Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:38, 5 January 2008

There is currently a request for comment open looking at the request for adminship process. Please participate at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship‎.

Archives

For discussions from June 2003 till just before what's in this page, see /Archives. RFA discussions before June 2003 took place on a mailing list. RFA-related discussions may also be found at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

• ]

Voting before Transclusion

I don't usually complain about things I see on an RFA, but this was ridiculous. Seven people voted support before the page was transcluded, and five came before the candidate had accepted the nomination or answered the questions. If someone had opposed before the questions were answered or nom accepted, he'd get scalded for it. Something needs to be done about situations like this. Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/nominate used to say not to vote before transclusion, but the wording was softened a few hours before the RFA in question was created. As a side note, I would've brought this up earlier, but didn't feel it would be fair to Mattinbgn. Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 12:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but how does it matter that people start before? Redrocketboy 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Some feel that users are reluctant/hesitant to oppose if they see a lot of support. Some feel it skews the RfA in that subsequent participants don't look closely enough at the nom to make an informed decision. Dlohcierekim 16:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't say it happened in the RFA I pointed out, but a nominee could use it to gain too much support for the opposition to have a chance. And like I said, 5 people voted before the nominee answered even answered a question, what would happen if someone opposed before that? Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with !voting before the page is transcluded on to the main RfA page; if anything, its a good thing — as if people comment before transclusion, it will prevent the user from receiving more criticism, thus potentially preventing new users from becoming upset and/or leaving over an RfA. Qst 17:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of flaws with RfA at the moment, but I do not think this is one of them. Voting before or after transclusion or whether or not the candidate has accepted will make little or no difference to the final outcome. Lradrama 18:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think voting before transclusion is ok, but maybe instead of voting before it's been accepted should be replaced with friendly notes convincing the user to accept the RfA, or something. J-ſtan_{User page} 18:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As Sasha wrote: "Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/nominate used to say not to vote before transclusion, but the wording was softened a few hours before the RFA in question was created." But few lines earlier in another section, the same page still says: Please double check your RfA to make sure there are no votes on the page before it is "transcluded" (added to the main RfA page). I took this literally and asked a supporter in my RfA to revert the vote for now (he/she did and later supported again). Shouldn't the text say what, if anything, to do if there are votes? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, voting before the RFA is transcluded is a terrible idea. See this RFA which, how quickly we forget, was delivered to the community with 60 support votes pre-loaded and failed as a result. If you keep the RFA un-transcluded you can control who sees it, more or less, and set it up so just likely supporters see it. No one wants to be the first to make a serious oppose to a popular RFA... so engineered RFAs are a real danger. RFA is about getting community feedback... not figuring out clever ways to make sure just your friends know there's a ballot box to stuff. --W.marsh 01:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding CSCWEM... He withdrew it after 3 (3) opposes, and succeeded subsequently. I wouldn't say it 'failed' and certainly the community viewed him as an acceptable administrator. Isn't that the point? Avruch 02:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not one for policy and such (big shocker, I know), but why set time limits if pre-voting can occur? Formal debates and discussions have definitive time frames - beginning and end. I see NO harm in adhering to these limits, but I do see users feeling ostracized from ignoring these limits. It's not policy, but I really think it should be, and until then, I think people should use their discretion by not voting until it's officially announced - which would seem to fall in line with the spirit of the format. the_undertow 01:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to echo W.marsh and The_undertow. They sum up how I feel, exactly. --Deskana (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that if it's been confirmed that the nominated has confirmed their nomination beforehand, the nominator(s) and maybe one or two users can place a vote before transclusion. Other than that, voting should really stay after transclusion. bibliomaniac15 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the nominator(s) voting, since their support is a given. I also don't mind seeing people vote if they know wouldn't be able to after transclusion (going on vacation, family situation, etc.), but the given reason here was "Please note that the first 7 supports were added before Matt had transcluded the RfA on the main page. Mainly because the Aussies are all very eager to see him pass." Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 02:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL, please tell me you weren't taking me seriously there, Sasha! It was an honest mistake and I attempted to soften the situation with a bit of humour - dark rumours about the Aus Cabal taking over WP and all that - instead of making Matt look bad for something which was not his fault. I share the_undertow's sentiments regarding voting pre-transclusion and have never done it before... and my sheer amazement at your comment... "tempted to protest oppose"... means that I will never do it again. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should viewed as a policy only when it has actually become one. I'd suggest someone propose it, if they feel it should be policy, and let the community decide. Of course, people can oppose for reasons that aren't based on policy. I don't think opposes based on pre-transclusion votes are very well reasoned - imho, a candidacy should be evaluated on the merits of the candidate, not the timing of the votes. Avruch 02:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; ultimately, the candidate isn't necessarily responsible for the actions of others (though they could remove the !votes when they transclude the RfA, all that will happen is those editors will individual restore their !votes, meaning that the net effect is almost nothing). A notation marking the end of the pre-transclusion edits would be good, though; it would inform all RfA readers of the full situation without additional legwork (let's be honest, how many people !voting in an RfA check the main RfA page for when exactly it was transcluded?). EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it really so much to ask that people not stuff their friend's RFAs before the rest of us can realistically be expected to see the RFA? This kind of stuff is what makes RFA seem cliquish. --W.marsh 03:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot echo that more. What is it that makes it so difficult to wait until it's officially started, since RfA is official? the_undertow 06:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its like running up the score before the opening kickoff of a football game Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 06:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What about pre-transclusion opposes? What honest candidate wouldn't feel awkward asking someone to remove an oppose before transclusion? Who is responsible for taking action? Maybe all pre-transclusion comments should be marked as such, if they can't be reverted for whatever reason. J-ſtan_{User page} 03:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen people comment them all out, and ask people to re-add the "#" to confirm they've read post-transclusion comments, and that seems to work. I've never encountered a pre-transclusion oppose though. A lot of this would be avoided if people just found about RFAs from WP:RFA, not from backchannel communications. --W.marsh 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've got more than one redlinked RfA (and RfB) on my watchlist... I just have the good sense not to say anything until it's officially up and running. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The only time I've seen pre-transclusion opposition was on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/R 2 when two users voted oppose on the RfA before transclusion. Deskana removed all the supports and the opposes. Acalamari 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• No problem at all. Any "opposes" from users because of comments before transclusion when it is clearly not the candidate's fault at all are absolutely ridiculous. If a couple of people are excited about supporting early, let them be, there's nothing wrong with limited humour in RfA – it appears that lately there's been a lot of discussion about ruling out the remaining humour in the process. Unless there is no intention to transclude the nomination onto the main page, I see nothing wrong with "premature", "pre-transclusion" supporting. Spebi 03:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wonder why everybody so quickly throws agf out the window and assumes that people have hidden intentions, its these types of assumptions that cause divisions right from the on set of reform discussions that utlimately hinder them. All this discussion has done is open the can of beans now we need to look for such intentions in the rfa process. Gnangarra 04:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess early votes are nearly always due to not knowing the rules, or not noticing that the nomination hasn't been accepted and transcluded. How about adding a clear message to the vote section of the initial page: "Do not vote or comment before the candidate has accepted and this page is transcluded at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship." The candidate could be instructed to remove the message, and others seeing it later could do it otherwise. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering the bullshit, unnecessary stress this caused me during my RfA, it either needs to be put in writing that it's not allowed and you'll get opposed for it, or there needs to be something on the page it self to alert people that it's not been transcluded. Use the closed AFD code. Red background and border. No voting until transclusion, wherein the code is removed. Pedro and I worked this out during my RfA. It's in the archives. Check week one of November. Lara❤Love 06:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find it in the archives, but I do remember seeing it here. Thats why I waited 'til after the RFA ended to bring this up. Getting back to CSCWEM's RFA, this comment is the best I've ever seen on any RFA. Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 06:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• The previous debate on this, as referenced by Lara is located here. I note with interest that one of the major arguments was that this was a rare occurence, so there was nothing to worry about. Interesting :). Incidentally, this discussion cause a lot of upset at the time, a lot of which was my fault, so I'm not really going to add further to this revived debate I think. Pedro :  Chat  16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can clarify this: transclusion is the responsibility of the candidate. If a user is self-nominating, s/he must transclude the page immediately. If someone else is nominating a user, the nominator will set up the page but not transclude it. The candidate will transclude the page as soon as s/he accepts.
Any !votes cast in RfAs lacking the candidate's acceptance are invalid, regardless of transclusion (transcluding a RfA where the candidate hasn't accepted the nomination yet really makes no sense, but we can't say that it can never happen...). They will be removed and, ideally, the participants will be notified on their talk pages to revisit the RfA if and when the candidate accepts.
If the candidate has accepted, or if it was a self-nomination, and there has been no transclusion, the community and the Bureaucrats should assess the situation: was it an honest mistake, or an accident? How much time has passed since the page should have been transcluded? And, quite importantly: has the candidate had any kind of unfair advantage (but also any disadvantage, if it was a simple distraction) given the lack of transclusion? This verification will help determine the course of action needed, which can be either to let the RfA run its course normally or remove the !votes cast while the RfA was not transcluded.
That is not to say that it is ok to !vote while the page is not transcluded. People need to make sure of that if they are participating in the first minutes since the page was set up — assuming the candidate has already accepted, that is — and they should know that their participation might even be removed if they are !voting on a RfA that is not transcluded, as well as that the situation could even hurt the candidate's chances of having a successful RfA (since supports are far more common in untranscluded RfAs).
Ultimately, the Bureaucrats will assess the situations and determine the course of action. The key points are: there can be no special advantage or disadvantage rising from the delay in transcluding the RfA; there can be no foul play in the cause for the delay in transcluding (such as to facilitate canvassing); no substantial amount of time may have elapsed since the time when transclusion should have been done (even if it was an honest mistake, a RfA cannot "run" without transclusion for, say, a full day). If one or more of those are detected, the Bureaucrats will remove the !votes cast during the time when the RfA was not transcluded and, in extreme cases, even close the RfA early. Redux (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have created User:Gnangarra/Sandbox/rfa design as a possible format to reduce pre-transclusion nominations. thoughts? Gnangarra 08:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I was worried that this issue would raise its head soooner or later. Thank you Sasha for waiting until the discussion was over, I appreciate your consideration. If I can comment, I had accepted the nom when the transclusions were made, just not formally - see [here. I was careless and started answering the questions before I formally accepted.

My thoughts on the issue; Supporting before transclusion should not be encouraged but nor should it be a reason for opposing unless there is reason to believe abuse of the system. Most supports before transclusion are made in good faith (and all the supports in mine were). Perhaps some wording requesting supporters (and opposers) to refrain from contributing until transclusion (other than the nominator) would solve the problem. -- Mattinbgn\ 10:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Manipulating the TOC

Over the years we have had a number of format changes to the RfA page and to subpages, designed to make editing and commenting easier, less edit conflict prone and so forth, while also keeping the main ToC neat and tidy. I remember it took heroic measures (tricks with noincludes, breaks in the lines, special links to make things editable, etc) to achieve, and I have forgotten exactly what versions demonstrated which measures. Right now, though, when I look at the main RfA page, it has in the TOC only the candidates... and when I look at a candidate page, it has a TOC for each subsection. More importantly, while the subsections don't appear in the overall RfA TOC, only in the TOC for the candidate subpage, they are nevertheless editable from either place. Nirvana!

But how was this achieved? I see none of the heroic measures of the past that I remember. I'd like to crib whatever it was that was done, to aid with the next steward elections on Meta as discussed here but I can't figure out what was done! I only watch this page sporadically so I must have missed the discussion. Anyone recall offhand either what was done or approximately when it was discussed? Thanks for any pointers. ++Lar: t/c 15:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Template:TOCright. Redrocketboy 15:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The top of Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship transcludes Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Front matter which contains {{TOCright|limit=3}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2) It's done by {{TOClimit}} and some code in MediaWiki:Common.css (the same code is also present in {{TOCright}} and {{TOCleft}}); I invented toclimit first and got consensus for the required code to be added sitewide, and then there was a discussion about adding it to {{rfa}} on that template's talk page. The CSS code needs to be added to a wiki for this method to work. (Technically speaking, the TOC links for individual candidate support sections are there, just invisible.) See this diff for the CSS code and {{TOClimit}} for the required template coding. --ais523 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's very clever stuff. Thanks to all of you for the pointers! ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I tried to implement these changes on Meta, but it doesn't work. Here is the diff on Common.css, and I just imported m:Template:TOClimit. But m:Stewards/elections doesn't show any difference to before. :'( Help would be much appreciated. Thanks, --Thogo (Talk) 09:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, suddenly it works. Must have been a huge cache problem... Anyway. Thanks to Ais523 for that code. --Thogo (Talk) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:LA lists

When WP:LA was divided into multiple pages (some time ago), one side effect was that an admin who drops below the "active" activity level (30 edits over the last 3 months) is moved to Misplaced Pages:List of administrators/Semi-active (and then back again if his or her activity level subsequently increases again). Moving entries between pages has bothered me for a while, and I've proposed folding the semi-active list into the alphabetical sublists of active admins, indicating semi-active status within the main lists. Others have commented that this doesn't bother them, and even find uses for the separate "semi-active' list. If you're at all interested in this, please comment at Misplaced Pages talk:List of administrators#Semi-active and active in same list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A need for rename

This page encompasses requests for bureaucrat access as well. I think we should rename this, conveniently, to Requests for access. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Has the current set-up irreversibly confused that many people so far? (Tending towards a "don't fix it if it ain't broke" argument...) Gracenotes § 07:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is right now. The main focus is adminship requests, and if the flood of bureaucratship requests come in regularly perhaps a move to Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship is in order, but for now, it feels like the right title. Spebi 08:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about confusion, I'm talking about correctness, and the tacked-on feel of RFB. I think Requests for access is a better name because it includes RFB, and, just because RFBs are rare, doesn't mean they are lesser in importance or priority. -- Anonymous Dissident 08:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't really seem to be a point to a rename. Requests for adminship is culturally ingrained anyway. John Reaves 09:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So was Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion. Then it was decided that it wasn't an appropriate name. Being "culturally ingrained" doesn't lend any correctness to a name. -- Anonymous Dissident 09:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have that strong of an opinion either way, it just seems like a waste of time. John Reaves 09:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The renaming of Votes for deletion to Articles for deletion had a very good reason. I don't see a good enough reason to rename RFA. Garion96 (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You must remember that renaming isn't exactly a great matter. It consists of clicking a button and typing a modification. The shortcut wouldn't even need to be changed. -- Anonymous Dissident 10:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think they way it is set up works fine (ie RfB, which rather rare, and RfA (common) sharing a page). It's not broken, IMHO, so why fiddle with it? btw, WP:RFB redirects to the rfb part of the page. Maxim_(talk) 21:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree - RfBs are so rare that I don't think the title needs to be changed. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be renamed to Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship and bureaucratship or some similar title that describes exactly what the page is. It's not immediately what the proposed "access" refers to, and it may connote the wrong idea about users needing access. Regardless, I think an encyclopedia should be clear and precise with its titles, even for project pages. There's not much harm in it staying put, but no harm in moving it either. –Pomte 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss RfB's, go to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for bureaucratship ;) NoSeptember 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's fairly standard for the "RfA" area to handle 'crat requests as well; check out b:Wikibooks:Requests for adminship, q:Wikiquote:Administrators, v:Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship, m:Meta:Requests for adminship, and commons:Commons:Administrators. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they're like that because it's like this here. Adminship does not include bureaucratship, and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep. –Pomte 06:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be a crappy argument, but PRECADENTEXISTS isn't. ;) Besides, I'm not actually saying we should keep them together because of the other wikis, I'm just pointing out that several other wikis have seen fit to leave them combined. That's not to say all of them have, however; for example, there's wikt:Wiktionary:Bureaucrats, which is separate from wikt:Wiktionary:Administrators. You can find a very good sampling at m:Meta:Index/Requests and proposals. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not precedent if the entire discussion, if any, consists of "Look, en.wp and other projects name it this way, so let's follow suit and never talk about it again." Now, I don't know if that's true, but as we spend so much time on this page, we might as well get it right. Then observe whether any new projects use the conjunction. –Pomte 08:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh, all I was doing was highlighting how other projects do it. I'm not trying to stifle discussion, I'm just bringing some additional information to the table. Lighten up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know. All I was doing was rejecting that observation in case anyone takes it as strengthening their stance. –Pomte 22:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The name is fine and RFB at the bottom is fine since it's much rarer. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

RfBs at the top of the page

Why aren't RfBs at the top of the RfB page? I notice a lot of people said that they didn't notice EVula's current RfB at first. As RfBs are so rare, and are considerably more important than RfAs I think it would make more sense for the rare RfBs to be at the top of the page to increase visibility, as most people don't scroll to the bottom. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at the TOC before scrolling down. NoSeptember 23:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be more valuable to add RfBs to Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report than it would be to shift them around on WP:RFA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really see the point of reorganization, but I would like to see RfBs on BN. J-ſtan_{User page} 05:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fake/joke opposes; burn them with fire?

A few 'joke' opposes have popped up in support of editors recently in the RfA process. I personally don't find them horrible, though sometimes it is a bit hard to tell whether someone is kidding or not, and it seems to confuse some editors. I think a bit of consensus on the issue wouldn't be too bad, so that there isn't constant sidetracking going on in RFAs with person B asking person A if they're serious or not.

Also, forgive me if this has been discussed before; I searched the past few archives and didn't find anything, but I could've missed something. Master of Puppets 06:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_112#Joke_supports.2Fopposes It's in the most recent archive. Metros (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You must be serious, I searched for "joke"... damn. Nevermind this, then. Master of Puppets 20:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I was curious about the same thing actually... Jmlk17 08:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Canvass fest

I have initiated a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements about the use of the page for RfA announcements, and the application of Misplaced Pages:Canvassing to it. All input is welcomed - posting a note here as it involves the RfA process. Please direct all comments to that page, to avoid splitting the discussion. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 11:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't you think a section heading that assumed good faith would be more appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\ 07:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Juliancolton

I'd like a competent person to review this. I removed this RFA from the project page. It seemed incomplete and was unsigned. It was transcluded by an opposing third party, which seemed out of place. I will leave a message about this on the user's talk page. Thank you, Darkspots (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What you did was fine: the nomination had not been accepted, and someone who was not the candidate had added it to the RfA main page. You've removed the RfA, and informed both users about the situation. No problems have been caused here. Acalamari 21:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the user informed me that he did not intend to go forth with the RFA. I apologize for any inconveniences. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's all right. No need to apologize. :) Acalamari 21:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Acalamari (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC).

Would it be useful to class that as a failed nomination? It might cause confusion next time that user has an RFA? Rt. 13:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

All noms must be accepted, so removal was correct. As it was not accepted, it is not a failure as it never should have been on the page in the first place. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that it was self created. It wasn't like someone else created the RfA page and said "so, wanna be an admin?" as he created it himself. The only thing he didn't do was subst it. Now, I'm not going into whether it should have been removed or whether he should be an admin, but I find it peculiar that a self-nom wouldn't actually list their nom. Seems... very strange. --lincalinca 13:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

He could have created it just to see what it would be like (an RfA sandbox, if you will). What's of more interest to me is how anyone found it; there doesn't appear to be any listing of it anywhere that doesn't relate to its premature transclusion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The two users have a history. . I knew neither user until this. Darkspots (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Massive numbers of questions, obligation to respond

On the RfA for Ibranof (link to come) I notice there is over 20 questions, including 15 from Transhumanist alone. Then some other folks in the discussion and opposes ding him for not answering all the questions, or providing short answers. Shouldn't there be a limit to the number of involved questions someone should be expected to answer? TH's questions were not easy questions to answer, but there were so many the candidate had to give super short answers that could negatively (and unfairly) impact the outcome. Avruchtalk 17:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that I should point that even before The Transhumanist posted all those questions, the candidate did not provide large answers to them. I am not sure if having fewer questions would have created better answers. Captain panda 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions, once a small section of about three standard questions tacked at the end of a request for adminship, have in recent years moved to the front of the request, where they have presented a kind of obstacle course to the candidate. Promoting an administrator isn't an election and hustings of this kind are poorly suited to deciding whether the candidate is suitable. Much, much more emphasis used to be put on examining the candidate's past edits, which in my opinion are far more valuable in deciding whether the candidate is likely to do well. Bureaucrats should ignore opposition based on fripperies such as "did not answer the questions". --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the questions asked have nothing to do with adminship. That is the problem here. No wonder he was being laconic. —Kurykh 19:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The questions from the RfA template are mandatory, to the extent that not answering them will result in the RfA failing (yes, it will). Further questions may be considered optional, if stated by the editor posing them, or mandatory should the candidate wish to gain the support of the editor asking them. I agree with Tony that more value is gleaned from a review of the candidate's edit history. Questions beyond the standard three should be used to ascertain information that cannot be otherwise gleaned, or that are specifically relevant to a situation that may cast the candidate in a less than favourable light unless explained. I see no value in generic "where will wikipedia be in 200 years" questions in determining right now if a candidate is fit to have a few extra tools. Pedro :  Chat  20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. There was one RFA that passed where the candidate didn't answer the questions. I think it was Ragesoss's. I agree with Tony Sidaway that questions are wholly unnecessary to the process, and that bureaucrats should ignore them. Majorly (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> Okay, there's past precedent. But these days generally they are slightly more than optional, which was the un-blued point I was kind of making. This is only a general conversation you know, throwing around ideas? You know what Majorly, your aggressive tone these days is wearing me down a bit. Pedro :  Chat  21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh? You make a statement that is demonstrated to be untrue, and the person correcting you is being "aggressive"? What planet are you living on? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Malleus, for my outright and shameful lie, misleading the whole community by it.Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Pedro, Majorly's comment does not read as aggressive to me. Further, Malleus does not seem to be accusing you of lying, he is merely stating (as I did) that Majorly's comment does not read as aggressive. I think you may have over-reacted. Would you consider taking a step back for a minute? --Iamunknown 21:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sure <deep breath!>. Sorry. But the "What Planet are you living on" bit was just a tad insulting. Anyway, as it happen it seems Majorly and I are in general agreement regarding superfluos questions, so it's no drama. Sorry to all, particularly Malleus. Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, questions and answers aren't there for the 'crats. They're there for the community to make up its mind, and the 'crats in turn guage consensus off that. If a bureaucrat is reading questions, it's to fully understand what some people may be citing for support or opposition, not to make a judgement call off them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. One would expect to hear questions such as "Imagine the Misplaced Pages of the future. What do you see?" on a Sunday morning television interview with Jimbo, not at RfA. -- Longhair\ 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Or the question "Do you feel that repeated vandalism of Misplaced Pages should be considered a criminal offense in a court of law?"..... Garion96 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think massive stacks of questions that are mostly irrelevant to the candidate should not be asked. There are some editors who will post such questions to every RFA, sometimes several at once. This will often cause the candidate to trip up on a question, through miscommunication or a poorly worded question. What really bugs me is that a ton of questions are asked, and the questioner often doesn't even bother to vote in the end. Majorly (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

All questions are optional; the candidate is under no obligation to answer them. However, participants are also entitled to oppose based on failure to answer questions. I completely agree that voters should leave a reasonable amount of time for the candidate to answer questions; however, if the candidate indicates that s/he is going to opt not to answer an optional question, then a voter is perfectly entitled to oppose on that basis. This doesn't conflict with the meaning of "optional"; for instance, it's optional in real life for political candidates to produce election leaflets or TV broadcasts, but if they opt not to do so then they're unlikely to get many votes. Ditto for businesses and advertising.

As to the other point - too many questions and not enough time to consider them all - this is, indeed, a problem, but the solution (limiting the number of questions that can be asked) would be worse than the problem IMO. All editors need to be free to obtain all information that they need to make an informed decision on how to vote. I agree with Tony Sidaway that looking at past edits is often more helpful than answers to questions, but I strongly disagree that opposition based on the answers to questions should be discounted by the bureaucrats. No good-faith vote by an established user should ever be discounted by the bureaucrats, as this amounts to a bureaucrat saying "I'm higher up in the wiki hierarchy than you, therefore I get to decide whether your opinion has any value". Walton 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Who decides if a vote is made in good or in bad faith? --Iamunknown 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Community consensus. Obviously we assume that it is made in good faith; if it isn't obvious that it is bad faith, then it isn't bad faith. Walton 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the question is this: If someone leaves 20 questions, and then opposes because they aren't answered (or someone else opposes for the same reason) what is there to be done? Nothing? Is there a valid reason for having 15 or 20 questions on an RfA? Its not like limiting it to, say, 10 questions would prevent other questions being posed - they would just need to be posed somewhere else. And if someone can't figure out which way to go from the answer to 10 questions and a comprehensive review of a candidates edits... Then, they should not vote. Personally, I think 3 pro forma questions and 7 community generated questions is fine. I think calling them 'optional' is deceptive to a candidate who isn't a frequent participant at RfA. Avruchtalk 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ibaranoff24, it is now impossible to discern whether the opposes are due to Nat's questions or The Transhumanist's questions. While the answers could have been more elaborate, it is almost impossible to go through all of these questions, especially the irrelevant ones posted by the The Transhumanist, without thinking "WTF?" Yes, I know, admin candidates should answer most questions so we know more about them, but to be forced to answer pointless questions or get a ton of opposes for not doing so is ridiculous. —Kurykh 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Its time for that RfA to be closed. No help can come from letting it continue at this point. Avruchtalk 22:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I must agree that that many questions and questions of that nature probably are not very useful. However, I feel that questions in general are one of the community's best tools in reviewing the canidate, second only of course to reviewing their contributions. Questions posing situations about what a canidate would do as an admin are almost always useful. SorryGuy  Talk  22:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Ibaranoff24 doesn't seem to mind. To anyone thinking of closing it, please get his opinion first. --Iamunknown 23:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just have. Avruchtalk 23:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Propose limiting future RfAs to 10Qs, or inserting language advising the limit

I think it would be appropriate to put "If this RfA already has 10 questions or more, please consider posing future questions to the candidate's talk page." or something more strongly worded in the RfA structure. What are your opinions about this idea? Avruchtalk 23:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The questions are rather a good test of someone in action. If they can't deal with them (20 or however many), they're likely to have severe problems as an admin, dealing with a whole lot more difficult stuff than a few questions. Tyrenius (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think doing so is advisable. It also sounds like instruction creep per WP:CREEP to me. Language of having them have discussion on the user's talk page also doesn't seem like a great idea, what exactly would that achieve? SorryGuy  Talk  00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if someone really has an interest in the answer to the question (and it hasn't already been answered or mooted in other questions) then the user talk page is the next most appropriate place. I don't know if its really an instruction, as much as it is advice (like "General comments below" or "Please keep discussion civil") relating to etiquette. Avruchtalk 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but no thanks. The standard 3 and an additional seven may still leave a question unanswered in my mind, and it's better to keep all relevant discourse at one place (i.e. the candidate's RFA) than on talk pages. Pedro :  Chat  00:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But then we'll have people rushing to get their questions in to be one of the first ten questions. We'll also get bickering about "why is that question in one of the 10 questions? It's so unnecessary and my question would be better suited for it." I don't see this plan as feasible. Metros (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I see your point. Or question-stacking by nominators, also a potential issue. Avruchtalk 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions are generally irritating and unneeded. I'd propose we ban questions completely, but that may be a bit much ;) Majorly (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Irritating and unneeded? Really? I've always found asking for explanation and clarification to be exactly the opposite. In that spirit, perhaps Majorly you can explain why they are irritating and unneeded. Pedro :  Chat  00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If they have a point, good. If they are a bunch of theoretical "what if" situations, then they really have no value. RfA is not an exam. Prodego 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree, as per my numerous inputs above. But "irritating and unneeded" seems rather dismissive and (un-blued) pointy to me. Pedro :  Chat  00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If they are actually relevant to the candidate, and the questioner genuinely cares, then fine. But all too often they are being posted as standard without thought, and the person asking doesn't even bother voting sometimes. Majorly (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So when you said "generally" it was your generalisation not every one elses. At the risk of Malleus jumping on me again, your repeated jabs at my comments are becoming tiresome Majorly. Pedro :  Chat  00:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'll have to stop repeatedly jabbing your comments then. Majorly (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that your accusation of me "jumping on you" is uncivil. ;) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether the jumping was consensual ;-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say something along the same lines. The same old questions come up time and again. Any candidate could just refer back to an answer in am earlier RfA that was applauded by the community and cut and paste that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Majorly, banning them outright, even if it could garner consensus, which I doubt, would only really in opposes worded in such a way that they seem like questions to the canidate that the canidate would feel as though they must answer. And, the theoretical "what if" questions are useful. If something in the contributions suggests that user may not understand WP:BLP, then a question about a situation about it is likely a better test of their understanding that asking them to summarize the ideas of BLP. SorryGuy  Talk  00:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As for concerns in reuse of questions, I wouldn't worry too much. Look at Mr. Z-man, for example. I believe he has said that he never reuses questions, and yet his questions always seem relevant, at least in my eyes. SorryGuy  Talk  00:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely you would at least agree that the repetitive "What's the difference between a ban and a block?" is getting a little tedious? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tedious to me? Maybe. But so long as candidates are unable to answer it correctly, which occurred as recently as yesterday, I believe it can still be useful. SorryGuy  Talk  00:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is tedious, and it's there to trip people up unnecessarily. Those questions are asked whether the candidate has a problem with BLP stuff or not. It's just making the whole RFA process worse than it is. Majorly (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And candidates are now being coached to just give the expected answer, regardless of whether they understand the policy or not. Which happened as recently as yesterday. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) It doesn't seem like a large portion, or even a significant portion, of the current candidates are coming from the prospective candidate pool in admin coaching. I don't think eliminating the questions is a good idea, and some of the more canned questions are canned because they are consistently illuminating. Avruchtalk 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that it illuminates is the candidate's lack of foresight in not looking through a few recent RfAs to find the "correct" answer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

While long sections of questions can get tiresome, if they're good faith questions about policy and the candidate's suitability for the tools, I think we'd be wrong to impose limits. I agree that if the RfA is too stressful for the candidate, the candidate is unsuited. If people appear to be posting frivolous questions, I think it should be suggested to them that those questions be voluntarily withdrawn. Otherwise, it's the time to ask questions. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd further add that a limit to the questions would increase the already irritating trend for discussion to wind up spread across the "oppose" section instead of up at the top where it's meant to be. See Elonka's last RFA for a good example of where multiple questions have been useful in illustrating the pros, cons & potential problems/strong points for a potential candidate, BTW. — iridescent 02:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We should not put such limits. Questions can be answered and ignored, if you want the votes of people who think questions are important then you should answer them. 20 questions in a week is not a large workload for a one-time event. 1 != 2 18:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Either unlimited questions, or demand that people actually check every single edit. Hey wait, that's actually not a bad idea. Anytime someone says "not enough edits" , ask them how many they accept (say 3000), and then at next rfa, ask them random questions to check if they have indeed read all 3000 of them. 2 birds with one stone, genius ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC) People demand that folks make too many edits... making it impossible for me to actually ever check them all anymore :-/ 750-1000 was doable, at least.

Clever. ;) Rt. 18:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

All questions are revealing of a candidate. If they're questions that have been asked before and the candidate looks back to see the "right answer", this is a good characteristic, as an admin will need to be familiar with precedents and know how (and bother) to familiarise him/herself with them. If the questions are frivolous, then again it shows the character of the candidate, a good candidate needing to be able to distinguish between frivolity and weight, as well as being able to deal with frivolity in an appropriate way. Questions are thus a good field test. Tyrenius (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, on Misplaced Pages, frivolous questions is usually dealt by ignoring it (WP:DFTT, etc.), but the refusal to answer the question will simultaneously garner oppose votes. While answering said question may appease the RfA voter, it may be harmful when done outside the confines of WP:RFA. Therein lies the contradiction. —Kurykh 19:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just the sort of conundrum a candidate for adminship needs to be able to resolve - involving a test of judgement, sensitivity to the community, knowledge of policies and how to interpret and apply them in tricky situations. Tyrenius (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I was describing the disconnect between the RfA world and the rest of Misplaced Pages. What RfA demands, the rest of Misplaced Pages does not, and sometimes condemns. —Kurykh 23:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to your first post, I don't think a candidate would be opposed for ignoring a frivolous or trollish question; I have faith in the good sense of RfA voters, who are, after all, established members of the Misplaced Pages community. Anyone has the right to ask a question (even a frivolous one); the candidate has the right to ignore it, and the community will judge them on that basis. In response to the second post, I don't think there's a "disconnect" between RfA and the rest of Misplaced Pages. The vast majority of those who participate in RfAs are established members of the community, and don't leave their good sense at the door when they comment on an RfA. RfA is a tough process - tougher, for the candidate, than any other aspect of editing - because it needs to be; at present, administrators are so difficult to remove, once promoted, that we need to be careful about who becomes one. (If, of course, we made admin recall compulsory, as I've been advocating for a long time, then adminship could genuinely be no big deal.) Walton 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

...and of course, if admin recall is compulsory, then Misplaced Pages will be nothing but a drama production studio and RfA would be nothing but a popularity contest. But that's another argument for another time. —Kurykh 07:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The community has the right to discount votes by consensus

I was recently reverted when I attempted to strike the obvious bad-faith vote of User:Paul 1953 on Dihydrogen Monoxide's present RfA. I was under the impression that any user can indent or strike an obvious bad-faith vote, subject to subsequent community consensus; this is what happened with User:Neil Larson and User:Matthew Richardson, inter alia. It doesn't have to be left up to the bureaucrats. I propose that we form a consensus to have that particular vote stricken and removed from the tally, and that we clarify that it is not just up to the bureaucrats to discount bad-faith votes; the community can do it. Walton 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a very slippery slope. Who's going to be the judge of what you might call a "bad-faith vote", but someone else might not? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If such an act is non-controversial then fine, but if there is there is dispute in the matter it is best to leave it to the 'crats. 1 != 2 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - as it has actually been disputed, I won't strike the comment again. (I wouldn't edit-war over something so trivial, anyway.) I just didn't expect it to be disputed that this was a bad-faith vote (as it consisted of "HELL NO!", from a user with a long history of personal attacks and incivility), and I don't much like this "leave it to the 'crats" attitude. Getting promoted to bureaucratship doesn't somehow imbue a person with mystical powers of omniscience, and where a decision consists mainly of simple common sense, I don't see why it has to be made by a bureaucrat. Just my $0.02. Walton 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and it isn't the bureaucrat's job to seek out the personal history of every RfA participant. It's up to the community to voice the concern, not have 'crats arbitrarily choose when to ignore !votes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But think of the ramifications. Someone votes (or !votes if you like it) oppose at an RfA of a candidate you nominated. There's been personal animosity between the nominee and the opposer. So nominator decides to indent the vote. Then we go down a whole massive discussion (just like we have now) to decide if one comment is "allowed" or "disallowed" - cummon' EVula - this just adds yet more layers - keep all the damn votes unless the editor is indef blocked (or similar-ish as we've done that debate) and let the 'crats earn their shilling. Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the !vote should be struck or indented at all, I'm saying that it's the community's job to bring disputes to the attention of the 'crats (preferably with diffs, otherwise it becomes a "he said, she said" type of situation). If I were a 'crat and I saw an oppose !vote that someone had very succinctly illustrated as being a bad-faith oppose, I'd be a lot more likely to disregard it as an abuse of the RfA system. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• If you think anyone else might object, don't do it. I'd generally only consider it for obvious sockpuppet or vandal accounts. Bad-faith can be subjective so if it seems like the case to you, just reply asking for justification. —dgies_c 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Count me as one who opposes striking that vote. Although the user has a history of incivility (arguably the same has been said for the candidate), I assume with good faith he has some reason for expressing such distaste at this particular RfA and not any others, for the same reason I assume some supporters can express enthusiasm without actually explaining why they support the candidate. –Pomte 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Walton. I agree about bad faith voting but you really can't discount that comment and then put this in at the same time. Either all votes are equal or not buddy! Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• As the user who reverted Walton, I want to make it clear that I do think that particular vote adds little to the RfA and probably should be discounted or ignored by the closing bureaucrat. What I object to is the striking of the vote rather than just adding a comment below it. Also, it gives the appearance of a conflict of interest for a supporter to decide that an oppose vote be stricken. Except for votes from banned users or obvious vandalism, I think striking votes leads to more problems than it solves. Chaz 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think that you're absolutely right, and it's disappointing that Walton saw fit to strike an opposing !vote so soon after his other recent lapses in judgement. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think that's fair to me at all. As I stated above, I am not going to strike it again, since there have been numerous objections in good faith to the striking of the vote. I hoped it would be uncontroversial, but apparently not, so I am perfectly happy to defer to the community's judgment. I don't believe I've done anything wrong - I was just being WP:BOLD and doing what I believed to be best for the encyclopedia, in the knowledge that I could be reverted. Walton 10:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I ought not to have personalised my comment in the way that I did. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be leaving possible spurious votes in with comments below as to why they are problematic. It is the most open way to deal with these things. A bureaucrat can either strike at the time if they feel so inclined or leave until the conclusion and judge if the consensus is in marginal range. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If no-one objects, I believe any administrator should be able to strike a comment (this can be used with sockpuppets, banned users, single purpose accounts, etc.). Once someone disputes it, defer to bureaucrat decision. Just my $0.02. Daniel 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I object. As Casliber said above, if there are concerns about the validity of a vote, for whatever reason, then the way to address that is to make a comment below the vote. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Object per Malleus Fatuarum, this is way to slippery a slope. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think simply labeling the "vote" with an opinion about it backed up by evidence is enough to let the 'crats judge consensus. 1 != 2 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Example:

This user has just come off of a block caused by the candidates report to ANI<link>, and vowed to get revenge<link>.~~~~

Just like that. 1 != 2 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion

OK, we seem to have reached a consensus as follows:

• A vote may be stricken by any member of the community if there is evidence that it was made by a banned user or a sockpuppet of a banned user.
• In any other circumstances, members of the community should not strike votes. In exceptional circumstances, where there is clear evidence that a vote was made in bad faith, a bureaucrat may decide to discount it.
• If an editor believes a vote was made in bad faith, they can post evidence to that effect underneath the vote, for the consideration of the bureaucrats.

So evidently I was wrong about the correct procedure on this issue, but this discussion has clarified it, and I'll get it right in future. Walton 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA Closing

I would like to see the crats start summarizing the discussion and using rationales on RFA closes. There is much question to whether we are voting or not. I think this will help assuage, and add transparency. Thoughts? Mercury 19:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Any voting page on enwiki dies O:-). Closing rationale would be a decent contribution to consensus. (or an indicator that consensus is not being used) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Curious as to what good it will do, aside from providing an opportunity for people to complain endlessly about closing rationales. +Sysop decisions are not open to review, when was the last time a unsuccessful close was successfully contended (or even unsuccessfully?)? Bureaucrats aren't subject to recall, and RfB is hard enough already. Avruchtalk 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• I would love this to happen if it was workable, but I'm concerned it's a drama bomb waiting to happen. At present, the majority of RfA's are closed, we accept the decision and move on. If the 'crats were to explain their decision, without being asked to, then that opens up the floodwaters differences in interpretation of the result, and the reason why the individual 'crat came up with them. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • To add - if we had this, we would probably also need Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship closure review - I don't think I have to say anymore :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with RP. Although the idea is great, and believe it is, it would just create a rather large mess. Rt. 20:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I'd be interested to know how they came up with the closes. I would support the status quo of accepting the close as final, but I'd like to see some rationale. Mercury 20:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but as Avruch says, people would start disagreeing with the closing rationale. For example, Danny's RFA (even though I wasn't around then) closed very closely. How could we expect to put a bureaucrat under that pressure to find a decision to close then? Rt. 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is ok to disagree. However, I'd really like to see some rationale on these RFA's, be it letting us know what has been discounted, or if we used a numbers threshold on an RFA. I think it would help us to have this explained. Regards, Mercury 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure a closing statement would be needed in most cases. "Only one oppose", "insufficient consensus", and the like are inferred by most RfAs. Only when its really, really close is a statement needed, and in those cases, it's usually provided anyway. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You can "run away" to some extent by declaring "no consensus", works everywhere else too. :-) (and isn't even an unreasonable position, if you think about it) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I presume people would also want an explanation for a "no consensus" close - it means the candidate isn't going to be promoted... WjBscribe 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing rationales should be given where the outcome may be surprising to participants and are available on request. Ultimately writing them up takes extra time and may leave the way open for needless argument. A promoted candidate upset that a lukewarm closing statement will forever be on their RfA, opposers arguing with crats who they feel gave too little weight to their comments. Effectively prolonging debates beyond the RfA again. How much time should a crat spend writing a rationale for a unanimously supported candidate - just a sentence to say the support was unanimous, or a full run through of the qualities the supporters saw in the candidate? Similarly, where few editors opposed, should crats spend lengthy amounts of time analysing the concerns of those opposers which were clearly not shared by most commentators?

Personally, I'm happy with the idea that closing statements should be made where the crats think they will assist or on request of any editor in good standing. People may want to consider asking more frequently if genuinely uncertain of why certain outcomes are occuring, but my instinct is that if no one cares enough to ask for an full explanation of the crat's reasons our time would be better spent elsewhere. I've noticed that I've serious neglected the mainspace this month for instance :-) ... WjBscribe 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

From my experience here, it seems that contentious RfA's receive enough conversation post closure either here or at WP:BN. There are relatively few enough borderline requests to justify not providing additional work for the 'crats to start typing summaries or reviews on every RfA. Of course, I now expect the customary bollocking that I've not provided enough fatcs or diffs, and that "relatively few" is actually totally wrong, and as usual I'm a total liar. Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Here? No, surely. :) Rt. 20:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

:) ah, my AGF delivery didn't turn up today! Anyhow, I stand by my thoughts - no need for closing rationales. Can of worms. Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs, links, statistical analysis and a comprehensive social history of RfA closures in order to support your contention, please? Charts, graphs and a auditory demonstration would be appropriate for the variously impaired. Avruchtalk 20:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I also require computer simulations of all outcomes. Mercury 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I sketch it on the back of a cigarette packet instead? :) Not too good with these fancy computer things, me. Pedro :  Chat  20:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In UK jurispedence, it's assumed that the mental concentration of members of the jury cannot be expected to last all the way through the trial - so the judge sums up everything that has happened. In the process, he inevitably hints at the decision he thinks the jury should be taking and guides them towards making the same decision. The jury ends up not trying to evaluate all the evidence, but evaluating whether they trust the judge to have examined every facet of the evidence. The jury cannot hope to match the judges legal understanding or assessment of each witness, and they'd be hopeless at such a task. But the jury are very, very good at judging whether powerful "pillars of society" are acting "fairly" - and Misplaced Pages editors are equally capable.

So maybe the closing admin should do the same as the judges in these UK cases - sum up the evidence and the arguments and then deliver an opinion. Naturally, there will be few with the time and the patience to fully perform such a task from scratch - however, it would wonderfully concentrate the attention of participants if their words were couched in ways aimed at inclusion in the summing-up/final decision.

If such a process were used for other "voting" type efforts (eg ANI), then perhaps they could be diverted away from the often extreme concentration on editors, and towards valuable arguments, where it should be. PR 10:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(To PR) What you say (regarding the judge's summing-up in a UK jury trial) is correct, but the main role of the judge is to direct the jury as to the relevant matters of law. The jury, as the "tribunal of fact", have sole competence to decide as to the facts, and whether the facts meet the definition of the offence as described to them by the judge. For instance, in a murder trial, the judge will direct the jury that they should convict if they are satisfied that the defendant unlawfully killed a human being and that he intended either to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm. The jury then weigh up the evidence and decide whether they are satisfied as to these criteria. They are entitled to ignore the judge's statements and return a "perverse verdict"; there is no appeal against the jury's findings of fact, as criminal appeals can only be made on the basis that the jury were misdirected by the judge, or (occasionally) on the basis that new evidence has come to light which wholly alters the basis of the jury's verdict.

But I digress - to return to the main point of the discussion, I don't think that judicial processes are a useful analogy for RfA. XfDs, perhaps, are more quasi-judicial in nature, since there is a large body of policy and guideline on when pages should be deleted; a closing admin must therefore assess the arguments on an XfD in relation to established policy, and ensure that the outcome is in line with policy. But in RfA, there is no such body of established policy on who can become an administrator; it's more of a political voting process. Users disagree in good faith about what makes a good administrator, and they vote accordingly - and therefore the only acceptable solution is to go with the majority opinion. Walton 17:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been a topic previously discussed. IIRC, the end result was that everyone decided that crats were in a position of utmost trust, and, most of the time, we can safely trust their discretion. -- Anonymous Dissident 15:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(To AD) I strongly disagree with that. If bureaucrats' discretion is fully trusted on an RfA, then it must also be fully trusted on an RfB. This, if taken to its extreme, would mean in the end that bureaucrats get to decide who becomes a bureaucrat - in which case, the "utmost trust" reposed in the bureaucrats would be the trust of other bureaucrats. Thus we get a self-perpetuating elite. I hasten to add that this isn't the situation at the moment, because the current bureaucrats respect community consensus and generally close by the numbers. But I'm very wary of anything that suggests more discretion for bureaucrats, nor do I think that there is a consensus to give them any more discretion. They should provide a closing rationale (or at least be prepared to explain their decision) where the RfA has fallen between 70-80%, since it involves discretion on the part of the bureaucrat. Review by another bureaucrat should be possible in such cases. All cases below 70% or above 80% should be closed by the numbers. Walton 17:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary to take this to its extreme - there are limits imposed on bureaucrat action by the community, and we trust them to use the limited discretion we give them within reason and keeping those limits in mind. Avruchtalk 18:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing the RFC?

The link to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship has been at the top of this page for a while. I checked the page history. It's still getting a few edits per week, but the activity is dying down, and further comments are not likely to change consensus.

I suggest that someone should "close" the RFC. Obviously, we're not going to turn the process upside down, but just a quick summary of issues that were discussed might be helpful. Then we can remove the link from the top of this page, and downgrade it to a link in the archive box. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Heck, I was going to post something along the lines of this section earlier for the exact same reasons. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:37, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

Yeah. It really won't accomplish anything now. J-ſtan_{User page} 01:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the RFC accomplished something, in that it changed my mind about RFA. I have much more confidence in the way it's used now, although I still think it would be great if we could have promotions at about double the current long term trend rate. It's okay to close it now. --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Close, agreed. -- Anonymous Dissident 03:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition of language to 'Expressing opinions'

I have recently noticed that some users add their opinions to RfA with only a minute or two between their contributions. While I will assume good faith here, it would seem that users doing so have not put in as much consideration as I am sure the canidate would welcome. Personally, I don't feel as though you can review a canidate in less that ten minutes and I often take longer. It could be done in less time, of course, but regardless of the time one feels is necessary I feel as though we all agree that careful consideration should be taken when voting in RfA. I have seen comments to this end but did not find any language dictating it on the main page. As such, I propose a small addition to the 'Expressing opinions' section on the main RfA page asking users to be take time and consideration in their forming of opinions about users. Being only a sentence, I do not really think WP:CREEP is a consideration and can not think of any other reason one might think of not to add such a notice. At any rate, opinions? SorryGuy  Talk  03:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you think it will make a difference for the people who don't take the time to look? Myself, I usually wait a couple of days before voting even if I've reviewed recent contributions - just in case someone who knows better brings up something troubling. But you can't really force people to be cautious if they aren't inclined to be so already (even an enforced delay or something would just make people wait and then vote without looking ;-P) Avruchtalk 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, one could make a quick decision to oppose if it's pretty obvious the candidate isn't yet admin quality. I sometimes support based on others comments, and if I'm already familiar with the candidate. There'd be no need to review everything when you know already. Majorly (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of thats presuming that the editor hasnt already had extensive contact with the editor over an extended period of time. Gnangarra 03:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing about instruction creep: it sneaks in, sentence by sentence :) Actually, I would think RfA would be better if voters took more time to review candidates, but I don't like this idea, because regardless of length, it's telling people how to vote. J-ſtan_{User page} 03:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted flippin' 3 times) :It depends on the user, I suppose. If I have worked with and am very familiar with an admin candidate, there's usually little doubt in my mind as to their ability as an admin. On the other hand, if I'm unfamiliar, I usually take some more time to look at their background. I don't see how an extra sentence could hurt, but on the other hand, some people are quicker reviewers than others. Besides, we can strike our !vote if something else arises later. bibliomaniac15 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I of course understand that there are exceptions to what I brought up and that occasionally quick decisions occur and are justified. I also understand that one sentence likely will not effect a user's actions, however it does allow community consensus, because I think we all agree that some care should be taken, to be presented in a pseudo-official manner. Maybe I am being overly bureaucratic. SorryGuy  Talk  04:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some care should be taken, definitely, but people should vote how they want to vote. Bureaucrats can determine which votes are frivolous enough to be discounted, or at least given less weight. Drive-by votes that appear to be frivolous would be taken into account, but as Majorly said, you don't always have to examine recent contribs. J-ſtan_{User page} 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Only a sentence, but instruction creep is made up of mere sentences. A better solution here would be to accost the offending users politely and ask whether they really think have done justice to the candidate. — Dan | talk 05:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's almost nothing we can do about people who don't give RfA the amount of time we feel necessary. That's a good thing, as "what we feel" is largely arbitrary, what is acceptable to me might be too short to someone else, and too long to yet another person. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a really arbitrary thing. It's possible that someone who comments 3 minutes apart on every (or most) RfA(s) on the page has spent a considerable amount of time reviewing all of the candidates, then placing their comments all at the same time. I've done it... Keilana_(recall) 22:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC closed, and a new proposal

I have closed Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, as I suggested should be done above. Since I don't know how this process is supposed to work, I may have done it wrong. If my closing comments belong at the bottom of the page and not the top, then anyone is free to move them.

Based on a suggestion at the RFC by TomStar81 and Warlordjohncarter, I have started a proposal at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Proposal to add a discussion period before voting begins. Please comment on that proposal's talk page.

I hope everyone will understand that my decision to close the RFC is not "the last word". My goal was to summarize the suggestions that were made, and to observe that none of these suggestions has garnered consensus. Further discussion is welcome, as always, in the usual forums. With best wishes for a happy new year, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I get the idea, but isn't the whole '!voting' process supposed to equally be a discussion? So this proposal is really about extending the process, and having the first two days of the discussion not count towards the result? Would we be obligated to allow otherwise snowable closes to stay open for the full first 48 hours? (Maybe 'obligated' isn't the right word here). I think the consensus is that controversial RfAs can be unpleasant, but does that necessarily translate to 'process is broken and needs radical change'? Avruchtalk 18:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, thinking about it more - while it has the chance to add acrimony to the process (by extending difficult RfAs into the wild blue yonder), it might be worth a couple of test flights. Still, are RfA results wrong often enough (or really ever) that we need to make the process more difficult and constrained? Avruchtalk 18:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I don't think it should extend the period an RfA is open. It might be better to have the RfA remain 7 days, 2 days for discussion, and 7 for voting. Any questionable activity would come to light in that time period, and any obvious snow closes could be shut down early, without pile-on opposes. Maybe there should be a discussion section, and once RfAs pass that, they can be moved to the active RfA area. J-ſtan_{User page} 19:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the time there is a real discussion on an RFA, it is in the oppose section. People rarely feel the need to discuss the positive aspects of a candidate. This could lead to the initial discussions being overwhelmingly negative and cause inappropriate SNOW closures or have an undue influence on people commenting. Mr.Z-man 07:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite helping the candidate, this may actually harm the candidate. It would probably cause the community to look into the candidate's history much further and more thoroughly. I'm not sure whether this period would be a good thing as it has been said that en wikipidia needs more admins. Let's go BLUE--Malinaccier (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why should we settle for mediocrity? It is the responsibility of the !voters to look in at the candidate and make the best choice. bibliomaniac15 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We need better admins, not more. This proposal is a good one. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Forcing more questions and longer RFAs won't make better admins, this is fruitless bureacracy and I oppose it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree. I doubt that 2 days of discussion would come with a different consensus than our current system. Seven days is plenty, and two days does not make a difference. bibliomaniac15 03:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's take this up at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Proposal to add a discussion period before voting begins. Malinaccier (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When making 'new' proposals, it is often useful to check that it is not, in fact, an old one. Such as, for example, WP:DFA which is functionally identical to this 'idea'. Splash - tk 13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Canley

Query: Why does the page say that it's scheduled to end on the 4th? Shouldn't it be the 8th? Did I miss something? J-ſtan_{User page} 04:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It was created on December 28 which would make January 4th 7 days later. But since it wasn't accepted and posted until the 1st, it should be the 8th. Metros (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense. AGK's nom statement is even dated for the first. Would anyone oppose to it being changed? If it was only like 5 or 6 days, it wouldn't be such a problem, but 3 days is a bit short. J-ſtan_{User page} 04:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been fixed already. Avruchtalk 04:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We're good, we're good. J-ſtan_{User page} 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When {{RfA}} is substituted it displays the date 7 days from the creation of the page, and so it isn't 7 days from the time of acceptance, which is why the date needs to be fixed up a second time. Nothing to get worked up over, really. Spebi 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if you spot a problem like that on an RFA, should do no harm just to fix it. -- Anonymous Dissident 07:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

leaving shortly after promotion

Just stumbled upon Monotonehell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who seems to have essentially not edited since very shortly after their successful RfA. I didn't find anything as to why, but I wondered whether this is a common phenomenon? I dorfbaer I talk I 17:12, January 2, 2008

A lot of admins unfortunately seem to see adminship as a trophy - once they get the tools they stop as they've achieved their goals (I'm not suggesting that this is the reason in this case, and there's probably a legitimate reason for it) - we see this happen quite often actually. Once someone sees what the tools are like (and realise that they're nothing special), they give up. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There are also other factors at play, as well; not long after I was promoted to admin on Commons, I had a lot of real-world stuff come up, which made me look (effectively) like I'd all but abandoned my post. There could have been a change/loss of job, a death in the family, or for that matter, a death of the editor... though I do think Ryan's got an excellent point, I'm just providing morose alternatives. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The admin in question seems to have edited last month, so he's probably just busy. J-ſtan_{User page} 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it was a single edit in three months. Ryan's point more or less reflects my own thoughts (which is why I posted here). OTOH, serious RL issues would of course be another plausible explanation as to the abruptness with which the contribs end and why there is nothing like a wikibreak notice (or some message to another user). However, I suppose inactive admins are not doing any harm, it's just curious to see someone leave directly after their RfA. I always wondered whether there actually exists some kind of "beaten the game" attitude with regard to becoming an admin. As a wikisymptom, it would imo be even more disturbing than the perception (held by a minority) that some are in it for power-hunger etc (see also WP:MMORPG). I dorfbaer I talk I 17:47, January 2, 2008

Such as the power hunger displayed in self-noms? :) I couldn't resist, sorry! J-ſtan_{User page} 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was quoting Kurt Weber (although his regular opposing RfAs is IMHO idiotic, the associated general concerns he and others hold are more than justified). The answer to such a situation (people playing "become-an-admin" for whatever reason: "just so" as well as power-hunger), as usual, seems to me to make sysopping as well de-sysopping a lot easier. Straight votes, 50% support for a sysopping/de-sysopping request to succeed. Would reduce possible grudges, because people may change their status far more often. No idiotic lengthy discussions. Three days for an RfA/"RfDA". So easy. But I'm dreaming again. RfA will never be reformed (because it's not flawed/there can be no consensus to change it/all proposed alternatives are much worse/etcpp). I dorfbaer I talk I 18:09, January 2, 2008

Perhaps a little odd, but admins are not required to ever use their tools so I think we should just let it go. No harm. 1 != 2 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the possible implication of people editing (and successfully so, at times) so as to become an admin which worries me. In contrast to Kurt Weber, I don't see this as a reason to run around and oppose every self-nom (because I do not agree with the validity/viability of the self-nom criterion). I'm inclined to view it as a symptom of what is wrong about the current RfA process. I know you and many others disagree that anything needs to change, and it won't, but I thought bringing it up could do no harm as well. I dorfbaer I talk I 18:15, January 2, 2008

You know, I think as a rule, we have to assume good faith with candidates. We don't know if they'll use the tools, but I'd rather them not use the tools than to cause disruption with them. J-ſtan_{User page} 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that there are a not insignificant number of school-age admin candidates, for instance, who might consider that being able to say that they are a wikipedia administrator would look good on a future application for higher/further education. Showing responsibility and all that jazz. As to the more specific point about people editing so as to become an admin, well that happens all the time doesn't it? How many admin candidates have you seen advised to keep their heads down and not to disagree with anyone for at least the 3 months preceding a nomination? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is ironic, because once you become an admin, people seem to disagree with you much more often(er?). J-ſtan_{User page} 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one of the requirements for an admin candidate should be that they must have had at least one disagreement with another editor in the preceding 3 months. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I find the idea not half bad. Dorfklatsch 19:40, January 3, 2008

I wrote a nice story about a MUD where anyone who was selected King of the Neidar Clan would mysteriously disappear, but the computer crashed :-( Anyways, people look for new goals. I enjoyed dealing with copyright violations, and that made me become an admin. But shortly after, I was interested in dealing with spam, and became temporary administrator in several small wikis to help purge that. Then, I was interested in Commons and getting images for articles lacking them. Now I am back to Misplaced Pages as an editor. That is the good thing about this place: there will always be someone else to cover you up ;-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He could just be on winter break. Not everyone has internet access at home. Although I think some people think adminship is a bit more intense than it actually is... I'm not saying they see it as a trophy, they just get a bit intimidated by editing as an admin, thinking they'll be held to a higher standard. I remember feeling it way back when, like the admin cabal was going to pounce on me the first time I screwed anything up. Becoming an admin could just cause someone to not feel like editing any more... it doesn't have to mean they saw it just as a trophy. --W.marsh 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Alexfusco5

While going around, I found this RFA that was declined. Do I delete it? bibliomaniac15 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you should ask Alexfusco5 what they want done with it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked Alexfusco5, he said to delete it, and Keilana deleted it. All done. :) Acalamari 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice use of diffs there Acalamari. Rt. 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Acalamari 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA's of inexperienced users, yet again

I just snow-closed WP:Requests for adminship/mr kc, perhaps slightly out-of-step with this discussion, but it truly had no chance, and some of the opposes struck me as almost mean. The poor guy has been here less than a month, and has less than 250 edits. Do we really need to very strongly oppose someone for offering to help out?

These three points have all been discussed before, but have been archived. Perhaps someone less lazy than me can find links to the archived discussions. But it might bear repeating again:

1. Don't be mean. Extremely new users filing for RFA are only trying to help, and they don't know they don't belong in an RFA precisely because they're new. Oppose if you must, but I can't for the life of me imagine how a Strong oppose or Very strong oppose helps anyone.
2. There's no ticking time bomb; we don't need to transclude someone else's self-nom RFA without talking to them first. Whether they indicated "acceptance" of their own nom or not, they may not have wanted it published yet, and might have been experimenting.
3. EVula/Tango's suggestion a while back (I'll find a link in a sec) that there should be a very clear message, right near the button you push to create a nomination, that you should have 1000 (or 1500, or 2000, or whatever we decide) edits to nominate someone (even yourself) seemed to me to have had consensus, but it died and was archived and nothing happened. I think it should be re-visited. Not buried somewhere in the instructions, or in the handbook thing, but right there next to the button. It will spare quite a few feelings, I think.

--barneca (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree (as I've stated many times before) - some of the opposes here sound like the user almost felt obliged to comment - it was clear it wasn't going to pass, so efforts should have been made to helping along and give him area's he could work on. There was no need for a "Very strong oppose" here - what's the guy done to deserve that? Nothing, he's just a little keen. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you guys, too; people being nasty at RfA is now becoming out of hand. I see at least 4 users a week treating new users at RfA as if they're something on the bottom of their shoe. However, I have also seen countless discussions like this, but it is never enforced, that is another significant problem... Qst 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that a recommendation for 1000 edits is a great idea. I was surprised at how many people in the last discussion thought the number should be lower. I think we should even include basic instructions on how to check your edit count ("Go to the button called my preferences...."). These snow closes do nobody any good. It doesn't even need to be a new rule, just a strong suggestion next to the button. That way, the exceptions to the rule, the people who are already administrators at four other wikipedias and can knapp flint with a blindfold on, don't have jump through any hoops. I also think that some basic way to keep RfAs that are sitting around looking like obvious tests from being transcluded by uninvolved people would be a great idea, but I don't have any ideas free of instruction creep. Darkspots (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is a rule somewhere, people to whom it obviously shouldn't apply can simply IAR. In fact, that would be a perfect example of IAR. But I agree there's no need for a policy decision somewhere, just an edit to the instructions that sticks. Instruction creep is a legitimate concern, but we shouldn't let fear of instruction creep get in the way of actual improvements. --barneca (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was planning on making a comment about that on the user's RfA. It's completely unnecessary. And by the way, I came up with the idea for having 1000 edits to nominate :) Just kidding! But I do think it's a good idea, and I like Barneca's idea of not letting WP:CREEP get in the way of improving the RfA procedure. Remember, Tango's suggestion was for server count, not just edit count. J-ſtan_{User page} 00:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

RfAs like Mr kc's are good reasons why we need to find a way to prevent clearly inexperienced users (whose actions are almost always done in good-faith) from submitting RfAs, and getting bitten as a result. What was achieved in that RfA other than telling Mr kc how inexperienced he is? (Which was not even an achievement anyway.) I'm glad to see that some encouraging messages have been left on Mr kc's talk page. Even if we don't set an edit count limit or something like that, I do believe that the RfAs of users like Mr kc's should be closed as soon as possible to prevent biting, and after the closing, a friendly talk page posting full of helpful advice should be given to the candidate in question, explaining to them what they should do. That to me seems far more sensible than strongly opposing new/ish users and telling them how inexperienced they are. Nothing good ever comes out of blasting candidates like that. Acalamari 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I just changed Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/nominate to what I'm suggesting (see instruction #1 of set of instructions), so you can see how it looks (I reverted back right away, as there's no consensus yet, I just wanted to see how it would look). If, in spite of this new instruction, a new editor files an RFA, I'd suggest an immediate close, citing "per Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/nominate#Instructions" rather than "per WP:SNOW", followed by gentle helpful advice on their talk page. Any ideas how to emphasize that this is an absolute minimum, and that editors with 1001 edits realistically have no chance of passing an RFA either, in 10 additional words or less? --barneca (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that protecting discouraging well-meaning yet ignorant folks from proceeding is the main goal, so I thought making it a little more prominent was the way to go. Here's my suggestion. The number "1000" can be changed to "4000" or any more realistic number if that seems like a better idea, although if a higher number is picked than text along the lines of "there is no minimum number of edits for adminship, this is just a reasonable suggestion" should perhaps be added. I think this will reduce the snow candidates without creating an edit count rule. Darkspots (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not 4000. 1000 is good, although maybe changing the section about self noms to maybe 2000 would be better, as that's where the majority of snow-closes comes from. By the way, I've opened up a discussion at WT:SNOW suggesting a move. It seems kind of bitey to tell an RfA candidate that their nomination didn't have a "snowball's chance in hell" of passing. Please participate if you're interested. J-ſtan_{User page} 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas, but change must to should, because this is a recommendation, not a requirement.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again a newbie gets bitten when they apply, and once again the suggested solution is to stop them from applying, rather than sanctioning those who are biting. Fantastic. --bainer (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I think there was a fair amount of sanctioning taking place above. But since you can't force RfA voters to be nice, it's not a terrible idea to politely discourage--but not forbid--new editors from requesting adminship--not even because people are going to be nasty (which they will be), but because the request won't be successful.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins and the right to vanish

User Keilana is an admin, yet doesn't appear to have a successful RfA under that name, although I'm open to being corrected on that. His user page says he has invoked his 'right to vanish' so presumably he passed his RfA under another name. Shouldn't he have to undergo another RfA in that case? I'm not implying he did anything wrong and I don't know, or want to know, the circumstances of what made his earlier incarnation want to vanish but it seems strange that someone can escape their history in this way and stay an admin. If this has been dealt with elsewhere then fair enough but it did catch my eye. How many admins passed their RfA under another name? What's to stop people abusing this system? Once again can I make it crystal clear that I'm NOT accusing Keilana of anything dubious, I'm just using this case as an example. Admins get that position on the basis of their record of edits, if the record goes then how come the admin status stays? Nick mallory (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:ADMIN:

"If you have exercised your right to vanish, and return under a new name, your new name can request administrator access by contacting a bureaucrat privately and producing satisfactory evidence of being the same user, provided you did not originally request desysopping under controversial circumstances. This will not guarantee privacy, however, as new accounts which are granted sysop rights without an RfA tend to attract attention and speculation."

It's shady, but it's explicitly allowed. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, I really dislike the idea of vanishing and then coming back with admin rights. However, since I can actually verify the former identity in this case, I can't complain. -Amarkov moo! 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Keilana is a woman. Secondly, It's quite within the rules of Right to Vanish to request your sysop bit back when moving to a new name. Other admins have done it. I also happen to know who she is and can state that she did not leave her previous nick under a cloud and there were no unusual circumstances involved - Alison 05:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If "there were no unsual circumstances," I'm sure she wouldn't have abandoned her first account. Perhaps you mean that this admin did not behave controversially, which is one of the prerequisites to getting the mop under an new account w/o an RfA.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Keilana has not abandoned any account of hers at all. She has not jumped from one account to another, she has kept the same account the whole time and none of her user rights levels have been altered. Can we drop the Keilana example, please? As for "unusual circumstances", such do not always take place on-wiki. Many circumstances arise in real life that may force one user to change accounts for the sake of their own safety. Dropping one account, getting a new one, and asking for the bit back is completely fine. It's up to the bureaucrats to decide to sysop, remember. Spebi 05:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing two (slightly?) different things. The WP:ADMIN passage I quoted seems to refer to new accounts. To the OP, if a user simply changes his or her name (which Spebi says is the case here) than you can view their earliest contributions and even see what user name they used to previously sign their talk pages. It should all be in their contributions. Strictly speaking, changing your user name isn't really vanishing, is it?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not something to discuss here. If you have an issue with Keilana's previous identity or how she has stated that she edited under a different name (note name, not account), take it up with her, preferably via e-mail. Spebi 05:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing the general issue "of right to vanish" and sysop rights; I'm not particularly interested in the specific editor the OP named.Also, I feel it's a bit glib to say that getting a new account, complete with sysop privileges is "completely fine."--unless by fine you merely mean allowed. Some legitimate editors don't feel it's "fine," and I sympathize with them, though I also understand the reasons why it's allowed; the inherent shadiness/secrecy of this sort of thing will invariably make some editors uncomfortable, especially those who prefer to know to know whom they're dealing with.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why people want to get adminship back immediately anyway. If you do that, someone will find out your previous identity, and that someone is going to be a person who doesn't particularly like the idea of admins vanishing and then coming back with adminship intact. Why would you trust such a person to not reveal what they found? -Amarkov moo! 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is likely that experienced editors (rather than newbies) will be more nervous when they hear about admin changes of identity, and experienced editors should probably realize that such changes are hard to conceal. Different people have different ideas of 'vanishing', and sometimes even a thin disguise will be felt beneficial by an editor who wants to keep their name out of sight. One person wanted to keep his name out of Google searches and his recent change (though paper-thin) probably had that effect. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - admins who have vanished are perfectly able to be re-granted their rights. So it has always been. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Although this has found its way into policy, I have very, very little trust in any of these anono-admins, especially the ones who try to make it impossible to find out what identity they went through RFA as. Your reputation is important, if you want a new one... I really think you need to just make a new account and start from scratch, rather than get the perks but none of the baggage you accumulated. --W.marsh 06:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)