago after someone nominated you), you should let the nomination end. Also, keep paying attention to your RFA: replying questions or fixing small format issues, updating tally if four or five "voted" and forgot to do it, etc. Remember, in the next RFA, the current one will be examined, and it never looks fine when you have stopped answering questions because it was already 1-9 three days after posting it. Finally, examining how people "vote" gives you hints about their behaviour, which may be useful when treating them in Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 23:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way you go is fine and will not reflect poorly on you. If you choose to withdraw, no problem. If you choose to stay, you should announce it here clearly, so any passing bureaucrats are more likely to leave it run its course. Of course if one chooses to close it, accept that decision without complaint. Feedback is good to receive especially once the pressure of succeeding is no longer upon you, take advantage of that.

It used to be one could wait one month before trying again, now it seems even a two month wait is too short for some (not for me though, it seems a silly measure). But do yourself a favor and don't rush to do RFA 2, wait three months to avoid the "too anxious to be an admin" label. I wonder what others think on this issue. NoSeptember 23:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

lol, is it too eager to be an admin if a different user wants to nominate me in 2 months? =D --mboverload @ 01:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally agree, but I have seen these comments and it takes so little to defeat a nominee. Most nominators will wait without withdrawing their offer to nominate you if you ask them to. The whole timing issue includes not accepting a nomination when you have been in a recent conflict in which you violated policy or got blocked and so forth. I'm talking in generalities of course. It depends on the candidate's situation, but if you fail the second time for whatever reason, it becomes harder to pass the third time, it is up to the candidate to only proceed when they are the most attractive as a potential admin. Declining a nomination or two can work wonders for you, look at CSCWEM and BD2412. NoSeptember 09:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually have feelings that are opposite most of the people here. One of the jobs of a admin is to be able to read consensus and act accordingly. I much prefer to see a candidate withdraw a failing RFA once the outcome has become obvious and the commentary associated with it has become stale. For me this is a sign of good judgment, maturity, and an interest in not wasting other people's time. I'm not saying that anyone needs to panic over an early negative response, but most failing RFAs are pretty well concluded by the fifth day or so. Dragons flight 23:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually, if the outcome (ie failing) is clear by the sixth or seventh day, we close the nomination. It is very rare (Durin can provide the stats) if not impossible to see a failing candidate (<70%) succeed on the final day. Another thing: The RFA is not a cumulation of support or oppose votes: Its a measure of aptitude, so leaving a badly failing candidature present for exactly 168 hrs is a waste of everybody's time and bandwidth. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

~~I don't like the insinuation that my RfA is a waste of time and bandwidth =(~~ --mboverload @ 10:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that he was insinuating that *your* RfA specifically was a waste of time/bandwith, but rather, that in many cases, once the outcome is obvious, it would be better for everyone involved to take part in some other activity (stub sorting or something, I don't know) rather than continue to pile on to a candiate, possibly damaging thier association with Wikipedia beyond repair. I would say that in a case where an RfA had gone nearly full term, and there was still useful commentary taking place, it should be left open; if there is nothing but "Oppose per ...", then the candidate isn't gaining anything, and leaving it open only provides them more opportunity to be hurt. If the RfA has made it past the first few days and the candidate is gaining something from the RfA, it's probably best left open. If not, there isn't any reason to leave it open and risk hurting the person. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

~~Ah ok. If you want to close the RfA a couple days early that's ok with me (I don't think we're there yet =D).~~ --mboverload @ 12:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, while I agree that it may be useful in some situations to close early, barring some extraordinary circumstance that I've yet to consider and/or don't remember having experienced, I don't close anything with less than 75% oppose. I consider that a safe level at which to keep everyone happy, as not everyone agrees with closing RfAs early, and while I may disagree, thier opinions are certainly valid. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. My criteria for closing early is at least 75% oppose, with a decent number of votes (I consider 1 support and 10 oppose after several hours to be a decent number). I use that standard because it is a reversal of the commonly-held "promotion standard" of 75% support before considering promotion. (Though RfA is not a vote, it's a consensus discussion.™) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can satisfy everyone here, you deserve to be an admin ;-) Stephen B Streater 08:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There's more evidence just posted that you should probably look at. I'm at 24-24 now =D --mboverload @ 05:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this RfA was lost largely on the information presented in oppose comment 2. As I have noted in my comments, I think the opposing party was disingenous in his very selective presentation of evidence. The evidence I presented showing the manipulation underway came so late in the game that this RfA was doomed. I expect the same person might try to settle scores again in the future. --A. B. 04:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

More issues with explaining votes

Let's look at my own RfA for example. A full-fledged majority of the voters opposed to me relied on some very bizarre explanations regarding that they didn't "like" the responses to the questions that I submitted to RfA. Okay, that's a fine opinion, but what does that have to do with whether I'm capable of handling rollback on vandalism patrol? I much prefer those people who state that they have concerns about my neutrality or they think that I might abuse one of the tools. There, at least, I can understand the reasoning and people can decide for themselves whether it is flawed or not. But simply making an oppose vote based on a "poor nomination" is definitely against the spirit of Wikipedia of accomodating those people who may not be up on the Wikiculture standards that have organically evolved but have not been stated anywhere. What does a "poor nomination" entail? Can anyone point me to a bit of prose that explains what distinguishes between these types of nominations? Let's make things as transparent as possible. This process is bordering on ridiculous especially considering that this is a process for deciding who should be given a certain set of edit tools. --ScienceApologist 18:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just an opinion. Right now it is possible to rollback with two clicks from a diff. I think popups allows you to revert with a single click. You don't need administrator tools to revert, I myself revert between 10 to 30 changes per day without patrolling, just by keeping my watchlist reviewed. Your statement "will probably help" is not as strong as stating "I will help", thus converting your answer to "I will use the administrators tools to revert changes." which is not really a motive to have these tools (see VandalProof or popups for others you may use). -- ReyBrujo 18:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rey, for this explanation, but I don't quite buy it. Of course, I could write external code to Wikipedia to do the equivalent of rollback, but this puts pressure on me when there is a tested, efficient, and time-saving Wikipedia code that does the job better without wasting more time for me to go through the task of dif-clicking, filling out edit summaries, etc which are handled in a single smooth move by rollback. As I stated in my nomination statement: I want to be efficient. This is fast going by the wayside for me. Unfortunately it looks like many of the people who inhabit RfA space aren't into efficiency but are interested instead in reading meaning into statements and lack of statements, if you get my drift. The syntactic differences between "I will help" and "Will probably help" is an honest distinction on my part. I could lie and state that I will join every Wikipedia project, welcome every new user, make every speedy deletion decision, and watch the noticeboard like a hawk, but that's simply not what I'm going to do. Instead, I anticipate doing exactly what I stated I will do. --ScienceApologist 19:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to write any external code - VandalProof and popups already exist, just use them. --Tango 20:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I know all about VandalProof and popups with both their joys and drawbacks. They are excellent external codes and fairly easy to implement, but they aren't ideal for users who jump from location to location when editting like myself. Implementing Vandalproof was cumbersome and I never got it to work right in every browser I used. I eventually abandoned the idea. Popups were a bit more stable for me, but I have had to turn them off a few times because they were destroying my memory. Rollback doesn't have either of these drawbacks. I thought since I'd been around long enough an RFA wouldn't hurt. Boy was I wrong. --ScienceApologist 20:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits to front matter

Discussion now continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter

I made some edits to the front matter of this page. You can see the differences here. I explain my edits below:

I'm trying to avoid more wikislang and in so-doing changed the word "admin" to "administrator".
The civility requirement for administrators should be up front and shouldn't be tied to the erroneous "official face" designation (which is actually not what an administrator is and Wikipedia has been blasted in the media recently for behaving in this fashion). Civility is important because lack of it is an instance of administrator abuse. That is to say, when an administrator uses a tool like deletion or blocking without also being civil, the administrator is disrupting Wikipedia. The power of the tools is not a statement of "officialdom"; it is a statement of the fact that certain editors can block, delete, etc. and others cannot.
As per this, I began to explain what the main criteria for Adminship is (per talk above). Consensus on the risk-assessment of Wikipedians is the primary goal of the RfA, is it not?
Reversibility and extra policy statements regarding seem superfluous to this page which is about "Requests for adminship". The "extra policies" really involve the unique character of the administrator tools and are summarized by the opening statements regarding civility and abuse.
I removed "you may nominate yourself" statement with its conflicting caveats. We may consider reinserting a statement that "you may nominate yourself" if we get queries into this, but I fail to see the utility in scaring people with "some people think this" and "some people think that" prose. What's more important anyway is that the nominator (either self- or otherwise) explains their rationale. This is one of the things that I was bitten on and I think it's more important than arguing over the relative merits of self-nominations.
Removed the offensive 75%-80% threshhold statement which encourages pile-ons in my opinion and replaced it with a statement about the rigors of consensus here at RfA. Consensus is at a higher threshhold, but tacking this number on in the directions is tacky even if it is the standard. It's the quality of the comments not the percentage of users that matter anyway, right?
Removed contradictory statements from the "who may comment" point. If users are allowed to comment on their own nominations, they're allowed to comment on their own nominations. What users are not allowed to do is have their votes of either support or oppose counted toward their own nominations. I moved that idea down to the "who may not vote" section where it makes considerably more sense.
Augmented the "explain your vote" section. This is something which I found to be the most frustrating thing about the whole RfA process was people posting comments that were simply mystifying to me, the unexperienced RFA nominee. I went to numerous userpages to try to figure out what people meant by their statements. The best explainers actually modified their statements when I asked for clarification (User:ragesoss). Others didn't seem to want to be bothered. This is something we should try to change.
Linked to civility in be respectful.

Please let me know what you think. --ScienceApologist 20:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Though I agree with the comment about FA, I don't know if it would be the best idea to have it up there. I'm guessing the RfA page should be somewhat neutral and maybe this could be rephrased without mentioning anything and just stating along the lines of, "An RfA should not be something that a user recieves as an award, but rather a motion to further participate in community tasks in a more responsible fashion." Just an idea, feel free to disregard. Yank sox 20:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying -- the point may seem a bit contrived, but I think that featured articles are a more visible part of Wikipedia than Administrators especially to newcomers. Making a constrating syllogism then only strengthens the community's position when we are confronted with people who speak of the Wikihierarchy or the "official face" problems I removed from other parts of the front matter. Featured articles are demonstrably better by consensus than articles that aren't featured. Administrators are not demonstrably "better" users, though, even though there is a strong undercurrent insinuating this in the RfA process. Get my drift? --ScienceApologist 20:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the edit is fraught with problems and should be reverted. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what are the problems with it? --ScienceApologist 20:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lethe. Specifically:

I don't understand what "Please note: A request for administrator privileges is not the user-equivalent of a featured article candidate" means. Its unclear and confusing.

"It is preferable to include a critique that is actionable rather than dismissive. If possible, avoid simply voting "per another user"."" Voting "per another user" can in fact be entirely appropriate, I don't see any reason to discourage it.

I don't understand why you removed the comments about self-nominations.

Given that 75%-80% is used as the level of votes required for consensus to be reached in RfA, I don't see why you have replaced that inforamtion with something more vague. This is a disservice to future candidate.

Gwernol 20:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Replaces a very standard turn of phrase "admin" with "administrator" in the interests of reducing jargon, then moments later uses "wikicode", which is not only not jargon, but as far as I know is not a word at all. Leastways, I've never used it.
Removing the threshold percentage is a terrible idea. The last time a bureaucrat violated this number, there was a huge stink. We're not creating policy with this page, we're describing it. This is a rather drastic change, and should have been discussed.
Superfluous wikilinking. We link to WP:NOT to show what adminship is not, but in fact, that page says nothing about what adminship is and is not.
Stilted writing: "Access [...] is granted when the consensus is shown to be that the user will not abuse" makes my head spin. And I'm not sure that's always the motivation driving the consensus.
Claim of "It is preferable to include a critique that is actionable rather than dismissive. If possible, avoid simply voting "per another user" is controversial and counter to existing practice. I make such input on RfAs all the time, and find it preferable to do so. Sometimes "per another user" is explanation enough. Let the bureaucrat decide what this means about consensus.

In fact, I find it hard to find any part of the edit that I like. Hence I think the whole thing ought to be reverted. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Without reading all the points listed above in this thread... Any attempt to define for everyone what the "correct" standards are or should be in RfA will not fly, we have too many opinions. RfA works on consensus with each person bringing their own rules to the table, and the overall community standards vary over time (right now we are very tough on nominees, a few months ago, we were not). We can debate it endlessly, but we will not agree on a set of standards that all must follow. NoSeptember 20:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To Gwernol -- all good suggestions.

I'll remove the "A request for administrator privileges is not the user-equivalent of a featured article candidate." I think it is illustrative, but apparently it is too distracting.
While it is perfectly acceptable to vote per another user, I think it is much better to encourage people to explain their votes. The statement right now is a suggestion for how to help people who are applying for adminship. It isn't meant to be punative. Does it come across as such?
The comments about self-nominations in the previous version were contradictory. They said you could self-nominate and then said some people dislike it and other people like it. How does this help a potential nominee at all? We might want to include a statement declaring that self-nominations are allowed, but do we need all this stuff about how people may or may not perceive this? I will include the statement that self-nominations are allowed to accomodate a better sense of what a self-nomination entails.
I understand that 75%-80% is the level of votes usually required for consensus on RFA, but given that Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is very crass for us to make this statement. This encourages gaming the system if we codify this level of support. Making a statement that consensus is stronger at RfA than elsewhere is great, but I suggest that including the 75% to 80% statement here is not only unneccessary but causes problems. After all, a nominee cannot "make" 75%-80% of the votes swing in their direction. I hope you can understand my rationale for this. I think it is very important.

--ScienceApologist 20:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You are falling into the trap of trying to describe what (you think) RfA should be rather than what it is. RfA has a threshold, and whether you think it should or not, whether you think it violates the no democracy policy, is not particularly relevant. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that RfA should or shouldn't have a threshhold. I'm merely saying that either we are following consensus or we're not. I'm happy to entertain the idea that this is actually a place where consensus isn't addressed and instead voting occurs. Then we should be explicit in stating this. Does this sound good? --ScienceApologist 21:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On the 75%-80% issue. When there is a candidate for bureaucrat, this issue gets discussed, and we only approve new bureaucrats who agree to the (now) long standing standard. We could as a community change our mind if we wanted to, but I don't see a rush of people ready to do that. Whether it is technically a super-majority or a consensus is not that relevant. NoSeptember 21:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. I think this should be added into the description then. --ScienceApologist 21:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly is it that you are saying should be added? "It is not relevant whether this is a consensus or a supermajority"? This seems like needless jargon to me, something I thought you were trying to fix. What purpose would this addition serve? -lethe ^{talk +} 21:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We should be clear that 75% is a strict requirement as per bureaucratic fiat. Right now we are weasly about it. I'm rewriting it for your consideration as we discuss.--ScienceApologist 22:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To Lethe

Admin is a shorthand, but why not allow for the actual position to be named? Wiki is nothing more than a computer code and access to parts of the code is all an administrator technically is. I really don't understand this "jargon" objection. It seems to be based not on helping the person going through the RfA but more on what you seem to be personally comfortable with.
I'm not suggesting that anybody violate the threshhold number. Instead, since this is a description of Requests for Adminship (not a description for how Adminship is granted) it should be handled with kid-gloves. I have no problem with the threshhold as a issue for who gets adminship. I do have an issue with the promotion of something that Wikipedia is most decidedly not.
There is no link to WP:NOT.
I'm sorry you consider my prose stilted, but the very definition of Administrators as per the descriptions is that they have certain tools that they can use. Consensus is built around the definition of administrator, it isn't built around vague feelings of comaraderie towards the nominee, you see what I'm saying?
Are you seriously arguing that encouraging people to explain their votes with more than ibids is controversial? We aren't saying that saying "per other" is not allowed, only that in light of common courtesy and not biting newcomers it is preferable to avoid uninspired explanations.

I also think that you have ignored many of the other issues I addressed with my attempt to describe the process better. I'm more than willing to collaborate, but I find your unilateral reversion and condescending tone to be a bit lacking in such a spirit.

--ScienceApologist 21:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Adminship has nothing to do with access to source code. I can't really understand what you're saying now.
I disagree with your kid-gloves idea. We should describe how the process works.
You are correct. That was a mistake on my part, for which I apologize.
You seem to be attempting to pigeonhole the reasons for promotion. This is probably impossible, so let's not try. Let's not say what the consensus is about other than the fact that some user ought to be promoted. In the mean time, you might want to practice writing shorter sentences.
Yes, I am seriously arguing that. Ibids are perfectly reasonable in a wide number of situations.

I am sorry you despair of the prospect of collaborating with me, but I do not think it's fair to call my revert unilateral, considering that the proposal to revert was seconded by another user, and that overall reaction to your edit has not been very enthusiastic. As for my condescending tone, I do apologize and I will try to keep that in check. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To lethe

Adminship does have to do with access to certain parts of the code that are not accessible to most users. In particular, most users do not have access to deletion and blocking parts of the code.
Alright, it's clear now that the major ideas behind WP:CON are handled differently here. I appreciate the input into this.
--
I don't want to pigeonhole the reasons for promotion, but we should describe why people get promoted. It's unfair to have a Request for Adminship without explaining who becomes administrators, isn't it?
Ibids may sometimes be reasonable, but is it really problematic to encourage users to explain their edits with more than ibid? If so, why?

I don't despair in the prospect of collobrating with you as long as you continue to dialogue with me on these matters.

--ScienceApologist 21:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Admins have access to certain features of the software and certain user interface elements. Your use of the word "code" and "wikicode" has mightily confused this issue for me. Perhaps in the spirit of unnecessary jargon (your original point) we can agree not to use these words, which don't really mean what you think they mean. It would be nice if we could describe who gets promoted, but the criteria are so varied that such a description would be impossible. So let's not have one. Yes, I consider the addition of encouragement not to use "per above user" votes problematic. This is unnecessary instruction creep. Why should we encourage users not to do something which in many cases they indeed ought to do? I'm happy to have a dialogue with you, though allegations of condescension have already cast their pall over my relations with you. And I will revert when I think it is necessary. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On not using wikicode --> I am amenable to this. Would you object to phrasing such as "While administrators are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia" since they have access to more wiki functions.."?

on criteria for adminship --> I understand that the criteria are wide and varied. However, do you object to the statement that "Access to the administrator tools is granted when the consensus is shown to be that the user will not abuse the administrator functions." This appears to me to be a rather innocuous and accurate description of most people's summaries of their ideas behind who becomes administrators. I could be wrong. Let me know. We should be thinking of trying to balance the interests of people who come here wondering what kind of people become administrators and what the general consensus is on this subject. I could be wrong, but I do think there is an overarching consensus on good versus bad candidates. It isn't totally arbitrary.

on instruction creep --> Instruction creep is to be avoided and I totally support you on this. I don't however view a suggestion as being an instruction. I definitely think that well-explained votes are more valuable to the nominee than ibids. What is so controversial about stating this?

on assuming good faith --> If you don't take things personally I won't. I like to assume good faith whenever possible. I certainly have no problem with you reverting, but I will complain if I think it was inappropriate. Thanks for your help in this matter. --ScienceApologist 22:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not to enamored with the phrase "wiki functions" either. What about something mundane like "administrative features of the MediaWiki software"? About criteria: well, I'm not crazy about it, because that's not necessarily what consensus is meant to determine. Incorporating also a linguistic suggestion, let me suggest instead of "the consensus is shown to be that the user will not abuse...", how about "consensus is established that the user will employ administrative functions responsibly" or some variation thereof. And about the suggestion against ibid votes: it is helpful when the user explains their position, but there are reasons not to do so and suggestions have a way of becoming de facto rules. I might support a milder statement such as "consider that your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence" or something. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions all. I will try to incorporate them into a new draft subject to your approval. Thanks so much for your help. --ScienceApologist 14:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT has nothing to do with adminship or trophies. Please stop linking to a page that contains no information relevant to the link! -Splash - tk 15:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT is not linked anywhere on that page. --ScienceApologist 17:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That is because I have removed twice, after you added it in twice. -Splash - tk 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the history and we never linked to WP:NOT. You removed the link to Wikipedia:What adminship is not. --ScienceApologist 18:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies; I didn't read it carefully enough I suppose, owing to the nature of the linkage. -Splash - tk 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

hash it out first

I am increasingly concerned about the edits being made to front matter. Recently, we've included "consensus is 75 percent of the votes made in support of the nominee". This is inaccurate, in part because RfA is not a vote and in part because it ignores the role of bureaucrats in reviewing RfAs in determining consensus for fraudulent votes, repeat votes, etc. Rather than the rash of changes that are happening to front matter, can we please revert back to the original state and hash it out further here as to exactly what we want to say first before hand please? --Durin 18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Durin; my only concern is whether the drafting belongs here or at Front matter's talk page. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we get rid of the redirect back to this page? --ScienceApologist 20:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes. We can probably copy most of the dialogue here to [front matter's talk page] and continue the discussion there, since that is the page that will ultimately be edited when we come to consensus. I'm interested in the edits you want to make/problems you see with the page, but I don't think throwing RfA's instructions into a state of flux while we work out the best version is healthy. I'll wait to hear from at least one or two more people before starting such an edit discussion there, though. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with the ideal that RfA instructions should not be in a state of flux. I'll wait along with you. --ScienceApologist 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Above you said you'd be "will try to incorporate them into a new draft" - did that ever go anywhere, or would you rather wait/star from scratch on the other talk page? I don't want to duplicate effort if you've got a subpage of your own that you're making notes on. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not create a subpage, though I can see why you might think I did. All of the modifications were done at the conclusion of the discussions with the editors who made the helpful comments. Currently, the only misleading item included on the frontpage, in my opinion, is the parenthetical about the 75% threshhold. I'm of the opinion we should state this more plainly since it is a pretty strict criteria (it certainly isn't a "rough" approximation as the wording now puts it). I'm not sure, but I would say that this is the only bit that's left outstanding in the editting process. It may be that we don't need to create a proposal subpage since consensus may have been reached. Cross reference the edits to Front Matter with the comments on this page to see if you agree. --ScienceApologist 14:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The 75% metric is rough. Admins have been promoted below that threshold before, and some above 75% and below 80% have not been promoted. Furthermore, the over emphasis on 75% as being the magic bar depreciates the fact this this is a consensus building mechanism, not a vote. Bureaurcrats have discretion in discounting/emphasizing aspects of an RfA in the name of evaluating consensus, most especially when RfAs are close. There is no lock-step value that a bureaucrat must adhere to regardless of any other factors. If that were the case, we could just have a bot do promotions and we would not need bureaucrats. --Durin 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The 75% thing, whilst supported widely in the community and enough to sink an RfB, has not been announced by fiat by the bureaucrats, since they lack the authority so to pronounce. -Splash - tk 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. Might it be possible to make the wording a little less weasly than it is currently? We shouldn't lead people on into believing they'll pass an RfA with less than 75%, should we? --ScienceApologist 20:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than the rash of changes that are happening to front matter, can we please revert back to the original state and hash it out further here as to exactly what we want to say first before hand please? --> Right now, the front matter version is basically back to what it was before with regards to the 75% issue. I still would like to discuss more (see above), but are the other edits really so problematic as to inspire a complete trashing of the edits? Do we really want to reintroduce contradictory statements and misplaced discussion of whether the nominator votes count or not? --ScienceApologist 20:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion now continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter

Extending an RfA duration?

I didn't see anything in the rules, but is there a precedent for extending the length of an RfA? I'm not requesting anything at the moment, just wondering. --mboverload @ 05:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of any official policy or guideline, but there has been a case where the length has been extended slightly. It was hard for the bureaucrats to determine consensus, and so they wanted to extend the RfA to see if consensus could be more easily determined. See the case here. DarthVad e r 07:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If an RfA is rapidly changing, for example many users are changing to Oppose due to a civility related issue brought up then I think it is extended to see how many do go to oppose. Because if someone brought up a major problem regarding the user on the last hour of the RfA, users wouldn't get a chance to change to oppose.--Andeh 09:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If at the would-be closing time there is clear indication that the consensus-building process is very much underway (if some relevant piece of information has just been brought up, for instance), a Bureaucrat may extend the RfA so as to avoid cutting short the relevant process. The particular direction in which the RfA may be going (succeed or fail) is not decisive in this, but rather whether or not there is a relevant development that will determine wheather or not the community wants the candidate to be promoted that would be abruptly interrupted if the RfA were to be closed at the time originally designated. We only do that in special situations though, and notably when the outcome of a RfA might depend remarkably on the outcome of the developing situation. Anyone is welcome to call our attention to a situation where an extension could be necessary, but as a rule we do not extend RfAs on request. Redux 12:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

At one time, we experimented with extending close calls by a day to see if a clear consensus was reached, but this almost never produced a clear consensus. Warofdreams talk 12:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it Redux. --mboverload @ 18:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected.

Why can't I edit?

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scarbor

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bling-chav (2nd time) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.51.100 (talk • contribs) .

~~Why would an IP user want to edit the base RfA page?~~Why do you - as an IP user - wish to edit this page? --mboverload @ 11:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps to correct a typo, or grammatical error. Please assume good faith. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that there was additional trolling attached to this IP's edit, which mboverload removed before he added the unsigned template. Trolling from some IPs hurts the legitimate efforts of other IPs. NoSeptember 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the response could have been neutral and factual, instead of accusatory. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can assume that the reply was made with an accusatory tone. It can be read as a neutral question probing for the IP's motive, and we should AGF that it was. NoSeptember 16:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

All I asked was why an IP user would wish to edit a page like Request for adminship. I should have said: Why do you - as an IP user - wish to edit this page? Your point is valid Nae'blis, even though I may disagree with your interpretation. --mboverload @ 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, hope I didn't come off as overly bitchy. If it was me, I might have explained briefly the "technical" reasons they can't edit, and then asked what they wanted to change. But looking closer at the other edits NoSeptember mentions, I can see why you might have been suspicious of that particular IP (I came back here to say that they'd made good edits elsewhere, then realized that even the one I thought wasn't vandalism from 7/10, got reverted by another user as factually incorrect). Meh. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Same reason anyone edits RFA. I do vaguely recall "anyone can edit" as a rule someplace? Kim Bruning 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you go back to the diff link by anon, s/he is actually referring to two closed RFAs. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed them because I wasn't quite sure why he inluded them when it says right there on them to not modify it and why, and he's asking why he cant. --mboverload @ 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Most people edit RFA either to add their nom (IPs can't be admins, so it can't be that) or to remove noms (IPs can't be buros, so it can't be that). "Anyone can edit" is about the encyclopedia, not the behind the scenes stuff. There is no need for an IP to be able to edit the base RFA page, which is why it's semi-protected. Asking why he wanted to edit it was a perfectly legitimate question. --Tango 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What? "Anyone can edit" is about being a Wiki, which prefix turns up on every page I ever visited round here. Suggesting that we have ever had a philosophy of "most people can't edit because they don't have an account" in Wikipedia space is news to me. -Splash - tk 16:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place to argue about protection policy. What I meant was that all main space pages should be unprotected unless there is a specific reason to protect them (eg. vandalism), because it's important that everyone can edit the encyclopedia. Wikipedia space pages can be protected as long as there isn't a reason for people to need to edit them, and in this case, there is no reason for IP users to edit this page. --Tango 17:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a location where anyone has advocated such an interpretation of the guidelines. Perhaps I missed it. Could you explain where this has been stated? Kim Bruning 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen it in writing anywhere, but the simple fact that RFA is semi-protected would seem to suggest such an interpretation. I don't recall large amounts of vandalism here, so what reason is there to protect? The only reason I can see is that there isn't a reason not the protect. --Tango 19:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, page protection is considered harmful. Unless someone supplies a good reason, we can probably unprotect it. Kim Bruning 19:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is our returning Bling-chav/RfA troll who's latest incarnation I blocked this morning (WP:ANI). Let's not reward him by obsessing over his latest trolling. NoSeptember 16:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Templates

I created a few templates we can use so we don't have to copy-and-paste the code for a successful and failed RFA ever agian.

You can add {{SuccessfulRFA}} for the top half of a successful RFA
You can add {{FailedRFA}} for the top half of a failed RFA
You can add {{RFA-discussion}} for the bottom half of all RFA's since they say the same thing

Enjoy! — The King of Kings 18:58 July 10 '06

Oh, and I was thinking about the creation of a category to place at the bottom of {{RFA-discussion}} so we can keep track of RFA's better. — The King of Kings 19:01 July 10 '06

Such templates already exist... look at the instructions to burocrats. --Tango 19:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To be precise: {{rfap}}, {{rfaf}} and {{rfab}}. --Tango 19:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

:-( Oh well, how about a category to keep all the RFA's in one place, does that exist already? — The King of Kings 19:10 July 10 '06

Uh, how about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship followed by a forward slash and the the editor's username?! -Splash - tk 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey... cut him some slack Splash. Especially considering it's his first edit anniversary. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest - Front matter

Would it not be considered a conflict of interest for an editor to edit the Front matter while there is an RfA on said user in progress? Themindset 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer it didn't happen, yes. Changing the rules while trying to follow them is one of the things I see users scream about most for rouge admins. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly am not trying to change any rules and this page is supposed to be simply a description of the process which I have found to be extremely inaccurate from personal experience. --ScienceApologist 19:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to make such changes after your RfA is closed? Themindset 19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? I noticed some things wrong with the description of the RfA process and I tried to fix them. I'm not saying my edits were perfect, but I hope we have an improved description now after having a discussion and an interesting exchange over the vagueries of some of the finer points. If the consensus is that my edits are problematic, then the whole point of the wiki is that others will notice the problems and help to fix them. The spirit of Wikipedia is to be bold, after all, so I'm a bit uncomfortable with the accusation of a "conflict of interest". After all, the description of the RfA process has no bearing on whether my RfA passes or fails. The beauty of wiki is its transparency. If I was gaming the system, you should be able to articulate it. --ScienceApologist 20:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I made no mention of gaming the system. My point stands. Themindset 20:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why a conflict of interest would matter if not for concerns of gaming the system. Please explain. --ScienceApologist 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what, if you refuse to identify it as being somewhat inappropriate based on common sense, then you good for you. But perhaps you should recognize, at the very least, that it might appear distasteful to others. And if you can't recognize that, please don't ask me to explain it. Themindset 22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to base my conclusions about the intent of editors at Wikipedia on the actual content of their edits and an assumption of good faith. --ScienceApologist 22:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it more inappropriate for ScienceApologist, a nom, to edit than for other users that are participating by leaving comments to achieve consensus? RFA is a community activity, right? FloNight ^talk 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Were the edits an improvement? :-) Kim Bruning 20:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship semiprotected?

I don't really see a reason for that right now. The default and preference is not to protect, right? Has that changed?

I haven't found any wording about that anyplace. I take it we can unprotect then?

Kim Bruning 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am personally in favour of (semi-)protecting, but since I have yet to see a consensus to protect, I decided to be bold and unprotected the article from editing. Protecting this page from being moved makes sense, though. I've seen a couple of times when this page was moved to various notes of profanity, and there's no need for this page to be moved anywhere for now. What do y'all think about the move-protection? I don't care if we remove all protection, but I think the move protection at least makes sense. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Move protection seems good (I'm assuming on how this works, of course), as any changes to where this is located will come after considerable community deliberation and consensus. Semiprotection may be a good way to prevent drive-by vandalism and snowball's-chance RfAs for raw newbie users/sockpuppets, but it's worth a try at being unprotected. The "pages that stand a risk if they're left unprotected" seems to mainly encompass templates, which may not be watchlisted with the same frequency as the articles they're transcluded in. Obviously that's not the same situation as here. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason not to protect, so why risk the possibility of preventable vandalism? --Tango 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The default is actually to not protect unless there's a strong overriding reason. Hence. Kim Bruning 10:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
My issue at the time, and I forgot I even protected it since it was so long ago, was that moves were uneccessary and occasionally maliciously done, and IPs and very new users would randomly put of misformed RfA's either as some sort of test/joke/trolling. This page consist of A)two template inclusions that have the procedure text, located on the template pages, and B)the list of transluded RfAs. A new user should never be added/removing any, so there really is nothing to edit here. I suppose someone could always spend the time to revert that stuff, but whatever, I don't care much as long as it is move protected.Voice-of-All 01:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The only problem is when when IP's want to leave comments (a very rare case). Is there some way that the entire page be sprotected except for the comments section? --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 04:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a problem because all nominations are on subpages that are not protected. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of defaulting to no protection (especially in article space, to a lesser degree in Wikipedia namespace), unless there is a good reason. In this case, I think there is a good reason to semi-protect. As has been pointed out above, I can't see any reason for an IP to edit the main RFA page (as opposed to the subpages), as only registered users can be nominated and sprotecting prevents invalid nominations and vandalism. If people can come up with any good reasons as to why IPs might need to edit the main RFA page then I'd be quite happy to say keep it unprotected unless there was a particular attack of vandalism (same as articles), otherwise I see no reason why it can't just be semi-permanently sprotected. Petros471 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
That's because you first made a box, and then put your brain inside it (thinking inside the box of your own making ;-) ). Just because can't quite see it doesn't mean it hasn't always been there. ;-) I can name 5 different reasons off the top of my head. Can you? (it's a challenge!)

Slightly offtopic... : Once upon a time it was my dream to make it to admin status without once logging in, just to spite RickK. (this was certainly possible at the time, I didn't make it because I started editing from univeristy, and all the different IPs got confusing). I'm sorry to see that RickKs ideas have caught on more than mine anyway, despite the fact that he's even left wikipedia! Kim Bruning 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I like challenges (though I admit I'm not the best at out-of-the-box thinking, self imposed or otherwise :) Well before posting the above I got as far as thinking 1) Correcting typo's in the small amount of text that is on that page. On thinking further I've got to 2) Adding inter-wiki language links. I also had thought about anons nominating someone else, but that doesn't count as nominations have to be made by a user (both practically in creating a new page and in policy "Any user in good standing may nominate any user." What are your 5 then? Petros471 21:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Succesful RfA's

If I wanted to read a user's RfA from the past, how would I find it? Are succesful RfA's stored and is there a list that I can't find cos I'm being really dumb? --Robdurbar 22:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your best chance is going to be to look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Their user name - if you end up with a failed first attempt, then try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=Requests+for+adminship%2F_______&namespace=4 but replacing the _____ with the first few characters of their username. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You're looking for Wikipedia:Recently created admins. It contains links to all the successful RfAs. For those that failed, see Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. Ziggurat 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You can also look in the The NoSeptember Admin Project. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 04:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are looking for a specific person, Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies works fine for failed RfAs, but Wikipedia:Recently created admins is not alphabetical, but rather chronological, making it harder to look up. You can use List of Admins (with promotion date) to get the promotion date though. NoSeptember 05:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ctrl + F" + username also works well on Recently created admins. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Horizontal rule

A very minor point, but should there be a horizontal rule (----) immediately after "", preceding the first nom on the page? I ask this because my bot will currently ignore the first nom if it is left out, and I was under the impression that it was a standard part of the formatting. It has been removed a number of times recently by people adding their noms, and I feel there should be some discussion about this. Personally, I think it looks more aesthetically pleasing with the horizontal rule, but any input would be appreciated. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 10:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering why noms didn't appear immediately on your bot report page- I though there was some sort of lag (deliberate or otherwise)... Yes, there probably should be a hr, but maybe if it's an easy fix you should make your bot pick up the RFA even if there isn't one? Petros471 17:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me...

Is it just me, or does the success of many RfA's depend primarily on name recognition? I ask this because my RfA did not reach consensus, as too many people felt I was too new (I'd been around since the end of January), but Kylu's current RfA is snowballing to success, and she's been around since April. I know she gets around more than I do, but still, I feel that many RfA's depend on popularity rather than how well they'd use the tools. Anyone else think so? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC) (Not that I think Kylu would abuse the tools, nor do I think less of her, it's just an example.)

No, I wouldn't say primarily on name recognition. I'm sure it is a contributing factor though, and yes people who appear a lot in high visibility admin areas do tend to have a successful RFA earlier than otherwise. People are more likely to support if they recognise the name and see lots of good work associated with it. If you've less experience in the 'admin areas' then you are likely to be less recognised, but you will also have less edits in those areas for people to look at and judge you on- experience shouldn't be counted just on time around, or edit count- it's what you've done, how many different situations you've experienced. Also looking back at your rfa I see there were other reasons that it failed (like that page move incident). That make sense? Petros471 17:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely does, in a big way - and in some cases has descended into a populatiry contest rather than a measure of potential to be a hard-working admin. To be honest, the difference between a person who passes 25-0 and another at 100-0 may be misleading, because I can think of some cases where the more supported admin did little admin work, whereas the other may have been gnoming around a lot. The same goes for barnstars. Having said that, any appropriate candidate will pass, although the percentage is important, not the raw number of votes. Anyway, Kylu had done less than Srikeit - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Srikeit, who got pummeled. Also compare Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the number of supports (and therefore how likely an RFA is going to reach WP:100) is very strongly related to name recognition. That's obviously very nice for those people being supported, but shouldn't be used as an indicator that they will make better admins. On the other hand I generally think that the right result (promote or not) is made in most cases, especially if you don't consider making someone wait a few more months if their first RFA is a bit on the early side to be a major problem. As with anything, there are exceptions... Petros471 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, very true - there is a massive block vote to be had at Esperanza as well as marketing yourself on IRC. I did create an Open Office spreadsheet to she which of the new admins did the work, and compared them to their "support" and there are massive disparities in the popularity stakes and actually doing work. File:Admin.sxc. This has basically lead to a glut of cosmetic admins, but also seems to have left guys like Sam Vimes and Christopher Sundita under a very harrowing process, whereas some others don't ever get questioned at all due to their popularity.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would go along with the fact that name recognition probably has more effect on how early a candidate will be promoted, rather than whether they will be promoted. Incidentally this is also why I believe requirements have been steadily rising. As the number of active editors increases so the mutual familiarity amongst these editors decreases, I am here assuming that people are more willing to cut some slack to people they know at some level than people they have never encountered - I am not questioning this practice, it is only natural. From personal experience, I think the major contributors were better known to each other in the past than they are now, therefore admin standards were lower then than they are now. This is also why regulars on IRC probably get in earlier than other editors - rather than being a cabal, it is just people supporting people they personally know aren't jerks. Having said all this, the cream will eventually rise to the top; just because the process is systemically flawed, it doesn't mean all those who are rejected are necessarily incapable, unwanted, or worse. Rje 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of overwhelming the thread with entirely too topical examples, I would say that User:Wknight94, as a guy who edits relatively obscure articles and does a lot of maintenence, has very little name recognition (the dead giveaway is that no one has given a "thought you were already an admin" support yet). But he's currently unopposed anyway. So it's not purely "voting for people I've heard of", although you might say editcount is the other key factor. And so what, really? We tend to remember people's names if they either do something we really like, or really don't like. It's only natural that without name recognition, a "great" edit count, or a small number of really stand-out article edits, noms will struggle. --W.marsh 00:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also Edgar181 with his 140 chemistry articles - I was the first (of only two) person to give him a barnstar - and I randomly hunted around for unsung heroes. He's done a lot more procedural and article work than 95% of the people who are more popular than him. Some people seem to do 3000 small edits with only 3 or 4 articles and seem to get coronated very with much fanfare.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A question

The following was found hidden beneath the redirect line on Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship, which redirects to here: Russ Blau (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This just occurred to me today. It's not major or anything though. It concerns second, third (etc) RfA noms. The format is WP:RfA/Username 2 is it not? But what if a user's username was - say - Gregory 2? (Don't ask me why I chose Gregory...) Their first nom would look like their second. As *fD noms are listed as * (second nomination) wouldn't it make sense to list RfAs like that? Jm2p. — G a rykirk | ^talk! 18:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the second would have another 2... Michael 03:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the situation is hypothetical enough to not worry about it. Should Gregory 2 decide to run for adminship, the nomination could clearly state that this was Gregory's first nomination, the username would clarify that to the voters. I don't think voters ever base their vote on the title of the nomination itself, so it shouldn't be an issue. If we would 'fix' this now, that would definitely make searching for old second nominations more complicated (was this guy's second nomination listed under 'John Doe 2' or 'John Doe (second nomination)'?), which seems like a lot of hassle for a very hypothetical problem. --Joanne B 10:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TPIRFanSteve

Hi folks. I just removed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TPIRFanSteve from the listings.

There appears to be no communication between the nominator and the nominated.
The nominator is a brand new user.
The nominated hasn't a snowball's chance.

Would a b'crat like to consider properly closing and deleting the page?

Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 13:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, it's not been accepted, so it's doing no harm, and hasn't really been "opened" in order for it to be "closed." If the user accepts and lists it, then we can reconsider the matter. Essjay (Talk) 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sensible. Cheers, Essjay. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)