User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Time between RFAs

A change in timing? (Archive 59)
I feel that this sentence, If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time – at least a month – before nominating yourself again or accepting another nomination should be changed to If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time – at least three months – before nominating yourself again or accepting another nomination under the heading of nomination process. The reason is obvious. Based on past experience, many users feel that running for adminship after one or even two months is considered too soon and as a result, in most cases, the renomination would fail again. This same situation is also applied to RfBs. The reasonable amount of time for RfBs renomination should be six months and not three months. Any thoughts about this is much appreciated. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  03:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with that. I think people applying just after one month are too rushed, but people must be given freedom of choice, even if that is freedom to screw up (and some people succeed after just one month). Forcing people to wait three months is too much micromanaging of what people can and cannot do I would say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually, they fail, but sometimes they don't. There's no reason to change the page so people can point out "oh it's not 3 months" just because it's there. It's instruction creep as it is, and it's totally arbitrary. --Rory096 03:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That might be a prudent step, though there is the oddball case who 28 days later manages to pass an RfA - so it might be a highly suggested policy but not a strict "your rfa will be removed if you don't" policy -- 03:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tawker (talk • contribs) who doesn't know that it's 4 tildes, not 5. (a typo, it happens :o -- Tawker 04:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC))


 * I would suggest removing any specific time. "a reasonable period of time" is good wording, let's not marry ourselves to a specific length of time, which might change depending on circumstances.  Plus putting specifics makes it look like a rule, which it is not.  Remove it. -lethe talk [ +] 03:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lethe is correct. Instruction creep is a Bad Thing. --Rory096 03:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not suggesting a policy here. It could just be a guideline to guide users who are too keen on renominating herself/himself. Remember, RfAs can be a harsh process and some users are known to be discouraged or even leave Wikipedia after 1, 2 or even 3 failed nominations. However, there are exceptions as well to this. Additionally, I feel that the term "a reasonable period of time" is too ambiguous". Some users would feel that this could be after one month and others could even feel that this could be after 6 or even 9 months. Moreover, this should not be a strict and absolute rule as well. Just a friendly guideline or advise, perhaps? -- S iva1979 Talk to me  04:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, for whatever reason, it's different in every case. I can think of a few people who had controversial and failed RfAs, then 1-2 months later met with little serious opposition. Likewise with RfBs, there's actually a great example up right now. A trend (by no means universal) is that it appears to work better if the second nomination is a self-nom... and the candidate just picks the right time to run. Obviously some problems, like a really bad "I hate you idiots"-diatribe, is generally going to be insurmountable no matter how long someone waits. To try to codify all of this seems like instruction creep. --W.marsh 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly: there's way too many variables for implementing a "&chi; months" rule. A suitable candidate might "get away with murder" and get promoted with a second nomination within a month; an unsuitable candidate might get rejected after a year. I think it would just add instruction creep to the process. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 07:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already codified (in people's heads). There are three ways for failed candidates to discover what this code is. 1) they see the comments made to other reapplying candidates after differing time periods - 1, 2, 3 months etc. 2) they find out when they reapply 3) they are given some helpful general indications (not policy). It would save wasted effort to give a pointer such as If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before nominating yourself again or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have succeeded again within a month, but many editors feel that at least two or even three months is better. Tyrenius 10:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Tyrenius's suggestion is the best of both worlds. I liked it so much that I put it in.  Dragons flight 14:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In a lot of failed RfA's people are advised on how long they should wait before trying again. The advice given varies from a month to 6 months depending on the candidate - people should just follow that advice. If someone has failed because of little more than a low edit count, a month is often more than enough time for them to get up to 2000 edits of whatever people are asking for. --Tango 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine when such advice is given, although it is still going to be from specific users, whom others might not agree with. The suggestion is just for a generic indication. Tyrenius 16:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Limit RfAs? (Archive 74)
I propose that we limit the amount of times that somebody can run for RfAs per year. Also, have a minimum edit count requirement (unless it is something like abandoning an account and openly admitting who you were). What does everyone think?  J o r c o g α  10:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The proposal regarding the number of times someone can run for RfAs per year is a good idea. It should probably be set at two attempts at maximum. This would encourage some contributors to take there candidacies a bit more seriously. I think there should also be a cap on the total number of attempts. Apparently, there is a candidate who ran for adminship on seven occassions . In such instances the candidate is not aiming for a community consensus. They are playing a Russian roulette. RedZebra 10:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should they take it seriously? Adminship is no big deal. Make it your mantra, ;) H ig hway Ringo Starr!  10:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, adminship is no big deal indeed. The benefits coming with additional tools are, as far as I can see, rather slim. On the other hand, there is no shortage of ordinary contributors who can create a mayham with the tools that they already have at their disposal. There is no question that the admin tools should be given only to those who are not likely to abuse them. The fact, however, that you can submit your application for adminship over and over again considerably increases the chances of controversial contributors succeeding in obtaining admin privilegies. This is a serious flaw of the whole process and it should be remedied. RedZebra 11:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this a "serious flaw" that has actually resulted in bad consequences, or the kind of "serious flaw" that has only made you think of the possibility of bad consequences? If the latter, as it appears from what you've written so far, this seems like unnecessary instructions creep.  The current problem with RfA is that it's too hard to become an admin, that you have to jump through an absurd number of hoops because, of course, the kind of people who vote in RfA are going to disproportionately be the kind of people who like to make others jump through hoops.  We should be looking for a way to reduce this problem, not adding new requirements on for no good reason. john k 12:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is necessary or helpful. Admins are needed to deal with backlogs that will growing - Wikipedia is growing and changing rapidly. And we can't expect others not to feel rejection and disillusionment if we say something like "No adminship for you! Come back, 1 year!" People eager to serve should have the right to ask for the tools, even if getting the tools is a privilege. Rama's arrow  13:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. H ig hway Ringo Starr!  13:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am withdrawing my endorsement of the annual limitation on the number of attempts a candidate can run for an adminship. Not for the above counter-arguments though. In reality, quite a few of the weak candidates would probably attract a number of sympathy or moral support votes in their second nomination (on the other hand, the cap on the total number of attempts would probably work well in practice). The proposal, however, can hardly be labeled as "unnecessary instructions creep". The suggested rule is simple and easily understandable: make sure you prepare your candidacy well because you can only have another go this year. If you are still unsure about your chances of success, request a review of your contributions. The argument that there are people who oppose a contributor's candidacy by setting unrealistically high standards stands, but it also begs a question about the reasons why a number of candidacies pass with 95+% of yes votes whereas other candidacies fare so badly? RedZebra 19:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Minimum edit count requirements have been shot down multiple times before. I don't see any argument here noting anything new to add to such a discussion to change consensus. As for limiting the number of RfAs per year, I just don't see the point. It's yet-another-barrier-to-adminship. We've got quite enough of those. People are already treating adminship as some lofty achievement and affirmation of status. It's not a status. It just gives you a small handful of additional tools, nothing more. --Durin 15:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the fact that editors oppose RfAs due to candidate trying too many times in a short period of time is a sufficient check-and-balance. Don't see anything new needed here. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet another solution looking for a problem. I don't think this is a good idea. --Lord Deskana (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Adminship is no big deal, but people's (voter) time is. The problem this solution is trying to solve is the issue (belief?) that many RFA voters actually investigate the candidate and their edit history. This takes time, every time. Being able to speedy close or discourage from starting a nomination that will fail anyway is a saving of everybody's time. Has there been a single example of an RFA succeeding on the third or more attempt within 12 months? If not, the addition of a simple rule to prevent them from starting appears to be a very small loss for a saving of everyone's time and effort. Even looking up and posting links to the previous RFAs is work saved. --Scott Davis Talk 10:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And just how many of the last 100 RfAs would have been eliminated by this rule? If it's only a handful, it does seem that this is a solution still searching for a problem.  Durin, do have that stat lying around? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not at hand. Though, given what I know off hand of this sort of situation, I agree; it's a small subset of the total RfAs. --Durin 14:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Scott's question, there have been several:
 * October 2004: Neutrality, third attempt in 3 months
 * April 2005: ABCD, third attempt in 2.5 months
 * May 2005: Marine 69-71, third attempt in 12 months
 * August 2005: Lucky 6.9, fourth attempt in 12 months
 * October 2005: Denelson83, third attempt in 2.5 months
 * November 2005: Alkivar, third attempt in 7.5 months
 * November 2005: Harro5, third attempt in 6 months
 * December 2005: Luigi30, third attempt in 9 months
 * February 2006: Guanaco, third attempt in 11 months
 * April 2006: Can't sleep, clown will eat me, third attempt in 2.5 months
 * April 2006: Lord Voldemort, third attempt in 7 months
 * July 2006: Jaranda, seventh attempt in 9 months
 * --  tariq abjotu  20:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of the ones this year: Guanaco withdrew one and was desysopped, a special case; CSCWEM withdrew one on a technicality, was not "3 attempts". An analysis of this kind also ignores the fact that these people would not have applied this many times if there was a limit. They still would have been made sysops in "9 months" for example, but there would only have been 2 attempts instead of 7. That's five 1-week periods in which 50+ people took time to investigate a user. That's a huge waste of time that would otherwise only be ameliorated by deciding to automatically vote against someone who applies so many times. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is guaranteed to result in fewer active admins, unless the threshold is set so high it makes no difference, at which point ... it makes no difference. Splash - tk 18:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This sounds like instruction creep. While it is ill-advised to keep submitting RfA's time after time, the nom should already be aware of this and the !voters will feel free to !vote on the merits or demerits each time. It would be possible for a nom to pull it together and make a successful run after the 2nd go in a year. Why impose a limit? If a large enough group felt that multiple RfA's are a disqualifyer, they could !vote oppose out of hand. Some already do. Others take the time to weigh the candidate and can continue to do so.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - it's an excellent example of instruction creep. It would not make a significant difference to the workload involved in RfA, and would not make any improvement to the quality of selected admins, so it's completely pointless. --Tango 23:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to throw some more stats into this; if we limited the number of RfAs per nominee per year to two per year, the load on RfA would be reduced 2.1%. I do not see this as a strong argument for inducing more instruction creep into the process. --Durin 14:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how much instruction creep it would be. It's a simple instruction, much easier than answering any one of the several questions people ask. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Currently to open an RfA the only requirement is that you have an account.  Viewed in that context, this is quite a bit of instruction creep. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you only have an account with no contributions, someone will remove the RfA from the listing. If you don't follow the format on the template, if it doesn't get removed, it's not going to pass. If you don't answer any of the questions, it's not going to pass. If you don't learn about Wikipedia, it's not going to pass. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but those are not requirements. There are many other things you could have listed in addition that most likely will result in the RfA not passing such as frequent vandalizing, trolling and sock-puppetry, but neither they nor any of the items you list are the basis of requirements for making the request.  We don't have to spell out and draw an arbitrary line that says here, at 999 edits you are ineligible, but here at 1000 edits you can apply, or you have to wait 90 days after vandalizing, but here at 89 days you are ineligible, or any of the many other arbitrary requirements we could reasonably choose.  The current process allows everyone to apply their own judgement and the closing bureaucrat to weigh the expressed views and act.  As an individual editor I am free to decide that I think it takes 10,000 edits to be suitable for an admin, or to decide that 100 high-quality edits is enough.  Community consensus of the different standards of many editors seems to be working without complicating it by trying to short circuit RfAs that will fail through the normal process anyway.  So I think it is absolutely the case that creating the first arbitrary threshold for an RfA is indeed significant instruction creep. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Would "year" refer to a January-December span or twelve-month period? (IE, if one was to fail nominations in October and November, could they try again in January or wait until the next October?)--Lkjhgfdsa 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Those who think a candidate should only be nominated three times per year are free to oppose such a candidate's fourth nomination for that reason. It would be reasonable to add some text to WP:GRFA to advise people that getting nominated too often tends to not work. I don't think we need a policy to forbid it, thuogh.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)