User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Tally

Resolution (Archive 15)
Stop this nonsense....here is what happened according to all sides
 * 1-Anthony voted and deleted the tally maybe because he doesn't like the tally...whatever
 * 2-I restored it and said don't delete it.
 * 3-According to anthony he did not realize there were 2 neutral votes and put in a false tally (knowingly or unknowingly)
 * 4-I then changed that back and told him not do mess with the tally
 * 5-The tally was then deleted again
 * 6-I reverted it and said don't delete it.
 * 7-then anthony and I exchanged comments about who had the correct tally (as he would admit later I did)
 * 8-then Ugen64 stepped in due to inflammatory comments anthony made
 * 9-then they exchanged comments
 * 10-then anthony messed with the conversation to suppliment the vote he had just made on tallies on the poll section
 * 11-I reverted the edit
 * 12-he changed it back and setup a page called "voting nonsense"
 * 13-I reverted back the previous vote on the Hcheney page
 * 14-He or someone censored my comment (I cannot confirm it was him) but I do beleive it was
 * 15-we are stuck here

Here is the convo-
 * My vote was real, and the count was incorrect. (by the way, I'm from new jersey) Anthony DiPierro 01:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) *If I can unite you and Wik, I would probably make a pretty good admin. --Hcheney 01:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) **Wik and I have been united on a number of issues before. In this case, I'm just not convinced (that you would make a good admin).  Anthony DiPierro 01:30, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I know thats why I counted it your number 4 in oppose now stop deleting the vote count. GrazingshipIV 01:16, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * If the vote count is incorrect I will delete it. Anthony DiPierro 01:21, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The vote count has been correct each time you have deleted it. All you need to be able to do to affirm that fact is count. So don't delete it.- GrazingshipIV 01:41, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * The vote count was in fact incorrect the first time I deleted it. Anthony DiPierro 01:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Dude, the neutral count was always 2 you first deleted the count entirely, then changed the count to 1, then deleted it again. Just leave it alone for future reference all the votes will obviously be counted its pointless to delete the count.-GrazingshipIV 01:48, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Dude, try participating on Wikipedia for more than 14 days before you tell people what do do. The oppose count was incorrect the first time I deleted it.  Anthony DiPierro 02:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok then, what exactly justified you dropping the neutral vote from two to one smart guy....? GrazingshipIV 02:06, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * It was an accident. Anthony DiPierro 02:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony, if you want to sound authoritative, don't say "do do". Also, whether or not he's been here for a short time, he's correct. ugen64 02:08, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * No s/he's not. There is no consensus that we should have toctallies in the first place.  In fact, it's pretty much evenly split against them. That this person even knows about toctallies suggests to me that s/he has another account.  Anthony DiPierro 02:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * And if the vote count was wrong, FIX IT! Don't delete it. That's like asking sysops to delete all unwikified pages, or any pages with incorrect information. ugen64 02:13, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to fix a stupid tally which I am opposed to in the first place. Anthony DiPierro 02:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It's also policy not to delete useful information, whether you agree with it or not. ugen64 02:47, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * An incorrect toctally is not useful, in fact, it's the opposite of useful. It's anti-useful. Anthony DiPierro 02:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Anti-useful... that's an awesome word! ugen64 02:53, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just invented it. Pretty cool, huh?  Anthony DiPierro 02:58, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't mess with the order, your time is on the statement anyway. Everyone else is using the tally. Don't go vote on the poll and come back like you have principeled position-you CHANGED the tally-there is a difference.-GrazingshipIV 02:29, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * This isn't nonsense. ugen64 02:47, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Stop vandalizing this page return the conversation back to the appropriate order and place. Your not helping your cause when you sign a document if you haven't figured it out the time is set its obvious you fooled with the prior conversation. Calm down and revert your edits. GrazingshipIV 02:58, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 *  note the differentiation in times 

Listen lets just move the whole exchange between myself ugen64 and anthony here put it in the correct order (as donated by time signatures) and get back to the issue at hand-the vote GrazingshipIV 03:25, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * The correct order is the order of the thread, not time-based. Anthony DiPierro 03:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * All your comments after your vote will be HERE, so stop editing you want to add something add it here not on the page.GrazingshipIV 04:06, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The two comments I made which are relevant to my vote will be kept on the page with my vote.  If you insist on removing your own comment, I'm not going to stop you. Anthony DiPierro 04:09, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * sorry you don't get to pick and choose what you want along with others we are keeping your intial justification or returning it all in proper order you decide .......

GrazingshipIV 04:14, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Those are reasonable options. Fair for all. - Texture 04:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * If he insists on keeping the entire off-topic conversation in there, then I can't realistically oppose it. However, what is the "proper order" is disputed. Anthony DiPierro 04:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have every right to keep an explanation of my vote on the page. Anthony DiPierro 04:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Its not an explaination of anything you can strike or keep your previous statement and write something additional but you cannot use the previous material which is incomplete. Write something new, but do not use old material that is chopped into pieces all old material belongs here. GrazingshipIV 04:19, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to let you remove the out of order part, however the comment by Hcheney and my response should remain. Anthony DiPierro 04:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * And suddenly all is quiet. Looks like this vandal got what s/he wanted. Anthony DiPierro 04:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You know the deal. Create new information or put it all back up in chronological order-I will not allow you to villify him using bits and pieces of pervious conversations regardless of your personal problems with him. If you want to write something new to justify your vote be my guest, but I have more than an hour and won't allow you to vandalize people. My position is that of the US government, I won't negotiate under these terms and tactics. You've got something to say...say it here.GrazingshipIV 04:48, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * You CAN be blocked for vandalism. RickK | Talk 04:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't add "bits and pieces". I added the entire thread between myself and Hcheney, and a comment that was made by myself. Anthony DiPierro 05:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Toctallies (Archive 17)
How do you think about this format? -> User:Someuser (x/y) where x is the count of Support votes and y is for Oppose votes. The (x/y) thingy is called a toctally (Table of Contents Tally). Toctallies are nice because we can see what's happening easily from the Table of Contents (TOC) without scrolling the page. But they need some maintenance/updating (just like the normal tallies) Optim 19:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poll on toctallies/running totals (18 for / 16 against / 5 other votes)
Feel free to criticise. Optim 19:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like Toctallies/running totals
 * 1) Optim
 * 2) Fuzheado - cool idea, funny name :)
 * 3) * Jwrosenzweig -- didn't think I'd like them, but having seen them in action, I changed my mind
 * 4) Graham  :) but I do wonder about their ease of maintenance.
 * 5) Pfortuny 16:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) (problem with maintenance serious).
 * 6) Perl (If people remember to update the tally)
 * 7) ugen64 21:09, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) * Ruhrjung 21:45, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) (stupid name, though) I don't care if they are out of sync now and then, but if they are so too often, then it's time to abolish them again Have come to insight and changed my opinion. I like toctallies otherwhere, though --Ruhrjung 00:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Timwi 23:23, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Acegikmo1 04:04, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Woodrow 21:49, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) &mdash; Jor (Talk) 21:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) Like the idea, hate the name. They just need to be updated.
 * 13) Texture 22:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) It helps as a quick reference. Kingturtle 06:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) I like them, its handy, darn it!!!! Sam Spade 00:29, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) I like. jengod 19:32, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) They're good. But is there any way to automate them? &#913;&#955;&#949;&#958; &#931;  04:56, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Handy. ugen64 01:20, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Handy. Nohat 02:51, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)
 * 20) Prefer. Infrogmation 17:59, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Like. But would vote to discontinue if I had to keep track : )Denni 04:53, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

I dislike Toctallies/running totals
 * 1) &rarr;Raul654 00:32, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Hephaestos|&#167; 06:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;  18:25, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC) -- They're a shortcut that encourages voting -- even when you shouldn't. As I did with Gaz....
 * 4) * HUH? - Gaz
 * 5) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC). Polls are not wiki.
 * 6) Maximus Rex 06:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) emphasis on numbers is not good, discourages discussion, using # self-enumerates
 * 7) Anthony DiPierro 02:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) too much of a pain to keep up to date, along with other problems listed above.
 * 8) * overemphasize # of votes, which is already emphasized a bit too much (by using # instead of * for list-keeping), over quality/relevance of reasoning and/or consensus.
 * 9) Danny 03:31, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) VV 06:09, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) What I see is that toctallies are (a) not consistently maintained, (b) a nuisance to maintain, (c) pointless lengthening of the page history due to maintaining, (d) prone to create "edit conflicts" due to, well, maintaining, (e) not always clearcut to count, (f) not helpful (because of #), (g) prejudicial before reading what people actually say.
 * 11) RickK | Talk 06:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC).  What VV said.
 * 12) Catherine 06:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Agree with VV.  (h) needlessly pops Rfa up on Recent Changes and Watchlists many more times than necessary for those watching voting  (I suppose it does draw more attention to the votes that way, but dislike it.)
 * 13) Ryan_Cable 04:44, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
 * 14) Michael Snow 22:02, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) As pointed out by Silsor, toctallies make it impossible to use section headings as a link anchor, because the anchor keeps changing. Plus, they're rendered meaningless by the sockpuppetry currently going on, which I think toctallies only encourage.
 * 15) Jwrosenzweig 20:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) I know I'm waffling -- I initially thought they'd be a bad idea, but then they seemed positive. Now, though, their weaknesses are showing (VV explains it well) and I think it's time to cast them loose for this page.  They are helpful for many of us, but they seem to cause too much trouble to be worthwhile.
 * 16) +sj+ 20:40, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC) Agree with VV, particularly the 'inaccurate' and 'prejudicial' bits -- you should surely read the initial post that went with a poll before getting to the current community vote. Also, they mess up anchors and intra-page linking (linking to a specific anchor tag).
 * 17) I am in full agreement with VV. I find them an inconvenience which I've at times inadvertently miscounted. The automatic counts are more reliable. Jamesday 02:06, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) I'm with VV - (PS: I didn't update the Toctally when I voted) - Gaz 12:13, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't care about Toctallies/running totals
 * 1) Davodd 21:18, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about Toctallies/running totals


 * 1) Seth Ilys 12:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC). It's useful for gaguing quickly where opinion is, but it tends to run contrary to the attitude of building consensus.
 * 2) Cecropia 06:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) I agree with the complaints involving the trivializing of comment into mere numbers and (especially) the pain of keeping them current. OTOH, I think most people naturally want to see that kind of summary information, so removing it would be upsetting. How many think toctallies actually influence results? Unless someone could show me that toctallies change the results, I would lean yes (include them).
 * 3) Ruhrjung 00:47, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) I agree with Cecropia and Bcorr (and others) above. Although it doesn't matter to me if peoples' voting is influenced. It's bad enough that we give an impression of 1/ one-man-one-vote and 2/ that there exists a treshold one has to pass to get appointed (80%?).
 * 4) Jeandré If automated. It also breaks (sub)section editing if the yes and no are sections, like this vote was before I changed the sections to bold. 2004-04-12t01:21z

Discussion on Toctallies/running totals

 * I guess my plea for less polling and more discussion didn't get much of a hearing in the Optim household :-). I have no opinion on toctallies because I have tocs turned off. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They are friendlier than the present system, just that. But! they may be misleading if they are not kept up-to-minute. I actually like them but I also dislike them. Where should I vote? Pfortuny 20:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * well, you should create a new vote category called "I like and I dislike toctallies" or choosing any other title you like. Optim 21:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I've made up my mind. It's quite useful, nice and cool! (maybe because I am there? :)Pfortuny 16:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Running totals (Archive 17)
I wish to express my annoyance at the new practice of keeping running totals of votes here. I just had to post through an edit conflict due to it. I might be wrong, but I think most of the people here are capable of counting all by themselves, and those who aren't will probably be helped by the fact that votes are kept in an ordered list. These things will probably never be up to date anyway. - Hephaestos|&#167; 23:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Heph
 * I was bold and removed the running totals. Kingturtle 00:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, you may be very accurate in your assessment, but if you'll look at this page, 5 people voted in the poll thus far, and all of us liked the toctallies. If you'd care to participate in our poll here rather than ignoring it, I think I'd be a lot happier.  I like you both and respect you, but I'm feeling just a twitch hot under the collar right now that consensus (of admittedly  only a few users) has been totally ignored. Jwrosenzweig 00:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * True. I didn't realize it was a poll. I was acting boldly. Shall I re-add the tallies? Kingturtle 00:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you should vote in the poll, and perhaps the poll should be more prominently announced (village pump?). Leave them out for now because it's a minor issue, and Optim's adding them was a bold action itself.  I just want it recognized that his adding them (and the maintenance of them by others of us) was not done absent an honest attempt to seek consensus.  If the consensus is to dump them, that's fine, but let's find out what the consensus is. :-) Jwrosenzweig 00:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes I didn't realize there was a poll, sorry. - Hephaestos|&#167; 06:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Random TOC tally complaint + suggestion (Archive 17)
Don't get me wrong, I like TOC tallies. But the biggest problem I've found with TOCtallies is that the link to Requests for adminship won't stay put. One moment it could be :::The biggest problem I've found with TOCtallies is that the link to Requests for adminship will rapidly turn to Requests for adminship to whatever the next vote is. A consideration.

A possible solution. Make the user's name alone the heading, and then place the user's discussion status/end date in a separate heading, below the username. The disadvantage here is that the TOC length is nigh unto doubled. -- Fennec 20:26, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Just place it below, not in a separate section heading, and the TOC length is the same. Then you solve at least one of the problems with toctallies. --Michael Snow 01:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ends is a mistake anyway - this isn't about deadlines, it's about consensus. The time is minimum time, not maximum time. I don't think the counts are of use - the individual votes and perhaps moving those which don't count, amount to an easier way to count. Jamesday 02:46, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(0/0/0) (Archive 25)
What is this? Do we leave this alone in voting?--Jondel 02:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a tally of votes (support/oppose/neutral). Neutralitytalk 02:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * When you vote, you update the total. Or if you forget, some kind soul is always nice enough to do it for you.  Not that I've ever forgotten to update the tally, oh no.  Joyous 02:58, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Percentages on Requests for adminship/Jedi6 (Archive 51)
There is an issue on the Jedi6's RfA involving displaying the voting percentage of Jedi6's support votes. Is this allowed, or is it discouraged? I want to make sure there's no bitterness left on that RfA, which may impact some new votes or change previous ones. &mdash; Deckill e r 19:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the issue flaring up? Do you mean showing the tally at the top? It's certainly very tight but no out of the ordinary concerns are being debated. Marskell 08:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Earlier in the nomination period there was a % listed at the top of the nomination. It has since been removed. I would strongly discourage this practice because it doesn't account for any voting irregularities (sock puppets, etc) that bureaucrats may determine. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For the lazy ones... I am neutral on this, but currently it's not normal practice. Given the circumstances, I oppose this by now.  F e  tofs  Hello! 13:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. Yes, I would discourage it to. Indeed, perhaps we shouldn't even list the tally?... Marskell

Should there be a vote tally in the RfA template? (Archive 54)
Is there a reason why there is a vote tally in the rfa template? I mean, I doubt it helps the closing bereaucrats much, and it just emphasizes that the RfA is an evil poll. Borisblue 03:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the 'crats can tell us how much they make use of the count (if at all)? If they don't find it useful, there shouldn't be problems abolishing it. Kimchi.sg 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. I use it to see if I should invest time in researching a candidate (which I usually only do if it might be close and my vote might affect the result) (see more). It has its uses. Just because vote tallies and edit counts are reported doesn't mean that we have to consider them, if we choose not to. NoSeptember   talk  03:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "I use it to see if I should invest time in researching a candidate ... " And this is troubling. Comments are buried at the end of the RfA, so if a particular RfA gets enough votes in any one direction early on, comments may never be read by others, buried at the end as they are. Tallying the votes up front may influence the overall vote tally, and not encourage others to read comments. Or, perhaps the comments should be added to the top of the request, rather than bottom ? I find it very troubling that someone nominates an admin based on a series of very POV articles, and that the comments to that effect are at the end of the RfA and may never be seen by those who merely scan vote tallies, to decide how or whether to vote. Sandy 15:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The comments get seen, I have seen plenty of nominations that were looking very solid take a nose dive once a serious issue with the candidate is revealed. Also, most people do not wait for days before wading into an RfA as I do (most vote early - half of the votes seem to come on day 1). After a few days, I go to the Oppose votes first to see what dirt has been dug up on the candidate, and whether it is legitimate dirt or sour grapes. By the time I get around to an RfA, however, most are either (50/2/1) or (23/22/4) and it is obvious how they will end up (and it is obvious whether there is any serious dirt there before I even look). I read the comments before I vote, and I believe most others do that too. NoSeptember   talk  15:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then my summaries must be even more evil, but as NoSemptember says, having a tally draws attention to close candidates so they can get greater scrutiny. Dragons flight 03:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The structure of RfA already emphasizes the fact that it is a poll in much more serious ways (for instance dividing up supporters and opposers into separate numbered lists). That being true the tally does not seem like a big deal. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

Location of tallies (Archive 67)
I think we need to be consistent on where the running tally will be located. On some current RfA's its on the top line by the candidate's name, in others it's below the questions and just above the !votes. I don't have a strong view where it belongs, but right now TKE's RfA has two tallies running, one in each place, suggesting that we need to make up our minds. Newyorkbrad 15:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's to be expected, given that the older RFAs were already running when the template was changed. But whoever changed it should have gone to change the older ones too. IMO, let's stick them where they used to be, at the top. – Chacor 15:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree w/ Chacor. -- Szvest 15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why there's any need to change old RfAs (did they do that when they first made the large change to the new format?). Soon every RfA will be at the bottom, and people will stop moving it and adding new tallies. I'm fixing them when people do do that, and I added a note next to the tally telling people not to move it.  In this particular case, the guy probably just didn't see the tally towards the bottom. See also . --Rory096 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how many people are reading the older section, so I'll repeat an idea being discussed there. How about removing the tally entirely? In fact, what about removing the numbers beside each !vote and using bullets "*" instead? As long as automated tools can generate summaries, I'd support these ideas. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A mockup of what this would look like is here. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 20:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I'd thought of the same idea some days ago. :) Figured it would get shot down by all the editcountitis types. --Durin 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We could even go one step further and go AfD-style, merging the support, oppose, and neutral !votes into one section. --  tariq abjotu  22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's advisable, because a) with the de facto percentages in effect for RfAs, there's less room for the closer to weigh arguments, and b) it would break the bots again, and remove the advantage of edit sections. Some gauge of the percentages is relevant, but I think that's sufficed by having the bullets be numbered, and no explicit tally for people to forget. -- nae'blis 02:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nae'blis. RFA is a vote and I don't know why people pretend it isn't. Everyone who's so upset about RFA (which works very well) should redirect their efforts to AFD (which actually is NOT a vote, and is a total disaster). — GT 06:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer dropping the tally altogether and dropping the #'s so there's no count on the page. I still think it's better to separate supports and opposes though so the page stays cleaner and the reasoning is clear. Best would be to also stop pasting in the edit counts as that would reduce the number of people that vote solely based on those. We have way to many people not really evaluating the candidates and anything we can do to reduce that, we should. - Taxman Talk 15:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree, but because of the toolserver problems (as in it being lagged 75 days), people can only get counts with js scripts, which many don't have, and even if they do, it takes several minutes per candidate. I agree, the old way of just giving the link to the Interiot's tool page for the user was much better (have you noticed we barely ever have opposes based on edit summaries anymore?  That used to destroy RfAs...), but it's harder to get an edit count now. Maybe a subpage of the RfA? --Rory096 05:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Essjay's tool, as pointed somewhere above, should be enough. It is the Javascript script but running on PHP. -- ReyBrujo 05:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, and it runs in real time? That's great, someone should tell Oleg Alexandrov. --Rory096 05:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the tally should be retained, was just trying to make sure there was only one tally in each RfA. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I liked the tally going on top. Then again, I already have the RfA layout script which is based off that, so its easier that way. (it collapses RfAs to show/hide items with the user name, ending date, and tally). Voice -of-  All  03:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actaully, I'd strongly recomment putting the tally back up into a useful location. Voice -of-  All  01:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it at the top please. It is a pain to have to search for it. It took me extra valuable minutes to update my RfA records today, time I will never get back ;). Let's not go overboard on this vote vs. discussion thing, the tally doesn't hurt anything and doesn't need to be hidden. NoSeptember  01:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and agree with Taxman. If the crat's want to count, then let them. We're there to decide whether a candidate should be an admin or not. Why do we need a tally, and why does it even matter? We can clearly read, and count for ourselves. SynergeticMaggot 01:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If we have to waste time counting, we will have that much less time to dig into the candidate's contributions. I use the tallies for the very practical purpose of seeing if an RfA is close and therefore requires some closer attention from me. Issues about the lack of serious discussion on RfAs should be resolved by something other than cosmetic tweaks like this tally thing. NoSeptember  02:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Top, please. Much more convenient. Here's a radical counting system. 'Crat goes through (privately) giving each "vote" a score between 0 and 5, and uses that total. Useless votes (like I'm opposing because it's Friday) get 0. Well researched original material and sound reasoning gets 5. "Support per everyone else" might scrape a 1. This applies on both + and - sides. Now that would be true to the spirit of debate, while also incorporating numbers, and no one would be able to understand it. It would be an interesting exercise or perhaps give the 'crat (and everybody else for that matter) a useful alternative view. Tyrenius 02:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping this is meant as A modest proposal. The crats should have full discretion. No need for us to tell them how to weigh comments. JoshuaZ 02:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Said suggestion would probably result in a lot of complaints, especially if a crat is seen as being to "close" to the candidate. You'd get quite a few queries as to how each was scored. Still, I suppose it could work if more than one crat did it, together. – Chacor 02:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, now they're just counting. I've yet to see one RfA above 75% fail. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For myself that's just more or less coincidental. It just doesn't happen to occur that people have substantial, strong, and meaty opposition and still get over 75% support. As I've said before if I saw an RfA with said strong substantial well reasoned opposition and only weak supports, then I would fail it whatever percentage it came out at. Substantial, well reasoned opposition just happens to sink RfA's, and that's a good thing. - Taxman Talk 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not in jest, nor is it telling anyone to do anything. I think it would be an interesting and worthwhile comparison to make between a straightforward numbers count and an evaluation based on the substance of each "vote". I'm not proposing it for any official guideline. Don't worry! :) Tyrenius 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a radical idea: don't count. Either just take a look at the general amount of comments in the support and oppose camps and make your decision about whether you need to allocate time to evaluating the candidate or just look at the various bot summaries. If we still maintain a standard format and fix any errors, then the bots will be able to give the tallies anyway, even if we went so far as to take numbering out of the RfA's. Of the people simply saying "keep the vote tally", "keep it up top", no one has said what value they have that couldn't be gotten without them, nor how it's worth the cost in people simply focusing on vote counting. - Taxman Talk 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting people are voting because of the current tally? If the tally is 30/5/3 they'll vote support but if it's 26/8/4 they'll vote oppose? If you are saying that they will join the crowd when there are lots of support voters or lots of oppose voters, then I'll agree, but the specific tally is not the issue, and you can see at a glance if there are a lot of votes. The only way to prevent people running with the crowd is to eliminate the separate sections and have the support and oppose votes mixed together as with AfDs. The tally issue is a red herring issue, not directly related to the issue of people voting without seriously considering the candidate first. Getting rid of the tally will not solve that issue. I support getting rid of the clutter of statistics as discussed in the section above, but the tally is a small item, and does no harm.  NoSeptember  15:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No I'm not suggesting it's that big a deal, but it's one more little thing that swings it away from being a consensus gathering excercise. Every little bit helps, and as I said, there's no real upside to the tallies that can't be had without them. And no, I agree it isn't directly related to people not seriously evaluating the candidates, but I didn't say it was either. I agree moving that stats out to the talk page or just removing them would be more valuable, but I'd already said that, and this section happened to be discussing the tallies. - Taxman Talk 16:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't see what need there is to move the location of the tally. As for doing away with it, again, I don't see the mischief that is allegedly being solved. Unlike an AfD on an individual article, there are enough participants on individual RfDs that keeping a tally is practical. Like NoSeptember, I find it useful to have this info handy. I also don't think it's much of an assumption of good faith to take the position that people are basing their votes on the running tally. I find that most editors here are anything but sheep. Agent 86 04:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense but if you're not seeing how many people are voting without evaluating a candidate at all, then you're not looking. - Taxman Talk 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We have no way of knowing if those editors are "voting" without making an evaluation. To consider what is going through the mind of the editor leaving short comments is pure speculation, and it's good faith to give them the benefit of the doubt. I usually assume that short comments are made after the editor has considered the candidate. I know in some cases I myself, on occassion, have said little beyond "support" or "oppose", but in those cases, there's really nothing new left to say, but I still want to indicate my support or objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent 86 (talk • contribs)
 * What we do know is votes with no reasoning don't demonstrate that the person did make a thorough examination and are thus not as helpful in building a consensus. You can always say I believe they are trustworthy because... or I think they will/won't make a good admin because... - Taxman Talk 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tended to avoid updating the tally on RfAs I have taken part in, as I feel that in a consensus building exercise, opinions shouldn't be finalised until the discussion is concluded. And of course people should all think for themselves. But in my own RfA, I have found it interesting to know what the tally is. Although we have the usual batch of paranoia and me too edits based on inaccurate allegations and misunderstandings, (particularly on the oppose side of course ;-)), I have been very impressed by the work put in from all directions to ensure a productive outcome. Sometimes people object to questions about oppose votes, but I have found the genuine answers very helpful and I'm sure that they will make Wikipedia better. If I have time, I may make a summary of the main points at the bottom, as the discussion has ranged quite widely. Stephen B Streater 16:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That still doesnt justify a reason to have a tally. Once you've been nom'ed, and accepted, its out of your hands. The majority of participants in RfA run with the pack, unless they have a quarrel with the candidate or are just good diggers. SynergeticMaggot 17:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I read the tally from here, not the article itself. Stephen B Streater 17:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, the information should be for the crats, not for participants. As Taxman noted, the percentage means nothing if there is reason not to sysop a candidate. SynergeticMaggot 17:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would think a crat could take himself a minute per request to scroll down to the last post, see the total numbers and analyze the votes :-) -- ReyBrujo 17:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Next thing you know we will have a proposal that we use the boardvote system for RfA. You leave you comments on the RfA page, but your actual vote can only be seen by those who have proper authorization to view votes cast. Won't that be fun ;). NoSeptember  18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

About the tally, I believe both Taxman and NoSeptember have made valid points: the tally can have a direct influence over how some people vote, but I sense that this influence is significative only in those cases where the count is largely in favor of one of the sides (typical bandwagoning -- stuff like 130/2/1 or even 89/3/2 if it's support; or 12/30/9 or the likes if it's in favor of failing the RfA). When the RfA is closer (not necessarily a close call, but if it is not so clearly "one-sided") I believe the greater influence comes from individuals who may "vote" and sway others to vote similarly (the well known "support/oppose per UserX"). Although I'm not entirely convinced that the presence of the tally does enough harm to merit it being removed, I must also agree with Taxman in the sense that it shouldn't be indispensable either, since we shouldn't be counting, but rather evaluating the candidate -- if any counting needs to be done, leave it to the Bureaucrats. However, as long as the tally is there, it is much better to keep it at the top, also because it makes our job of closing the RfA easier (part of the procedure is to make sure that the tally is updated to reflect the final result, and it is just easier having it in the header than having to rummage through the RfA in search of it (it just saves us one or two precious minutes). About the stats... that's also tricky. I do believe that those provide users with a "snapshot" of the candidate's activity distribution, which can be useful in determining whether the candidate has a good grasp of policy, good community interaction, etc.  But it also leaves the door open for editcountitis-based !voting.  I'd say this might be fixed if we could come up with a stat grid that, instead of giving out gross numbers, would give out only percentages -- that is to say, instead of reading Main: 3000; Wikipedia:2500; Wikipedia talk:1900; it would read something like: Main:45%; Wikipedia:38% and so on. As long as the total number of edits is also not given (obviously, or the real numbers could be deduced from the percentages), we'd have the activity distribution unattached to the sheer number of edits, which could help reduce the !voting based on editcountitis. But yes, the stats grid as it exists now is causing more damage than it is helping. Redux 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Summaries of the stats do no more good. You're still just as likely to get a vote of the form "Object, less than x% of edits in blah namespace" with no consideration of the fact that x% of votes in a given namespace tells us nearly nothing about a person's qualifications. - Taxman Talk 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Beyond the fact that it was more visable before, and "if it aint broke...", it was also easier to glance at an RfA and no whether it is worth voting or not. A 70/0 or 5/20 RfA is just not worth voting on, and I'd rather not have to search for the tally. Voice -of-  All  21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. To get to 70/0 someone must have thought it worth expressing an opinion at 69/0. And even when supporting/opposing in a non marginal case, this is a good forum to suggest improvements. I do wonder how many early "voters" actually come and review the consensus building discussion later on and review their original opinions. Stephen B Streater 09:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Once passed a certain threshold most support votes are just pile-ons, sometimes with the clear intention to make it to WP:100. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 12:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that there doesn't seem to be much support for the mid-placement tally (whether or not the tally should exist at all is a different question), I've dropped a note on the RFA template's talk page to suggest moving it back. Don't be surprised if it's back at the top soon... scream if you think it's a bad idea, etc. -- nae'blis 14:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding my support to this.


 * On another tack, does anybody else think that RFA applications are becoming ridiculously bloated with unnecessary stuff? The questions and their answers may be of marginal use, but anybody who votes in an RFA without checking the edit history of the applicant probably shouldn't be voting.  Including the edit-count summaries discourages this by giving the impression that the candidate can be summed up using a tool.  It also encourages editcountitis.  I'd much prefer a return to the old-style application without any editing statistics and with the questions at the end. --Tony Sidaway 13:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded on the returning to the old style count, that was much better without the clutter one has to get through to the "discussion". – Chacor 13:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thirded, tallies at the top and move all the clutter to the top of the talk page (providing links as neccessary). Keep the edit count summary, but on the talk page, as it is a quick measure of the spread of a user's contributions, not just pure number of edits. And of course, as Tony says, everyone offering an opinion should be researching the content of those contributions. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit statistics have been moved on Winhunter's RfA
I think the generic RfA template needs to be edited a bit to reflect that the stats are no longer on the main page. I'm not sure if editing it would skew all of the other RfA's going right now, so I'm hoping someone who knows what they're doing will fix it up ;)  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 03:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's already been done :)  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Location of Tallies Mark II (Archive 68)
I thought the concensus had been to move the tally count back to the top as before (see previous discussion). Agent 86 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this is probably just because no one has modified RfA to reflect this. If you think consensus was to move the tallies, you might just consider boldly updating the template and seeing what happens. --W.marsh 06:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed. --Rory096 06:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Supported. – Chacor 06:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should also noinclude the votes to make the page more compact. Guy 20:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Updating the vote tally (Archive 74)
I recently voted in an RFA, and I updated the vote tally accordingly by incrementing the appropriate number by one. Unfortunately, when I went back to check, I found that the tally I had altered had been incorrect to start with. I thought I'd check a few other RfAs first, before correcting it, and found that quite a few of them were wrong, mainly some lone neutral votes that hadn't been put into the tally. If I see this again, is it worth updating the tallies? Carcharoth 01:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a big deal if the tallies aren't updated with every single vote. There's nothing stopping you from updating them whenever you feel like, though. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tallies are just a quick way for lazy people to see how the candidate is doing, so you would do them a favour by updating and correcting them ;-) Be careful with bad formatted opinions, as they may be breaking the enumeration. -- ReyBrujo 02:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The tally thing itself is kind of outdated anyway, I think most or at least many people use one of the various bot-updated RfA summaries nowadays to get a quick ballpark estimate of how candidates are doing. Tallies are still somewhat useful but I wouldn't worry too much about them. --W.marsh 03:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One could hire a bot to fix the tally after lazy voters (and for the benefit of lazy observers), but it is really not worth it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would work. For example, in one rfa (it might've been Husond's,) someone withdrew their !vote and put it in the neutral section (declaring abstention), I added it in the neutral slot, and then the candidate reverted me and explained. A bot, however, might end up revert warring in this case! Furthermore, misformatted !votes, as ReyBrujo noted, will throw the bot off. Picaroon9288 03:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I always make tally updates when I notice that one of them is off, for the specific purpose of others not having to worry about doing it. Since tallies are such a minor part of rfa, !voters need not be bothered to update them, and it isn't a bother whatsoever for me to update them. However, I've never seen a tally off by more than three or four !votes, so updating them is really never very urgent. Picaroon9288 03:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen those bot-updated summaries, which are very impressive. But how on earth does a bot count those votes? Is it just the number of leading '#' marks under each heading and nothing more? Carcharoth 11:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we might as well remove the tallies entirely; WP:BN has a better summary for the interested parties, and the current "tally" isn't meant to influence people's reactions. ( Radiant ) 11:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't overestimate the role of "tallies." Its true that removing them will help, but given the proliferation of RfA monitor boxes, its bound to be limited. People might just keep checking at WP:BN, where they'll get the percentages too. Rama's arrow  14:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realised the vote summary was at WP:BN, not having looked there. Is there a reason why the vote summary couldn't also be somewhere on the WP:RFA page? That would remove the need for vote tallies on the individual RfAs for those looking down the whole page. Those who access the RfAs individually (eg. through their watchlist) probably know enough to transclude Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report. Carcharoth 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The tally summary on BN is updated periodically but is often several hours out of date, so that list is good to keep track of what RfA's are pending but shouldn't be relied on without checking the actual RfA. I think the bureaucrats use that list primarily to watch out for inadvertent duplicate !votes (the bot checks for them). Newyorkbrad 19:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but nevertheless it appears to be more accurate than the manual tally :) ( Radiant ) 21:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't run more than an hour behind, unless something's changed dramatically; Tangobot is supposed to update it each hour. The main point of the tally on BN is to remind us when there are RFA's that need closed; the bot includes a large "1 OVERDUE" in it's edit summary to help us know our services are needed. The duplicate vote section is very helpful, but I find the former is the reason I use it most. Essjay ( Talk )  03:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems we just sort of went through this not too long ago. Some editors, myself included, appreciate having the quick reference of the tally. So they might be out by one or two votes for a short time, but they're just for informational purposes. I have seen no evidence that their existence causes any of the harm that they're said to cause (or that their removal will fix anything). As the discussions above seem to show, the RfA system seems to be "working" as of late, and I doubt having or not having the tallies will not affect this (or change matters when it's "not" working). Agent 86 11:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed in Archive 67, has it? I've only got to Archive 46 so far... :-) Seriously, thanks for pointing out the previous discussion. Carcharoth 17:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)